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."'"

Comments

it's all about obfuscation

[yagu]

What's up with Microsoft? I would recommend Thomas Peters' "In Search of Excellence" for their review. While I wouldn't agree 100% with all of "Search...", there are anecdotes and good evidence around "customer service", and what makes a company excellent.

Creating adversarial relationships, especially ones where Microsoft as much as accuses a customer of piracy (are we sure Microsoft hasn't purchased RIAA yet?) cultivates resentment and long term rot.

And now, Microsoft is creating account team members whose sole function is to instill FUD in their customer, intimidating them into shelling out even more money for services to ensure Microsoft checks and balances are in Microsoft's favor? Sheesh. This is a scam, pure and simple. As the article points out, if Microsoft truly thinks something is amiss "it sics the Business Software Alliance on the company. It doesn't turn the matter over to one of its sales managers".

Maybe Microsoft is doing this to themselves inadvertently, or maybe it's a strategy. From the Fine Article:

When I phoned Lawless to find out, she referred me to Microsoft's PR machine. The responses I got through that channel stressed that Microsoft's aim is to help customers navigate the complexities of software licensing and that one of the roles of engagement managers is to assist in that effort by informing customers of a potential licensing risk. I was told to attribute the responses to Lawless.

Microsoft's "complexities of software licensing" are the seed of irritation. Accusing customers of ripping them off because they can't figure these complex licenses out entirely is the fertilizer to grow that seed into full blown resentment.

If there were any real alternatives to technology in today's Microsoft dominated juggernaut, these "practices" would send customers screaming to the competition. Unfortunately, so far, there aren't.

Re:it's all about obfuscation

[Fanboy Troy]

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...

Re:it's all about obfuscation

[throx]

I fully believe that everyone out there really wants to break away from Microsoft...

Actually, I disagree. Most people don't actually care. There's even a hell of a lot out there that actually love Microsoft products (they're an American company, wave flag, etc.), and another very large set that just likes the idea that a single source solution tends to play pretty well with itself.

Part of the problem for the alternate systems is to actually convince people that the MS monopoly is bad for them.

Re:it's all about obfuscation

[olddotter]

Don't make the mistake of thinking that Microsoft wants their customers to like them. Microsoft has several problems, some legit, and some they caused themselves.

The legit problems is that since they have a virtual monopoly their biggest compeditor is the version of Windows (or Office, etc.) they sold customers a few years ago. Hence the only way to grow is to "encourage" people to buy new software even if they don't really need it.

They have a history of upsetting their userbase. Given that they have a virtual monopoly they don't really care if their users like them. MS takes a corporate mafia approach to sales, trying to strong arm customers into paying them off. I've seen these articles in the nears every few years for most of the last decade.

I keep hoping it will drive defections to Apple's OS X or Linux.

Re:it's all about obfuscation

[NutscrapeSucks]

Part of the problem for the alternate systems is to actually convince people that the MS monopoly is bad for them.

No, that attitude is the problem itself. Trying to sell a product on the basis of "It's not Microsoft" doesn't work in the real world because Microsoft is not percieved to be any worse of a problem than the Electric Company/other benevolant monopoly.

The Linux world focuses far too much on the negatives about MS and Windows and far too little on whatever positives they have. It's not hard to read between the lines and realize that even the stalwart Linux advocates don't believe in the product on it's own merits.

Re:it's all about obfuscation

[billcopc]

As the article points out, if Microsoft truly thinks something is amiss "it sics the Business Software Alliance on the company. It doesn't turn the matter over to one of its sales managers".

I don't see much of a difference. The BSA is just a FUD agency anyways. They have no authority over anyone, you can very well have your security guards throw them out as they would any other trespassers. The BSA is paid by Microsoft and the other big cheeses to spread fear, but the only authority in any licensing dispute, or piracy claim for that matter, is a court of law.

Re:it's all about obfuscation

[__aahlyu4518]

"Most people don't actually care. There's even a hell of a lot out there that actually love Microsoft products (they're an American company, wave flag, etc.),"
By profiling it as an american company (which ofcourse it is) they risk alienating a LOT of other countries which become sicker everyday of the american way. On the other hand... Maybe that will help getting a real alternative within maybe 3-5 years.

Re:it's all about obfuscation

[Kadin2048]

I have yet to meet anyone in business who really cares that much about Microsoft one way or the other. Many (I'd venture perhaps to say 'most') people find aspects of Windows annoying or obnoxious, but in general it's "good enough."

