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.)
...rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
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!
"The one interesting concession is that corporate licensees of Microsoft Office can now use that suite on a home computer as well." You mean that under the previous terms I couldn't before now???? Oops!!!
"Get off the cross - we need the wood" - Tori Amos
Okay, we won't call it piracy if you've be brainwashed into our cult and take a copy of our scriptures home with you. Soon you'll be quoting them to all of your old friends.
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.
Finally, Microsoft makes a concession we knew had to happen at some point.
Now to wait for the "Linux is much better than Windows" concession...
When you don't have a leg to stand on, don't even get up.
Microsoft seems to be getting the picture. While it looks like they are making just a couple of strategic concessions to try to maintain their stranglehold on the market. However, I don't think that they can stem the tide so easily. Eventually, they will have to make concessions to just about everyone -- i.e., they have to reduce their price pretty much across the board, because the market, having real competition, won't sustain their artificially high prices anymore (how do you think they got their $40 billion, not to mention Gates' 40?).
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.
Don't know about the Software Assurance program, but the academic Campus Agreement 3.0 has had the "Work at Home" clauses in it for a while now. Though in traditional MS fashion they've made one minor change in the new revision 3.1... from what I understand from reading the pages, we can't let employees check out a set of install discs and the Volume License key anymore.
Now the only option is to have employees bring in their machines while we install (don't even want to think about the liability issues there) or buy official MS copies of the media, for $7-20 each in minimum quantities of 25, which supposedly come with their own keys. If we have 1500 employees who each want a copy of Office XP, at $7 a copy we now have a nice added expense of $10,500, not to mention the logistics hassles of media ordering and inter-departmental chargebacks.
Of course, those new keys are the 1-machine-only activation-enabled version, while the older agreement let us give out the activation-free Volume License keys and just keep a few sets of CDs at the helpdesk for check-out.
Ugh. Gotta love MS.
(posted anon to protect my employer)
My boss asked me to take home some work that was all compiled in various Word, Excel, and whatever that PDF-like Microsoft format is (Visio I think). I lied and said that I only have Linux installed at home and use Star Office (which is 2/3 true). He asked me how I could afford to pay for a Unix workstation and not Windows, which he thought was "free" with each PC. When I showed him Redhat.com and explained what Linux was to him, he was truly puzzled. He had no idea that there were any other operating systems other then Windows, Unix, and Apple/Mac. This is coming from a guy that has been in a management position within a rather large tech company for 6 years.
Master Bill Gates, Chief Architect of Matrix^H^H^H^H^Hicrosoft, in response to customers' whining at license changes, said in his dark mask:
I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further.
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
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.
...of Johnny Cochran in the South Park episode where he's talking to the jury and then pulls out a monkey?
"Look at the monkey. See the monkey? Look at the monkey."
None of this addresses any of the things that people really had a problem with regarding their licensing scheme. None of this is going to make a bit of difference to our shop. We're getting open source alternatives lined up and mapping out our "Escape from Redmond" plan with the idea of getting it done by the end of 2003. This simply couldn't be less relevant to us.
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
Go out of business.
Fully licensed blockchain psychiatrist
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?
CTRL-C CTRL-V
GPL: The Guido Public License
Preamble
The licenses for most software are designed to take away your freedom to share and change it. By contrast, the the Scarpelli family's Guido Public License gives you more freedom with the benefit of protection for you, your family and your business. The Guido Public License applies to most of the Scarpelli Family Software Foundation's software and to any other program whose authors commit to using it. (Some other Scarpelli Family Software Foundation software is covered by the Guido Library General Public License instead.) You can apply it to your programs, too.
Accidents, fires and floods happen. The Guido Public License protects you.
We protect our rights with two steps: (1) copyright the software, and (2) offer you this license which gives you legal permission to copy and distribute the software.
Failure to abide by the rules of any of the Guido Public Licenses will mean a visit from Guido Scarpelli himself.
You don't want that.
"Everything is adjustable, provided you have the right tools"
There are four common commercial licenses:
Microsoft is just conceding corporations the right to per-seat/user licensing, which is already one of the most common product licensing arrangements in the industry.
Don't underestimate the impact to Microsoft's bottom line. Under prior interpretations, Microsoft was requiring the corporations to pay for two licenses per telecommuting employee instead of one. They were also requiring extra licenses for failover systems which aren't intended to be used unless the primary fails!
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.