Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Customers Get No Bang for Buck
sammy baby writes "Software missing its ship date is commonplace enough that it's usually only mentioned for yuks. However, subscribers to Microsoft's Software Assurance program are discovering that it can have some very real repercussions. According to NetworkWorld, many licencees are discovering that due to slipping release dates, many thousands of dollars spent on these contracts have brought them zero return."
"Microsoft and every other major vendor do not guarantee software upgrades as part of their maintenance contracts. But users view upgrades as the meat of their contracts. "
In short, you're SOL if you bought one.
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
These contracts guaranteed no upgrades, just that if there was an upgrade in that time frame usually 2 years that you would be entitled to recieve the upgrade. There was no benefit, and we rarely sold them unless we knew that say for instance office xp was due to be released in like 3-6 months.
Quite simply: When there is a contract.
As the article said, MS (and nearly all software companies) don't guarentee that software will be released on time.
So many were sold because of Microsoft's agressive sales schemes. Their enterprise customers were basically given a choice of signing up for the plan to get an enterprise license or buying a retail copy for every machine. In that case, there is no choice.
New news forum for Canadians - CanadaSpeaks
Just to show that this couldn't possibly come as a surprise for whoever PHB'es penned these agreements:
..and..
So it's not "news" that this scheme would cost you a whole lot with the possibility (and high probability) of giving almost nothing in return.
If anyone who signing up for Licensing 6.0 actually believed that Microsoft would let them get the next great thing "for free", then I've got one nice bridge to sel^H^H^Hlease them.
Belief is the currency of delusion.
Im unsure whether you read the article, but the problem is 2-fold.
Yes, the CTO of Digitech is an absolute fool. He was "expecting" a release, but you don't sign a contract in July, 2002 for something thats going to be released. I assume he wasn't given any guarantee's in writing about the release date.
That said, the main reason to buy into Software Assurance is to get the upgrades. Hell, the whole thing is marketed towards smaller companies so they can get upgrades when they are released. And if you don't buy into Software Assurance (or the Enterprise Agreement), you don't get things like "Intelligent Message Filter" for Exchange, for example. If you want to get all the upgrades and software, they do tricks like that to force companies into signing Software Assurance (if they want all of MS's products, that is), and the companies are realizing there is no guarantee of any value for the Software Assurance program.
So in other words, companies might start looking for alternatives, a whole host of contracts are coming up for renewal, and MS are looking at a lower bottom line because of it. Expect some announcements for MS soon that announce new software releases, or "sweeteners" in their licensing agreements.
If I remember correctly, the objections to the licensing were primarily about the uselessness of constant upgrades and the subsequent required hardware upgrades to support the new software, not to mention the difficulty of ripping out tested, working systems and replacing them with something that may or may not function correctly.
I don't remember there even being the possibility that simply nothing would be shipped. Microsoft was, for many years, the king of incremental releases. There were a multitude of releases of Word, for example, that existed merely to break file format compatibility. With dual line releases of NT and 9*, a new version of Windows was always around the corner. The idea that MS failed to ship anything in the time frame is kind of surprising and, honestly, an improvement over previous release policies for those who buy boxed editions.
Not to call the parent a troll, but there were far more reasons to avoid the new licensing model than the fear that they would release nothing.
The ______ Agenda
Our Company recently purchased Software assurance for Small business server for ungrades to SBS 2003. first we get a email saying go the website and activate the license. So off we dutifully go and full in the webform and get a authorisation number and a peice of paper saying that you can use SBS2003. We wait.... no disks to install from arrive, no links or files for download even (and this is 5CD worths). Chasing our supplier about disks it takes him 3 weeks to find the media and $50 extra charge. Finally done! Wait no? Last week while filing that and other stuff away notice that the CD's came without any product keys. So we're back to our supplier who is trying to find out whats going on. The cost to me has been minimal since I have no plans to upgrade the server till the end of the year, but my suppliers swearing is impressive as this is costing him a lot of time...
If you want the maintenance only so you can upgrade, wait until the upgrade is out and THEN sign a maintenance contract.
MS Requires you buy Software Assurance within like 30 days from purchase of initial product--in other words, you can't do the above.
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
Microsoft does offer perpetual licenses. Buy a copy of Windows XP and you are licensed to run it forever. What software assurance offers is an entitlement to all upgrades released while your contract is in effect, only Open Source and a few small titles offer upgrades in perpetuity. Plus, many companies already took advantage of these term to upgrade Windows 2000 workstations to Windows XP, so its not as bad as the headline makes out. Then again, I've successfully negotiate terms in my maintenance contracts that they are valid until Product X is released to cover for slippage, in those cases where the manufacturer was attempting to collect for Product X in advance. I wouldn't be surprised to see MS release Windows YA (NT 5.2) as an interim, just to keep folks happy, Sort of a Windows ME for the NT generation.
Of course, we also passed on the killer opportunity MS's Software Assurance offered us. We're not racing to be the first on the block with MS's latest.
You are in a maze of twisted little posts, all alike.
Not true.
Basically, your initial purchase has to add up to so many points in order to enter Open Licensing. The more points you have on the initial purchase, the better the price you get through the open licensing program for that initial purchase and future purchases. Some products have more points than others. With open licening, you're only purchasing a license. You order media, manuals, and tech support as needed. Because this stuff isn't included and because you're buying in bulk, it costs a considerable amount less than retail. You need a few hundred licenses, but just one copy of the media to toss on the file server for distribution. You run your own help desk and anything in the manual can be found online. Anyway, when you purchase a license, you get the option to buy it with Software Assurance. Software assurance lasts two years and gives you access to upgrades. At the end of the two years, you're given the chance to renew the software assurance for another two years. Of course, you're not paying as much for the renewal as you did for the initial purchase because you already own the license.
