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.
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.
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 ?
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?