Technology Microsoft outlines pay-per-use PC vision

[enouwee]

First off, they can't do this because they would lose a ton of customers. I would switch to linux for sure. This isn't like a monthly subscription. This charges you by the amount of time you use the computer.

Not necessarily. All it takes is a reason to make you use this system (compare it to your cell phone contract or World of Warcraft). Maybe not you, but the vast majority of casual or technically less skilled computer users. You know: those posting in the General Tech Help forum because they've caught another virus/trojan/spyware they can't get rid of or because they've tried reinstalling their operating system but now can't get all the parts of it working.

This really cool new application/game only runs on subscription-based PCs, so you may choose:

Can you really patent a billing system? The actual product (the computer) wouldn't change, would it?

Judging by the mere abstract of the patent, prior art has been around for over two decades, be it for the software part or the business model. Then, there's the Bilski ruling. The patent may not stand, but that doesn't matter as long as the model itself survives.

 

[Aqua Dragon]

Can you really patent a billing system? The actual product (the computer) wouldn't change, would it?

I'm pretty sure you can patent that, seeing as how you can patent a method for training a cat

 

[w/e]

Not necessarily. All it takes is a reason to make you use this system (compare it to your cell phone contract or World of Warcraft). Maybe not you, but the vast majority of casual or technically less skilled computer users. You know: those posting in the General Tech Help forum because they've caught another virus/trojan/spyware they can't get rid of or because they've tried reinstalling their operating system but now can't get all the parts of it working.

The thing is, people will have a very hard time with this. People are used to making a one time payment for a computer and then the computer is their property. They may do with it what they wish. I, for one, need full administritive privileges on my computer and a sense of total control. I know exactly what software is on there and if I don't like the software, I can get different software.

However, with this new system, there will basically be a monopoly on software. Micosoft will, no doubt, bundle their software along with these systems, putting many other independent software makers in a tough spot.

That's not true. This whole model is based on casual users. Why should they pay $500 for a computer and maybe an additional $250-500 for various software such as antivirus, word processing, etc when they can subscribe for only $10-20/month? They may even get updates releases for free and a new computer every two years by only paying the shipping costs.

The transition to this model as to start from the operating system, let's say with Windows 7 (with or without TPM).

Once a significant part of the market has been conquered, it can be extended to other, more reluctant users. Success or failure will depend on adoption by the whole industry. Given the advantages for the producers I mentioned above, a lot of companies will be tempted. This model already exists for enterprise customers or online gamers (Xbox Live, MMORPGs).

The subscription relinquishes their control over the computer. It's basically a rental. They cannot modify or change the computer. If something is inadequate, they will most likely have to pay an extra fee to be satisfied. For example, say you want a computer mainly for gaming, but you also need it for work. The games are fine, the computer is powerful, but you don't have all of the office tools that you need for work. What are you going to do? Get a new computer? Pay microsoft for them to install the software? From what I see, this will be a closed system. The user will not be allowed to make changes. It will be almost like a public computer. And on the other hand, what if you're using it for work, and then a new game is released and you want to play it? Then what? Your computer is not up to par for gaming, but you can't upgrade it. You need a new computer.

The end user's opinion will always influence a company. To what degree is arguable, but the fact remains that companies cannot hope to be successful without listening to their end users. The plan also mentioned a one time payment for a computer. You don't just get the computer for the subscription money. You pay a fee (how large is unspecified), and then begin your subscription. I'd rather buy software that I want, and have the license for it, so I can install it on whatever computer I want, rather then pay monthly fees for software that I'm not necessarily comfortable with.

Including your games? We see you're trying to run them under some kind of emulation. We're sorry, but you don't have a valid operating system subscription, so this software can't run.

Are you using an open-source antivirus and firewall? Are you able to open all Word files using OpenOffice? Is GIMP really as easy to use as Photoshop?

I'm using a Linux distribution as main desktop for almost 8 years now. Yet, I still have a Windows virtual machine for secure remote access (i.e. work) and various activities (i.e. online banking). Why? Because both only work reliably on Windows/Mac.

I don't have any games with DRM, nor do I support them. If I absolutely have to get the game, I will do so in a way that gives minimal profit to the developer. Normally, I stick to warcraft 3. DRM on games should not last long. Look at the whole "Spore" fiasco with EA. There was an outrage. Not only that, but the game was pirated before it was officially released and the pirated version even worked better than the retail version. DRM for games will not last. Nor will it last for music, as it's already declining.

