Slashdot Mirror


Telstra Used Linux To Get Microsoft Discounts

awful writes "Last year Slashdot ran a story about Australia's largest telco moving to Linux desktops. Turns out it was all a way to get some tasty discounts from Microsoft. The Australian is reporting that Telstra just signed a four-year deal with MS for $AU15-20 million, for 40,000 users. No figures yet on how much of a discount Telstra got, but MS might want to rethink handing back all its cash to investors if this is how they're going to do business from now on ..."

6 of 237 comments (clear)

  1. Ahh... competition by oldosadmin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sounds like capitalism at work :)

    I love linux, but, go Telstra :) Way to use the free market to your advantage.

    --
    Jay | http://oldos.org
  2. Way to do business by usefool · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Maybe, just maybe, this is how Microsoft intends to do business in the future?

    This kind of first-MS-then-Linux-finally-MS stunts by any company is going to give free publicity to Microsoft, and more and more companies will be attracted to buying MS products because they thought they're getting a discount now.

    And frankly speaking, $375 per user is still better than $0 per user, and lose face to Linux.

    --
    Uselessful technology (Air-Charged
  3. Re:Go Back Three Spaces by chachob · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "...and press 4 if you are actually using linux in hopes of getting a discount."

    seriously though, this is quite the dilemma for microsoft. on one hand, more companies might consider this method, and microsoft wins because of a larger userbase for its products. on the other, it has its investors whining because of these business methods that are losing profits. it'll be interesting to see how microsoft plays this to keep its investors happy while keeping linux pinned down (somewhat).

  4. Re:Go Back Three Spaces - Or not by Judg3 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I doubt it - this is the way business has always worked, it's only front page news because it's Linux vs MS.
    If it was HP vs Cisco or any other 2 vendors which selling competing products it would have been rejected.
    Hell, if you're in charge of buying product X for your company and DIDN'T try to lower the price buying shows quotes from companies Y and Z, I'd worry!

    --
    Looking for hardware (Currently need: Large Etch-a-Sketch) Have one? See my journal!
  5. um. by SinaSa · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Somehow I doubt this is the case.

    Telstra's IT head wanted to run Linux to cut costs. In a business they figure things out using a cost-benefit ratio. In fact, most human beings do this.

    Microsoft simply offered them a deal with better cost-benefit ratio. Telstra aren't going to be downloading ISO's, they would be buying something like SuSE or RedHat. So Microsoft simply discounts prices, and Telstra has cut costs, without needing to move everything across to a new system.

    As an Aussie, it's my duty to hate Telstra, but the headline is so very wrong.

    --
    --
    The last digit of pi is four.
  6. One of the primary difficulties by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In product pricing is trying to reclaim something called the "consumer surplus". The idea here is that the amount of money that each of your potential customers is willing to pay is different; vaguely speaking, you want to choose the price that balances out being low enough that you retain as many of your customers as possible, while being high enough that you make a lot of money on each unit. Still, there's always going to be that consumer surplus-- the amount of money lost to the fact that a subset of your customers would have been WILLING to pay much more, but because you have to charge them the same amount you charge everyone else you only got the same amount from them you got from everyone else.

    This is why you're in very good shape if somehow you can work your way into a sales model where, as happens with an auction, or with car sales, you're somehow able to tailor your price to what exactly each individual customer is willing to pay. You maximize both the number of customers you get, and the amount of money you could get from each one.

    This is where Microsoft's doing and it isn't a bad thing for them. Microsoft's prices are ridiculously high, and the market is beginning to realize this, but rather than actually correct for this and charge reasonable prices, they're simply continuing as they have and making special allowances for those customers who might be leaving.

    Or, in other words: This shouldn't be seen as a victory for Microsoft's competitors because Microsoft's having to lower their prices for the customers who are threatening to leave. It's a victory for Microsoft, because Microsoft isn't having to lower their prices for everyone else.