Slashdot Mirror
MS Tweaks Ill-Received Licensing Plan
ahooton writes "C|Net is
reporting that
Microsoft has updated it's
Software Assurance licensing program. The company has admitted that it's initial approach angered a large number of customers. No huge difference in pricing or terms -- changes are comprised of bundling some training and support. The one interesting concession is that corporate licensees of Microsoft Office can now use that suite on a home computer as well." What a concession. (Paddo points to this similar article on Australian IT via News.com.au.)
You can put a dress on a pig, but it is still a pig.
"There is nothing to do it. But to do it." -Floyd Pepper
Between this, and all of the charity software donations that they're making, they're basically changing thier public perception, while maintaining their draconian licensing terms.
I have to give them kudos, even if only for the sake of sheer diabolicalness!
There really isn't any beneficial changes here. People's gripes were largely with prices and restrictive measures that were associated with the new scheme, not what kind of "assurances" they were recieving ("assurances" that they thought they were already getting for free with older Microsoft products and that they usually get for free with other venodrs' software products: real support, limited training, and manufacturer accountability).
I still don't understand why Microsoft calls their scheme "Software Assurance". This implies that by being forced into expensive licensing schemes you are entitled to an extra degree of software security and performance.
Security and performance should be qualities that sell your product initially, something to be proud of as a manufacturer, not aspects of a product that you get only after paying annual fees.
Large companies end up paying tons in license fees for a plethora of different software products that fit individual needs. They could instead find a few open source products and pay the salaries of a few programmers to customize them to their needs, or outright integrate them. Lotus Notes for mail, Novell for meta, People Soft for CRM, Windows clients, etc. Instead, you could take one strong open source CRM, expand upon it, integrate web based mail (or even make a quick client), and integrate their features to work flawlessly, all running in an open source browser that is running on Linux terminals (which removes the need for de-centralized administration) - instead of forcing the admins to find ways around making all of these closed products work together in hack jobs, with expensive tools like Zen Works deployed just to install and configure software on expensive Windows workstations - or worse. Oh well - I'm being a square headed open source zealot again. I'll go lay down.
What's really ironic is that I'm using WIndows 98 right now, because I screwed my Linux kernel and don't feel like fixing it. My girl just bought me "Enter the Matrix" for the Game Cube man....been busy.....damn agents.
Allowing Office users to use the product at home with a corporate license will just help to keep people using office. People who want to work from home are either going to pirate office or install open office (a lot more people are learning that it works well enough for most uses.) This is a good way for them to keep their domanance in the productivity category.
Go away, or I will replace you with a very small shell script.
A Microsoft spokesman says they have informed their OEM partners that it has become illegal to ship computers designed for home use without Microsoft Office. The company says it is responding to a report that says 95% of computers shipped without Microsoft Office on them end up having a pirated copy installed on them within 90 days.
...their whole "Stop people from moving to OSS" strategy we have seen lately ?
If they weren't scrared of loosing their market I doubt they would change anything.
--- No 16-bit support in Vista? Half of our modules still use it! ---
Microsoft will be glad to hear that some of their propaganda/education money has been put to good use. Yes indeed, blame it all on the 'pirates.' Microsoft isn't a greedy company bent on controlling all aspects of your computer/entertainment/multimedia experience- everything bad or stupid they do can be blamed on those 'pirates'
Enjoy your Karma, after all you earned it. Feel your Karma Joe, feel it burn.
Security and performance should be qualities that sell your product initially, something to be proud of as a manufacturer, not aspects of a product that you get only after paying annual fees.
Security is hardly a static entity. What's the more convincing sell, the idea that the product is already secure, period, or the idea that the product was as secure as possible when released and can be continually upgraded to maintain that level of security?
The coolest voice ever.
No blame shareholder expectations. Remember that Microsoft has to grow 5% annually just to meet them!
Also the piracy argument is mute. They bring demand aka prices down. The more expensive the more it will be pirated. Just look at 3dstudioMax and photoshop as an example. Balmer even admitted this. This is why MS sells the academic edition of MS-Office sam's club for $179 without checking for a student I.D.
As far as I know only MS-Office and Windows are selling while every other product is losing money. Both Gates and Balmer are selling stock right now. VS.net is not selling well and making only slim profits because corporations are cutting budgets and will not pay for it. So its really Windows and Office supply the vast majority of its income.
This means that MS must keep on continually raising prices in order to increase the stock prices or keep them from falling. There is no other way to increase revenue unless more of its other products sell beter.
The irony is that Microsoft illegally does not pay dividends are releases sales information as requires by the SEC. Only units sold.
But stupid shareholders who are dumb enough to buy ms stock without dividends except to buy low and sell high and actually make a profit.
http://saveie6.com/
Microsoft has always only had good products (relatively speaking) when they've been in a competetive market. It took the 'threat' of Netscape for them to get their act together on the Browser scene. A lot of the quality of Windows 2000 can be attributed to them feeling the heat from competing x86 operating systems being forced to come out with something at least as good. Lord knows why things cooled off enough that the best they could do after W2K was XP, though....
