Microsoft outlined a potential future PC platform strategy in a patent application posted last week, envisioning a model in which software is subscription-based, rather than the one-time purchases we now enjoy. At the core of this model, Microsoft suggests taking away ownership of PCs. Hardware would be sold at low cost or even totally subsidized, with lockout chips that would only allow vendor-approved software to run. You could then gain access to different software bundles on a per-hour basis, paying as you go. The company also sees software-scalable hardware: computers with fast processors and lots of memory, but Microsoft's software slows down the system and cuts off access to memory unless you keep paying for an extra subscription.

Even Microsoft doesn't deny that this is a means to increase profits, as the lifetime cost of systems, with all usage fees tacked on, would exceed what customers currently pay. The company tries to gussy this up by arguing that the subscription model effectively increases the computer's lifespan, generating more value for your money. While that may be true if the software is slowly enabling more hardware and increasing the computer's speed, like giving it constant upgrades, if that powerful hardware is available from the get-go, why not make the most use of it from the beginning?

This is like selling a 60-inch television that's programmed to only display a 20-inch picture at first. You rent the set and over time the image gradually expands, dependent on how much you want to be paying. It just seems greedy and wasteful. Could you get on board with a program that might increase the useful life of your next computer, but at the price of taking away ownership of the hardware and ultimately costing you more money?

This story around the web: