Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Customers Balk at Hard Sell
HangingChad writes "ComputerWorld is running an article about Microsoft's latest type of sales force scare tactic. Apparently Microsoft is using the new title of 'engagement manager' to attempt sales via intimidation. From the article: 'Indeed, according to Microsoft's Web site, the responsibility of someone with Lawless' title of "engagement manager" is to "perform as an integrated member of the account team, drive business development and closing of new services engagements in targeted accounts."'"
Actually your post reminded me of a bookmark I had laying around quite a while about why Ernie Ball dumped microsoft. FTA:
...Humiliated by the experience, Ball told his IT department he wanted Microsoft products out of his business within six months. "I said, 'I don't care if we have to buy 10,000 abacuses,'" recalled Ball, who recently addressed the LinuxWorld trade show. "We won't do business with someone who treats us poorly."
...What I really thought is that you ought to treat people the way you want to be treated. I couldn't treat a customer the way Microsoft dealt with me...I went from being a pro-Microsoft guy to instantly being an anti-Microsoft guy...
The only people that probably 'hate' Microsoft are probably at competitor companies (insofar as they exist anymore), and that only people who really 'love' them are probably at companies that are making money off of their dominance in some direct or indirect fashion.
I think that's putting it way too simply. Everyone I have met who hates Microsoft has not been a competitor but a consumer, albeit perhaps a knowledgeable and self-interested one. The problem is that Microsoft does not just destroy its competitors -- it also destroys choice, either by drowning out alternatives with FUD and marketing, or with the classic "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish" strategy. And this angers those of us who want a choice.
If people dislike Microsoft for something, it's mostly for their licensing structure.
Microsoft's whole business model depends on being a monopoly, so they do everything they can to preserve it. Their licenses help them to do that, but they're not the real issue. See above.
That's why you see most people trying to advocate Linux use to businesses focus on the small-F "free" aspect: very few people really care about the capital-F/libre definition of "Free," the only advantage of Linux is that it costs less.
"Free as in beer" is not the only advantage of FOSS such as Linux. However, it is the first one that a business is likely to understand, so it's hardly a surprise that an advocate would mention it first in a business context.
As for the "free as in speech" part, which really is manifested in the use of open standards -- this also benefits a business because: it removes the threat of vendor lock-in; it promotes competition between software suppliers; and it protects the ability to access to documents and data in the event that the software company goes out of business or withdraws support for the formats.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.