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."

Comments

The ridiculous risk of paying in advance

[ashitaka]

I am one of those IT managers that had a real problem with Microsoft's Licensing 6.0. By essentially forcing IT managers into pre-paying for upgrades every three years that they may or may not use and removing any possibility of customer loyalty upgrades, Microsoft went from fair preservation of their revenue flow to outright extortion.

Essentially you are being asked to pay a substantial amount of your IT budget for an upgrade sight unseen. Usually before you bring a product into your company you evaluate it for technical soundness and applicability to user needs and business requirements.

Microsoft seems to assume that their upgrades will always meet these requirements.

That's why I didn't do it

[peacefinder]

I happened to be in charge of IT for two different small companies near the Software Assurance deadline, and made the recommendation to decline the move to SA.

In both cases, it just did not look worthwhile... I didn't think the Microsoft product cycle was likely to be fast enough to warrant the subscription. (Plus I was annoyed with the enforced change, as were many other folks in the industry... but that wasn't sufficient basis for the decision, alas.)

But it was a pretty high stakes game. Guessing wrong would cost thouands of dollars in the long run for each company. It's quite a relief to see that I guessed correctly... so far.

Amusingly, Microsoft has now managed to give pretty much all of its business customers cause to be annoyed with them. The first group was annoyed by the enforced choice between the loss of upgrade value and the expense of Software Assurance. The second group, that chose SA, should be getting pissed off right about... [checks watch]... now.

Wanna bet?

[SmallFurryCreature]

I think you put to much faith into CTO's. After all there has been plenty of warning this could happen. Did they listen? No. The kind of people that signed are the ****** who believe in "roadmaps". I have even seen them critize Linux for providing roadmaps/timelines and claiming this is why MS was better.

Small problem. There is a huge difference between publishing a roadmap/timeline and keeping it. Software is sadly a hugely complex product. Worse it is horribly interconnected meaning that it takes forever to properly test and you can bet the moment it is out someone comes accross a situation you never though off.

But this is well known. So nobody in their right mind counts on a software product being released on time or in a promised form. Like the real world you only trust what is actually right there in front of you.

Would you buy a car that during the testdrive fails the brake test but they promise they fix it in yours? Of course not. So why do you buy software that you tested as broken but they will fix it in a patch they are going to make?

This is even worse. This is like buying a car on the promise that if they come out with a better model in 3 years they will give you that one.

No the people who signed up for this are MS junkies of the worst kind. They will signup again cause it is easier then thinking. Worse if they don't signup again they will have to admit they weren't thinking the first time. Signup again and all they gotta do is gloss over the fact that nothing was received in return. That is easy.

Are Microsofts programs becoming "good enough"?

[TheCeltic]

It appears to me that Windows/Office/etc. are finally becoming "good enough" and people/companies are not seeing the need to upgrade anymore. (I know.. both windows and office are still buggy and closed source, but for most desktop users they are good enough... finally). What does this do to Microsoft's business model of "force your customers to upgrade every x number of years"? I imagine that is why Bill G. wants the world to go to subscription based software (i.e. rent Office per month).