 

[enouwee]

However, with this new system, there will basically be a monopoly on software. Micosoft will, no doubt, bundle their software along with these systems, putting many other independent software makers in a tough spot.

I see no real difference to the current situation. Quite a lot of software comes bundled with Windows. For most people, it is good enough to meet their needs (i.e. Internet Explorer, Windows Media Player).

The subscription relinquishes their control over the computer. It's basically a rental. They cannot modify or change the computer. If something is inadequate, they will most likely have to pay an extra fee to be satisfied.

Yes, it's rental, all subscriptions are. The goal is to have you pay for a given service as long as you need it. Depending on the product, you may or may not be able to continue using it after canceling your subscription, but in any case, you won't get updates (analogy: newspaper subscription).

The Windows camp has always been a vendor lock-in. It's not in Microsoft's interest to be open to the competition, but enough to avoid large penalties.

For example, say you want a computer mainly for gaming, but you also need it for work. The games are fine, the computer is powerful, but you don't have all of the office tools that you need for work. What are you going to do? Get a new computer? Pay microsoft for them to install the software? From what I see, this will be a closed system.

Yes, you rent the office software, it's as easy as that. Given how often I use a word processor (and assuming there'd be no alternative products), I'd readily choose a pay-per-use model rather than paying $200 every few years for a new version.

The user will not be allowed to make changes. It will be almost like a public computer.

Of course not, because contractually, it's not your computer. You're not allowed to make modifications to a rental car either, unless granted in the contract.

And on the other hand, what if you're using it for work, and then a new game is released and you want to play it? Then what? Your computer is not up to par for gaming, but you can't upgrade it. You need a new computer.

It looks like you missed the interesting part: the computer will be powerful enough to run both. All it takes to play games is unlocking the hardware. This additional cost may even be part of the game subscription.

There are two different scenarios: get a subscription for your own hardware (as long as it meets the requirements, like providing the hardware apparatus to ensure correct operation of the subscription model, like EFI) or get a PC for "free". Free as in: pay a mandatory setup fee.

If the first scenario is permitted, you are free to modify the hardware as much as you want, but some things may not work as intended or may not be subscribed at all. The choice is yours.

The end user's opinion will always influence a company. To what degree is arguable, but the fact remains that companies cannot hope to be successful without listening to their end users.

A normal company for sure not, but a de-facto monopolist is in a better position to achieve its goals, as long as they can be sold to both regulators and broad customer base.

The plan also mentioned a one time payment for a computer. You don't just get the computer for the subscription money. You pay a fee (how large is unspecified), and then begin your subscription.

Just pretend it's a cellphone. It's no different at all: pick an expensive plan and you get a powerful computer for free, or a cheaper plan and your hardware is (artificially) crippled and you pay an initial fee.

I chose a $0/month cellphone subscription but paid the full price for my cellphone ($120). I could have gotten it free for a $20/month (12 months minimum) subscription, but as I hardly ever use it, the "free" phone would cost me more.

I'd rather buy software that I want, and have the license for it, so I can install it on whatever computer I want, rather then pay monthly fees for software that I'm not necessarily comfortable with.

You are free not to pick such a subscription, nobody cares. It's not the few thousands of computer freaks that are going to make a difference. It's the millions of computer illiterates that buy their computers through Dell, or at a Walmart store.

Power users may despise this model, casual users will enjoy it. That's been my message all long.

 

[Seb!]

Power users may despise this model, casual users will enjoy it. That's been my message all long.

This seems like the wrong way to move. As time goes on, people are becoming more and more computer literate. With the arrival of Cloud Software that is supplied by companies such as Google, this business model does not make much sense. Such a pay-plan will soon become outdated, IMHO.

 

[Rapmaster]

The whole cloud model thing is another part of the trend toward subscription based software, so I'd say the opposite is true. With Google, even if they replace the fees with ads, you are still "paying" in a sense by being forced to look at ads + all the privacy sacrifices.
~
The MS subscription thing could work as long as the prices are reasonable compared to the overall costs of buying retail software and hardware now. You obviously can't compare it to the "price" of the pirated Windows that most or many home users seem to use but compared to the retail price of keeping up to date with a new OS and office suite + whatever other packages every 2-3 years, a few dollars a month isn't that much. Not sure if I'm a fan of it, but I think there is a market for it if done right. Once you have a few old PCs lying around collecting dust, the allure of "owning" them fades away. It's kind of like leasing a car vs buying one. Subscribing to the latest-and-greatest might be more appealing to owning yesterday's model.

