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."
At what point did these customers forget they are dealing with a software company? Missed dates, slippage, heck, I work as a programmer and there's often good reasons (You can have it now unfinished, untested or with bugs OR you can wait for it to be finished, passed Q/A and tested), granted there are numerous examples of Microsoft using the customer for testing after rollout ("Oh, that bug will be fixed in the next service pack"), but again I don't think they're unique. They're just singled out because Microsoft is a favorite whipping boy. Imagine the losses that may be incurred by (more) flawed code being released on schedule.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
yes, but people aren't paying an annual subscription for Duke Nukem forever - that's the problem.
We all know that software is late, but we shouldn't have to pay for it if it doesnt arrive.
You can't expect to wield supreme executive power, just because some watery tart threw a sword at you
It's impossible to tell in advance what these contracts are going to be worth. In short, these people paid for any updates to Windows in 2004 or 2005 on the assumption that there would be one. Microsoft never promised one, but they hinted that Longhorn should be ready by then, and it's been Microsoft's habit to release a new OS every two or three years.
Well, sorry, no new release. Nobody promised one, they just assumed like fools that there'd be one. Ton of money wasted. Oops.
Thing is, how can Microsoft ever sell these subscriptions again to companies that paid and got nothing?
The CIO of a company should know better than to get a maintenance contract just so he can upgrade based on a roadmap that may or may not materialize. If you want the maintenance only so you can upgrade, wait until the upgrade is out and THEN sign a maintenance contract.
The CIO needs to make it clear in summary to the CEO and CFO that these are the expected benefits, these are the assumptions I'm making and these are the risks. In my opinion he didn't do his job and now he's blaming Microsoft for failing to pedict the future, and he's making a fool of himself in the process.
If you're going to blame Microsoft, blame them for something they've done wrong. Don't try to penalize them for telling you what their plans are (a good practice in my opinion), or for your own stupidity. It makes you look like a whinning twit when you do have a legitimate complaint.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Microsoft seems to assume that their upgrades will always meet these requirements.
No, they're quite realistically acting on the observation that eventually you'll adjust your requirements to fit their product. For instance, NT4.0 is going to be replaced because one of those "business requirements" is "continuing support."
I've watched as W2K replaced NT4.0 and WinXP replaced W2K. At each step, the IT staff reported all sorts of problems with the new version and no material benefits. In reponse, their management ordered them to solve the problems so that the new flavor could be deployed.
That's real life on the front lines, theory notwithstanding.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
I think the ultimate product for stupid people will be pre-paid health insurance (coming soon to an HR department near you I'm sure).
Once you've paid for such a plan, it's in the provider's interest for you to die as quickly and efficiently as possible so that they get your money but don't have to provide any services in return.
The Microsoft pre-paid license program is just one step below this.
On the other hand, the typical business customer might actually like a way to pay for *not* having software updates, since constantly having to upgrade to the latest version is a pain in the neck, along with having to deal with the feature bloat that is required to otherwise motivate people to upgrade.
This is the business that RedHat has gotten into where in exchange for money they guarantee that the software you're running today will remain supported for a much longer period and you won't be forced to upgrade before you want to, and it's clearly the direction Microsoft is tring to move as they start running out of compelling feature-based reasons to upgrade from verison N to N+1.
So if you don't want things to change, by all means pay in advance, but if you're looking forward to new features, wait until the product actually ships before handing over your money.
G.
From two years (2000 through 2001) Microsoft provided essentially nothing in the way of new programming tools (or heaven forbid, bug fixes) to it's $2,000/seat MSDN customers. .NET so their net profit remained $1800/year.
.NET. (To be fair, it comes with a free copy of Office 2003.)
After two years of 90% profit margins ($200 worth of duplicate DVD/CDs + shipping), in 2002, they raised the price by about $1000 for 2002's
So, except for the few MSDN customers who were smart/quick enough to figure out what Microsoft was up to, they ended up paying $7000 + $2500/yr for