I think you lay the blame on the wrong suspect. The driving business reason for "Licencing 6.0" is to continue to grow revenue or at the very least to create a continuous revenue stream. With the market pretty much saturated in Microsoft's primary revenue generating bussineses (desktop OS and Office apps) they have little room for new revenue growth. Short of moving into new markets, X-Box (loss leader) and the Enterprise (Linix is the ecnomical choice in a down economy), Microsoft must use licencing stragegies to maintain income or the stock price will suffer. Over the years MS has gotten very large, and it is really hard to continue to grow a large company, big slow growth companies have relatively low P/E's and have to do things like pay dividends (a Microsoft first) to woo investors. Problem with MS is that they only have two notably, profitable businesses and they have only one directon to go with those.
"There is nothing to do it. But to do it." -Floyd Pepper
People who want to work from home are either going to pirate office or install open office (a lot more people are learning that it works well enough for most uses.)
Actually, I'd wager they're just going to pirate Office, period. The ongoing corporate perception is that documents produced with non-Microsoft Office suites still stand a moderate-to-slight chance of not fully working with the officially sanctioned applications. When critical company information and timetables are involved, who but the most enthuastic advocates of alternative office suites, or the most technically adept workers who know exactly what's compatible, both of whom are very much in the minority with respect to the whole corporation, would ever consider using a non-standard office suite?
The coolest voice ever.
Exactly. Microsoft did not introduce the Assurance program to counter piracy, they did it to increase their revenue stream. If all their large scale customers paid a yearly fee to keep their software current, MS could cite those sales as money in the bank when they report their earnings.
How many people, who work from home on a regular basis, DON'T use a laptop with docking station set-up these days, and carry the ONE device back and forth ?
As a hardware support monkey that is the general setup where I work.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
This is like asking why Unix programmers always down-play the success of Linux on a Sun developer's forum, or asking why Puerto Ricans always want the US out of Vieques (spelling?).
Any one of these items would be interesting
I'd really like to know just what would be considered a positive for/from Microsoft around here. Really. What would it take for them to get an iota of respect beyond Gates saying that he runs Linux at home?
How about the following:
- Work with others in the industry instead of trying to destroy them at every turn. There's lots of business to go around.
- Stop being so fucking paranoid about Windows/Office. Make Windows 'play nice' with everything else out there, or show people how to make it 'play nice' - for free. Microsoft doesn't have all the best ideas all the time.
- Follow standards like they were law. If they find a better way, propose changes to the standard with no IP strings attached.
- Try to compete on technical merits and value, not on spin and conjecture. IOW, stop paying attention to the faults of others, pay attention to the faults that you yourself have.
I'm sure I'll come up with more later. Right now I'm too busy tring to get this VIA ITX board to play DVDs properly in Linux to bother.
BTW, I have no great hatred of Microsoft - they do make some good stuff. It all goes bad when they try to help the Marketing Dept. out in what should be purely technical. If the MS developers could shoot the MS marketroids when they came wandering in to the development meetings, I bet things would be a lot better. Hell, I'd even take a job there then.
Soko
"Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
> My Windows XP box runs for at least a few months at a time.
The sad part is that MS users think that is something worth mentioning.
> Most of the time I reboot is only because some stupid software being installed wants it.
Why should anything short of a kernel upgrade require a reboot?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Software pirates are the main reason these draconian licensing agreements have come into existence.
Argh, matey! Blame it all on us nasty high-tech pirates! Certainly the woes of Microsoft fall entirely upon our shoulders!
Funny, I do remember something about an anti-trust suit, illegal business practices, unethical conduct, etc. I also have a vague recollection of a conviction. Might as well blame all of that on the pirates too!
What is worse is that there is a large group of people dedicated to making excuses for and promoting these software pirates.
Although it's not nearly as large as the group of people dedicated to making excuses for and promoting Microsoft. Nor as large as the group of losers who worship Bill Gates in the hopes that his divine favor will somehow magically rain down upon them, like manna from the heavens.
I'm not saying that I like draconian licensing agreements, but it's easy to understand where the impetus to create them comes from when the goodwill of the software publisher is exploited time and again.
It's even easier to understand the frustration of the consumer after he/she has been exploited by Microsoft time and time again. It might just be that every once in awhile you *really do* reap what you sow.
Sailing the digital seas since 1980,
Max
(insert skull and crossbones here)
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
Umm, No one said you "HAD" to release it. Just that IF you want to sell/give this out, you would have to release it under the GPL. You can keep it locked away in your basement if that warms your cookie.
Secure multi-mediation is the future of all webbing...
I'm in a particular industry, with competitors. Let's say I spend $150k developing something over a 6-12 month period (multiple developer pay and proj mgt, etc). I then 'release it' under GPL, my competitor picks it up, spends about $6k 'learning ' the code and integrating it with their business processes (again - it's my competitor) and they start to undercut my pricing. They've got the benefit of my software, my knowledge that's gone into my software, and have shelled out a small fraction of what I've had to to gain that knowledge and benefit.
Tell me again why this is a good business move?
This happens without the GPL (or OpenSource in general for that matter). The first to market always spends the most by at least one order of magnitude. It is not rare to spend several million dollars and two years on a new product and then have a new competitor pop up and reproduce the work for a few hundred thousand in three to six months.
The nice part about the GPL is that if the competitor takes any of your code, they have to release their additions under the same license.
moto411.com
> people who get their news from anywhere but Slashdot know what's up with .NET but
.NET is really supposed to be. The meaning of it has changed so much since it was first announced that I'm surprised anyone would know. But, of course, that's mostly because I don't care.
Well, I get news from all over the place and have no idea what