Go to Linux? Well what's stopping you now? It's already way cheaper than Windows and still struggles to compete in the desktop market. Mac is the more serious competition and I'm sure Apple would wring every dollar out of you too if given the opportunity.

 

[BANANAMAN]

I wouldn't be surprised if google unveiled it's OS anytime soon

 

[w/e]

I see no real difference to the current situation. Quite a lot of software comes bundled with Windows. For most people, it is good enough to meet their needs (i.e. Internet Explorer, Windows Media Player).

Yes, but now, people won't be able to use their preferred software. They will have to use the software supplied.

Yes, you rent the office software, it's as easy as that. Given how often I use a word processor (and assuming there'd be no alternative products), I'd readily choose a pay-per-use model rather than paying $200 every few years for a new version.

Yes, but there are free, better alternatives available that are capable of working with MS office files. An example of this is Google Docs and Open Office. These programs are free, have large communities behind them, and you can apply updates for free.

Of course not, because contractually, it's not your computer. You're not allowed to make modifications to a rental car either, unless granted in the contract.

Here lies the problem. Without any control over the computer, the user might feel frustrated with something and not be able to do anything about it. The user would have to live with the computer the way it is and won't be allowed to tweak it. If the user doesn't like something about it, too bad. Most people will not tolerate that.

It looks like you missed the interesting part: the computer will be powerful enough to run both. All it takes to play games is unlocking the hardware. This additional cost may even be part of the game subscription.

There are two different scenarios: get a subscription for your own hardware (as long as it meets the requirements, like providing the hardware apparatus to ensure correct operation of the subscription model, like EFI) or get a PC for "free". Free as in: pay a mandatory setup fee.

If the first scenario is permitted, you are free to modify the hardware as much as you want, but some things may not work as intended or may not be subscribed at all. The choice is yours.

Just because the computer will be powerful enough to run both, doesn't mean that it comes equipped with both. You can have powerful hardware, but no word processor.

The problem with the first scenario is that there are very many different combinations of hardware, and subscription for it would be ridiculous. I can understand subscription for software and games and such, but if you buy the hardware, it should be yours. Also, the part concerning it meeting the requirements... This will again limit the amount of hardware available and Microsoft will probably use their own hardware, monopolizing the computer hardware industry.

A normal company for sure not, but a de-facto monopolist is in a better position to achieve its goals, as long as they can be sold to both regulators and broad customer base.

This is the problem. A monopoly must not be allowed to be formed. It will put independent software, and hardware developers out of work, or force them to sell the software to microsoft. Microsoft can then charge as much as they like for the subscriptions. Users will be forced to pay for all this or be left without a computer.

Just pretend it's a cellphone. It's no different at all: pick an expensive plan and you get a powerful computer for free, or a cheaper plan and your hardware is (artificially) crippled and you pay an initial fee.

I chose a $0/month cellphone subscription but paid the full price for my cellphone ($120). I could have gotten it free for a $20/month (12 months minimum) subscription, but as I hardly ever use it, the "free" phone would cost me more.

You own the actual cell phone, but pay for the service. That's like owning a computer, but paying for internet. Everyone already does that. It's accepted globally. This way, the user will own nothing at all. And besides, the "free" phone cost you more. You basically just said that this system will cost more than buying an actual computer.

You are free not to pick such a subscription, nobody cares. It's not the few thousands of computer freaks that are going to make a difference. It's the millions of computer illiterates that buy their computers through Dell, or at a Walmart store.

Power users may despise this model, casual users will enjoy it. That's been my message all long.

My message all along has been that this is a bad idea and microsoft will most likely not get away with it. It is more expensive than paying for an actual computer. I'm estimating that this will cost at least 60$ a month. At the very least. Most likely, it will cost more along the lines of 100$ a month. After a year of this, you could have bought your own computer, and not have had to pay any monthly payments. You would be free to use your own choice of software, and you wouldn't need to "rent" a new computer when yours became inadequate. You could simply upgrade it. Basically, I think that this is out of the price range for most people, and will cause microsoft to develop a monopoly. I think that even casual users will see what a rip off this is and seek alternative options. I think that this system would best fit in a hotel.

 

[sqrage]

I wouldn't be surprised if google unveiled it's OS anytime soon

You mean Android?