In fact, if I had to pick a single phrase that sums up Microsoft, that's what it would be: "good enough."

It's not wonderful, and it's not cheap, but it basically does what it says it's going to do, and the pricing is such that most businesses can afford it (or that they've rolled the cost of it up into their products and passed it onto their customers).

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.

To the very great majority of people, Microsoft software is like 120VAC electricity: they understand that there are other ways to run their toaster, and perhaps are even dimly aware that in other places, things work differently, but it's not particularly relevant to their business, and as a result they don't care.

If people dislike Microsoft for something, it's mostly for their licensing structure. 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.

However, I think during periods of market contraction, as companies look towards their overhead for ways to cut costs and maintain profitability, you'll see increased interest in free replacements for expensive software. Right now, most companies aren't under so much pressure that it's worth the transition problems to get rid of Windows (although it's worth transitioning from UNIX to Linux in many cases). As the market becomes more and more competitive and commoditized, I think eventually people are going to see the price of a Windows+Office license for every computer as a competitive disadvantage.

Re:it's all about obfuscation

[drinkypoo]

Creating adversarial relationships, especially ones where Microsoft as much as accuses a customer of piracy (are we sure Microsoft hasn't purchased RIAA yet?) cultivates resentment and long term rot.

It's more like the RIAA licensed Microsoft's business methods. Long before this whole P2P thing blew up, Microsoft was performing surprise "licensing audits" against damn near everyone with more than 20 seats. Schools, corporations, and everything in between got a visit from Microsoft. People who were out of compliance were presented with two hands. One hand held a bill for the missing licenses. The other hand held a BIG FUCKING STICK, which is to say, the threat of a lawsuit if you don't come into compliance immediately by either paying up, or removing the offending software.

Back then, pretty much everyone paid up. The alternatives were no alternative. Microsoft has slowed down on that particular tactic more recently, because most businesses could get their work done if they shifted over to Linux. They don't do it because there's a cost, but if the cost of licensing compliance is a significant percentage of the cost of switching to Linux, I think many of them would go ahead and do it.

Re:it's all about obfuscation

[Nefarious Wheel]

"Nice place you have here. Sure looks flammable. Is that an unlicensed server I see there? What's this big red button do?" [POWER FAIL] "Awww, it crashed. Hey, you know, a guy like you could maybe use a little insurance. I got a nice license for a reliable asset manager here, pretty cheap considering. Price? Everything's negotiable, mate. What's your weekly take? Oh, and I noticed your family out for a walk yesterday. Yer kids sure are purty..."

Re:it's all about obfuscation

[Blakey Rat]

Are we to the point yet on Slashdot where people will stop bringing up Microsoft BOB as an example of Microsoft's being bad? That one always cracks me up...

Oh, a cheap *home* program produced for maybe a year in 1993 happened to be bad, that'll convince me not to run Windows XP! Good argument, sir!

Re:it's all about obfuscation

[throx]

Anyone who has worked with, e.g., MS Word documents on more than one system knows that "What You See" may not be "What Your Colleague Gets". I have had personal experience with MS Word documents that have displayed different formats, line and page breaks on different systems with identical versions of MS Word.

Not wanting to defend MS Word (it's a bloated mess), but this is actually your mistake for thinking Word is a page layout program. It isn't. It reformats the text based on your default printer settings so all those people who just hit "Enter" a lot to get to the next page are really screwing themselves over.

If you want consistent page layout from Microsoft, use Publisher. That's what it's there for.

Re:it's all about obfuscation

[ClickOnThis]

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.

Re:it's all about obfuscation

[kbielefe]

The Linux world focuses far too much on the negatives about MS and Windows and far too little on whatever positives they have.

If by "Linux World" you mean "people who initiate threads about Linux on slashdot stories about Microsoft," then I agree wholeheartedly. Of course, they are often baited with phrases like, "no viable alternative."

Look on sites and mailing lists for Linux distros and developers, and you'll scarcely see a mention of Microsoft except in passing.

The same can be said for the Windows advocates around here. The highest praise I have seen in a while about Windows is "everyone uses it" and "I haven't had a problem in a long time and you wouldn't either if you patched religiously, never opened suspicious emails or installed suspicious software, and ran a firewall and 2 different malware scanners." That is, until your "benevolant [sic] monopoly" comment, which I'm not sure even Bill Gates would believe.