Another common point of confusion is OEM copies of Microsoft software. Basically, OEM copies can only be sold with an assembled computer or a core component (Motherboard, CPU, case, power supply, etc.). Also, they're permanently stuck to the computer. You can't build yourself a system later and move the license. Technical support is not included with OEM copies.
I hope that clears things up!
-Lucas
The chart is for the old licensing scheme "Upgrade Advantage", not the current "Software Assurance" scheme. Thus, since UA has been discontinued there can be no revenue from it in 2005. What revenue they got from SA should be a different chart.
BalamLet me get this straight:
People gave up perfectly good static licenses for MS products and switched to a annual subscription fee to keep their licenses renewed regardless of whether a new update arrives or not, just so that they can save some cash per license?
*ponder*
Why a reasonably intelligent person running a profitable business would choose to give up control of when they upgrade and how much they pay for it is just beyond me.
Judging from the page's estimates for 2003 and 2004, there appear to be ALOT of people and businesses who seem to think it is a good idea.
Look, for the past DECADE, MS has routinely slipped on delivering their software. Remember Windows 95? Came out quite a bit later than expected. Same for 98.
Look, if you HAVE to use MS products, at least use them wisely. Your department has the money to outright buy a license for use. That means you get to keep using what you bought... as opposed to this ridiculous "subscription" service which exchanges your working license into a crippled license that expires. For what? So you can give MS your money with absolutely no expectations from them, right?
I hope people recorded and/or documented their conversations with the MS reps.
Seriously, what does using a MS product give you? Why do people persist in using the MS OS when it is constantly being targetted by worms and virii? When the OS itself goes through so many internal changes that no one knows for sure if it is safe to use?
Understandably, it looked good on the balance sheets. But I think it is high time that the people looking at the balance sheets beef up on technology. Have the CFO spend some time with the CTO and maybe some other Tech people who KNOW the software and the history. THEN make your informed decision.
Think about it: The time it takes people who use an MS infra-structure to port what they have over to the new MS infra-structure... couldn't that have been used to port it to say... a Unix based one? Really, it can be done. Better uptimes, few if any worms or virii... and depending on what version of the OS you choose, free upgrades and quality support from the online community.
Hell, if you MUST run some critical app on windows, why not run it inside of a virtual machine? Time to upgrade hardware? Just install the Unix os and then copy over the virtual machine image. Bam... hardware upgraded with only a few minutes of downtime. License keys are happy, software runs in the "same" environment, just faster.
Business really need to start thinking in terms of what the problem REALLY is as opposed to what their vendor tells them the problem is. Especialyl if that vendor has a nice pricey solution for you.
A business investment should not be a shell game where the vendor goes: oh, sorry! you didn't get anything this year, why not pay your fees and try again next year?
That's shows a simple lack of understanding of one's own company's relationship with the vendor. They are a freaking VENDOR. But companies treat MS like it was the parent company or something.
*sigh*
Okay, enough ranting from me. I mean, it's not my money that got sucked up for no good reason.
Btw, visited the forbes ROI calculator for the Software Assurance thing. $18,000 for three computers? These are supposed to be workstations, btw. If that is the case, whatever company paying that much for workstations alone is already getting shafted before MS ever got to them.
Anyways, hadn't posted in a while, so getting this out of my system.
As for the companies... they really need to look at what it is that they REALLY REALLY need. Make a firm decision and go with it. If they hang onto the SA with MS because they are afraid, then they might as well just hand over the money now and forever. If they decide this was a bad idea and a mistake, then they should have the guts to admit they screwed up and figure out which technology path is right.
It isn't rocket science. It's business.
I find it both annoying and terrifying that people who have been to business school fall so easily for what is essentially a pie in the sky subscription system. It's like someone telling you they might not mess with you tomorrow if you pay them now. But they're there tomorrow anyways...
Winged Power Photography
I grant that you don't get many applications that offer unlimited upgrades, but WinZip is one of them.
I've used it for many years now, and just recently updated to the most recent version to fix a security flaw in the old one.
My company bought 75k in SA licenses for Application Center 2000. We contacted our MS rep and after 2 weeks we got it *all* back.
Kudos to MS for stepping up and doing the right thing. In fact the check we got from them said the $$$ came from the "Make It Right Fund".
Before you bitch about not getting the software you paid for, ask for your $$$ back. From what our rep said, MS is doing the right thing all over the place to keep people happy - contact your rep today.
Don't be too quick to judge...
Microsoft seems to want to move towards the liscensing strategy used for real expensive software like high end CAD tools. These are usually liscensed for a set term and each license lets you run one copy for the term of the license, whatever version you want on as many machines as you want (one running per license at any time butthe machine is irrelevent).
This is not your everyday "pedestrian" software like windows and office though. In my case, I'm using place and route tools for chip layout work. If there's a bug in the software that causes us problems, it can cost us serious money. Consequently, these types of licenses include a lot of support. You submit a bug and they put a couple engineers on it immediately and have patch to you in a little as a few days.
I can't speak to how MS treats its large customers, but I doubt they get that kind of response to problems.
If it's not on fire, it's a software problem.
we did it for our exchange, windows servers and cals. I correctly bet on windows and exchange 2003 coming out in the cycle. office and client os licenses would have cost us a ton. sure enough, we are currently refreshing our desktops, and just buying em with xp oem licenses. we will stick with office 2k, go with outlook 2k3 for its anti spam/ and anti html mail features.
the big question is to renew the SA on the exchange and server stuff. probably not, with longhorn so so far away
Microsoft have already said before that when XP is EOL'ed, they would release a Service Pack that would disable Product-Activation. I don't have the link off-hand, but they won't stop you installing out-of-date editions of Windows.