 

[BANANAMAN]

not to mention the fact that most people won't be able to afford it.

Take me for instance. I've been using the same PC for five years,I can play warcraft and starcraft on it. (both originals) and a few other games Sure it's not exactly top of the line anymore but it does the job and it fulfills my gaming needs. I can't buy a new computer/parts because there expensive. Everything about computers is expensive. This move would just make it worse. I don't like to pay to use something i technically already own every now and then.
(Like WOW never played it,Never will have. Why? Because i can't afford it)

Holy balls...Android. Microsoft is f*#ked now.

>paying for internet
Ugh...I suddenly feel dizzy woozy and vomity.

Those 3 words shouldn't be in that order.

 

[Rapmaster]

not to mention the fact that most people won't be able to afford it.

Take me for instance. I've been using the same PC for five years,I can play warcraft and starcraft on it. (both originals) and a few other games Sure it's not exactly top of the line anymore but it does the job and it fulfills my gaming needs. I can't buy a new computer/parts because there expensive. Everything about computers is expensive. This move would just make it worse. I don't like to pay to use something i technically already own every now and then.
(Like WOW never played it,Never will have. Why? Because i can't afford it)

Well then you aren't a profitable customer so who cares if they lose you (harsh but that's business!)

Under this model - and of course assuming they keep the prices reasonable - someone like you might actually get access to a more powerful computer without having to pay a large upfront capital cost.

Now, if you don't want to spend any money at all then it just falls back to my first point.

Microsoft's biggest competition has always been with their own previous products. Windows Vista vs XP, Server 2008 vs Server 2003, Office 2007 vs Office 2000...XP...2003. I could go on. The way things are looking, even Windows 7 will be competing with Windows XP. Of course they are going to try things to break out of that.

 

[phyrex1an]

Yes, but now, people won't be able to use their preferred software. They will have to use the software supplied.

If I remember correctly: IE had 70% of the user base last time I checked, I guess most of them don't even know that they have a choice. If they implement something similar to the iPhone appstore they could easily get enough diversity to satisfy most users.

Speaking of renting hardware, a few years ago there was a government campaign to boost computer penetration among the population. It allowed you to rent computers and programs and draw the costs before tax effectively cutting the price with about 30% (depending on income), apparently it was too successful so they had to withdraw the campaign after just a few years
Anyway, it worked well here and this patent really isn't very different.

 

[BANANAMAN]

i still don't want to buy my computer then pay Microsoft every time i want to do something with it. Because that would suck ass...

Not to mention the way the economy is going right now...

 

[Rapmaster]

Right... but the idea is you don't have to "buy your computer" - you get it for free or super-cheap in exchange for your subscription.

 

[enouwee]

Yes, but now, people won't be able to use their preferred software. They will have to use the software supplied.

Who said you can't install your own software? The only limitations apply to internal hardware and hardware-related software. If you want to plug an USB drive, go ahead. But you wouldn't be allowed to swap the video card or add an internal DVB adapter.

You can install your favorite software from wherever you want, but don't complain at Microsoft if it doesn't work. The only thing that changes, compared to the current situation, is that they offer you a nice "shop" where you can chose from their products. You don't want to use it? Nobody forces you to. Joe Sixpack will launch the shop and pick his software from there, just like you do with iTunes catalogue on a Mac.

A monopoly must not be allowed to be formed. It will put independent software, and hardware developers out of work, or force them to sell the software to microsoft.

What world do you live in? This is happening all over the place. iTunes, Windows Marketplace, Android market. They're all monopolies for their own hardware platform. The system would be the same, but for a generic platform, more like Steam.

Microsoft can then charge as much as they like for the subscriptions. Users will be forced to pay for all this or be left without a computer.

No, that would be illegal market practice and violate basic customer rights. There are provisions limiting such an abuse. If you enter such a contract, I can only feel sorry for you, because you're going to be ripped off all your life.

You own the actual cell phone, but pay for the service. That's like owning a computer, but paying for internet. Everyone already does that. It's accepted globally. This way, the user will own nothing at all. And besides, the "free" phone cost you more. You basically just said that this system will cost more than buying an actual computer.

You've got it wrong and are still assuming that everyone's usage matches yours. I own the phone in both cases, but I chose the pricing model that best fits my needs: expensive phone calls and $0/month are cheaper for me than inexpensive calls at $20/month and a "free" phone. Why should I not have picked the first one?

Indeed, I'm the worst customer a company can get. I hardly ever use a cellphone and entered that subscription in order to get a reduction on other offers (triple-play-style contract: internet, fixed line, cellphone).

After a year of this, you could have bought your own computer, and not have had to pay any monthly payments.

Don't forget that if you buy a computer, you also have to buy the software, or enter a more expensive subscription for it. You'll also have to pay for software upgrades (the ones not covered by the subscription) as well as your new hardware every 2-3 years, make sure they're compatible, fix problems.

Are you fixing your car yourself or are you taking it to the garage? I'm picking the second option, because I don't want to waste my time figuring out how its internals works and I would be too lazy to figure out that's wrong. Unfortunately there's no car rental close to me, otherwise I'd be tempted to do switch (assuming the price is right): no expensive insurance to pay, maintenance, two sets of tires, ...

Same here: you can mess with it for hours and even ask other people for help or just pay for something you don't care about, as long as it gets your job done.

Somewhere above, you mentioned switching to Linux. Maybe you should give it a try for a week or two and tell us about your success or failure running games, watching DVDs and Blurays, working together with Microsoft folks on their office documents, etc. Some things that seem so obvious under Windows may not be working at all or suddenly have become illegal without you ever knowing.

 

[BANANAMAN]

Fine as long as they allow there customers a choice between the current way
and the per-per use then im fine with it.

 

[enouwee]

Not really a surprise, but the patent has been rejected.

 

[w/e]

Who said you can't install your own software? The only limitations apply to internal hardware and hardware-related software. If you want to plug an USB drive, go ahead. But you wouldn't be allowed to swap the video card or add an internal DVB adapter.

You can install your favorite software from wherever you want, but don't complain at Microsoft if it doesn't work. The only thing that changes, compared to the current situation, is that they offer you a nice "shop" where you can chose from their products. You don't want to use it? Nobody forces you to. Joe Sixpack will launch the shop and pick his software from there, just like you do with iTunes catalogue on a Mac.

In that case, microsoft will have to list and add every single piece of software in the world to their subscription offer. They will have to figure out what the software is for and develop a way to time it's usage to be able to charge you. But wait. How can they charge you for software that isn't theirs? If the software doesn't work, microsoft has effectively made that software obsolete.

What world do you live in? This is happening all over the place. iTunes, Windows Marketplace, Android market. They're all monopolies for their own hardware platform. The system would be the same, but for a generic platform, more like Steam.

These things are not monopolies. iTunes vs Amazon music. Windows marketplace is only for microsoft software, and is not the only place the software can be bought from. These are all big players, but they don't control the whole market. The only problem with this distribution system is that microsoft will be able to weed out whoever they want from their "compatibility lists."

No, that would be illegal market practice and violate basic customer rights. There are provisions limiting such an abuse. If you enter such a contract, I can only feel sorry for you, because you're going to be ripped off all your life.

With no competitors, the prices will no doubt be expensive. And yes, if people take part in this program, they will be ripped off.

You've got it wrong and are still assuming that everyone's usage matches yours. I own the phone in both cases, but I chose the pricing model that best fits my needs: expensive phone calls and $0/month are cheaper for me than inexpensive calls at $20/month and a "free" phone. Why should I not have picked the first one?

Indeed, I'm the worst customer a company can get. I hardly ever use a cellphone and entered that subscription in order to get a reduction on other offers (triple-play-style contract: internet, fixed line, cellphone).

I'm saying that this analogy is inaccurate because you own the phone. In the user's case, they wouldn't own the computer, or the software that comes with it.

Don't forget that if you buy a computer, you also have to buy the software, or enter a more expensive subscription for it.

You're assuming that there is only 1 software for each use and that software is expensive. It's not. There are free, open-source programs for virtually everything you need. They're just as easy to obtain and use as the retail versions.

You'll also have to pay for software upgrades (the ones not covered by the subscription) as well as your new hardware every 2-3 years, make sure they're compatible, fix problems.

How would the microsoft plan be different from this? If the computer breaks, you probably have to pay for repairs.
What would stop you from taking the computer into a store, or a computer-savvy friend and asking them to upgrade your hardware?

Are you fixing your car yourself or are you taking it to the garage? I'm picking the second option, because I don't want to waste my time figuring out how its internals works and I would be too lazy to figure out that's wrong. Unfortunately there's no car rental close to me, otherwise I'd be tempted to do switch (assuming the price is right): no expensive insurance to pay, maintenance, two sets of tires, ...

Well, if your computer breaks, and you have no idea how to fix it, take it to a repair shop. You could get a warranty, and most people do. I don't see how this has anything to do with Microsoft's proposed system.

Same here: you can mess with it for hours and even ask other people for help or just pay for something you don't care about, as long as it gets your job done.

If people were casual users, then the problem above wouldn't have happened. The problem above happened because I was hot-swapping hard drives to move data on and off of them. Casual users wouldn't do that. The problem wouldn't happen to them. If there is a problem, they could take the computer in. Get if fixed.

Somewhere above, you mentioned switching to Linux. Maybe you should give it a try for a week or two and tell us about your success or failure running games, watching DVDs and Blurays, working together with Microsoft folks on their office documents, etc. Some things that seem so obvious under Windows may not be working at all or suddenly have become illegal without you ever knowing.

I will switch to linux when microsoft tries to force this system on me. Also the whole point here is that people shouldn't be forced to switch to linux or mac just because of this terrible system. Did you notice that macs basically have a monopoly on their software. There's almost nothing you can do about it if you don't like the software. iLife for almost anything and Adobe Creative Suite for anything else. This is a big part of why PCs are more dominant then macs. Imagine the mac system. There are a few standard models of their computer. They come with the same hardware and same software. Now imagine if apple decided to start charging you for time used. It would not be nice.

 

[esb]

They gonna go to texas! Texas always accepts crazy patents!

 

[enouwee]

In that case, microsoft will have to list and add every single piece of software in the world to their subscription offer.

Of course not. Given you have trouble imagining this system, just pretend it'd be Steam.

You should know how that one works: it's not Valve that does all the work for all the games, but gives a framework the software makers and they guarantee that the software is kept up to date and available through the store.

These things are not monopolies. iTunes vs Amazon music.

No, this is about applications, not music or movies. I said "for their own hardware platform". Mind telling me where you can find iPhone applications at Amazon? Right, nowhere. it's iTunes exclusive.

I'm saying that this analogy is inaccurate because you own the phone.

The analogy is correct, because in both cases, I own the phone (or not at all for the computer). Your comparison is not, because once, you own the computer and the other time not. You're comparing apples to oranges and completely ignoring hidden and long-term costs when buying something.

You're assuming that there is only 1 software for each use and that software is expensive. It's not. There are free, open-source programs for virtually everything you need. They're just as easy to obtain and use as the retail versions.

Very simple counter-example: mind pointing me to an open-source DVD player? There's no such legal thing, as the playback is subject to license payments. It's only one example among many others.

How would the microsoft plan be different from this? If the computer breaks, you probably have to pay for repairs.

So, you're also paying for repairs on a rental car if it breaks down due to a hardware issue (let's say electrical problem)? Of course not. You'd get a new one for "free", where free again depends on your subscription (next business day, or rather on-site repairs).

I don't see how this has anything to do with Microsoft's proposed system.

Easy: car or computer hardware, it's the exact same thing in the subscription. You can install and customize software on the computer or add CDs to the in-car stereo, change the FM radio stations or seat positions.

I will switch to linux when microsoft tries to force this system on me. Also the whole point here is that people shouldn't be forced to switch to linux or mac just because of this terrible system.

Nobody's being forced to switch. You're generalizing your own view and call it "forced", while you actually decide for yourself to switch to another platform because you don't like the terms of the contract. There's a huge difference here.

Did you notice that macs basically have a monopoly on their software.

No, they don't. Just like Windows, Macs come preloaded with software. If you don't like the default ones, you can install other products, like Firefox, MS Office, ...

It's:

• Movie Maker <-> iLife (but it does other things too)
• Internet Explorer <-> Safari
• Media Player <-> iTunes
• Windows Mail (Outlook Express) <-> Mail

There are a few standard models of their computer. They come with the same hardware and same software.

That's not necessarily a bad thing, but matches the Apple philosophy "It just works". No driver issues or hardware incompatibilities. Someone else does the [DEL]thinking[/DEL] nasty work for you, so you [DEL]send over the money[/DEL] don't have to worry. Not necessarily to the taste of everyone, but the Apple afficiandos seem to like it. I wouldn't, which is why I'd never buy such a thing, my personal dislike of any Apple stuff set aside.

Now imagine if apple decided to start charging you for time used. It would not be nice.

It wouldn't be any different from the current Microsoft topic, except that the Apple worshippers would readily pay.