Re:it's all about obfuscation

[laughingcoyote]

By using *any* software, OSS or proprietary, you're putting yourself at the mercy of whatever development resources are working on that software, especially if you're not a developer yourself.

I must take exception to this especially. While neither I nor anyone else could possibly go over every line of code in every open-source program in an entire lifetime, that's not necessary either.

If I notice some unusual behavior from the kernel or a given application (for example, a program sending packets somewhere I didn't tell it to, a program accessing the Internet which should have no need to do so, etc.), I can go look at the -relevant portion- of the code. So can anyone else in the world-you are not at the "mercy of the developers" by any means with open-source. Even if you personally cannot read the code, you can call someone's attention to it who can, and that person can then alert the community if something untoward is occurring. This can also help prevent "false alarms"-it is entirely possible that the unusual behavior is perfectly harmless, and a look at the code will reveal this as well.

Finally, if it -is- discovered that the software is doing something it shouldn't be, it's then possible for anyone to fix the code. If a FOSS program were to begin installing spyware or malware, anyone who wishes can strip the malicious code out and offer the program without it. Any other developer can check to make sure they did the job properly, and fix it if they didn't.

Contrast that with closed-source software. Say I install a closed-source media player on my system. I have not asked it to play anything off the Internet, yet it is accessing (or attempting to access) it, and send encrypted information. Why? Is it trying to download ads or malware? Is it sending statistics about how I'm using it to someone? Is it checking a repository to see if a better version is available? I don't know-and I can't look. Or in other words, I'm at the mercy of the developers.

I find it exceptionally unlikely that commodity software will ever be open source. That's zealot speak.

Tell that to Red Hat, Novell, IBM, or any number of other companies who make pretty good money off commodity OSS. I'm sure those zealots will laugh at you all the way to the bank.

Contracts in force between MS & AWC????

[winkydink]

It may have changed since I last did one, but it used to be that if you had
a Select or Enterprise Agreement with MS, they had the right to audit
spelled out in the contract. The article is mum as to whether or not such
an agreement was in force between MS & AWC, though most companies of any
size have one or both agreements.

So, if MS has a Select or Enterprise Agreement with AWC, then MS is fully
within their right to request an audit and this is a non-news article.

Also, note that Computer World doesn't call this a "sales force scare
tactic" as the headline implies. That term isn't even used in the article.

Re:Contracts in force between MS & AWC????

[ktappe]

if MS has a Select or Enterprise Agreement with AWC, then MS is fully within their right to request an audit and this is a non-news article.

Hardly.

1. They did not request a 3rd party, independent audit. On the contrary, they claimed their in-house auditing service was the "only unbiased" audit, which is exactly 180-degrees from the truth; it's the very definition of bias.

2. They completely disregarded without even a glance the customer's legitimate efforts to demonstrate his legality. This shows MS was not in any way acting in good faith.

3. Any party that believes another has wronged them is obliged to take that grievance to the proper authorities, not threaten unilateral actions. What MS did here reeks of extortion; the threat of one-on-one remedies in order to coerce behavior without any involvement of the court system.

-Kurt

Re:Contracts in force between MS & AWC????

[winkydink]

Neither my SA or EA say anything about "independent 3rd party audit". It says MS has the right to audit. Period. And unless your a Global 2000 company, good luck getting them to change so much as one puncutation mark on their contract.

Re:Contracts in force between MS & AWC????

[einhverfr]

I would think though that if there was an argument of bad faith, scare tactics, etc. as are present in this article, that one could possibly force them face you in court and explain why they didn't just politely work with you and your concerns in the first place. Right to audit ought not to mean right to intimidate.

"No your honor, I don't mind if they audit us, but this exchange shows that this is nothing more than an attempt to strong arm us into buying more of their products. They would not even work with us to ensure that the audit went smoothly!"

IANAL though.

Re:Uhh. Yeah. It's called an account manager.

[sconeu]

RTFA. She was threatening license audits.

Hmm

[beavis88]

Hmm, so there's a shitbag working for Microsoft, which automatically allows us to draw conclusions X, Y, and Z about the entire company. Allllrightythen....*sigh*. Slow news day I guess.

Perhaps they should provide reasons...

[segfault_0]

Perhaps Microsoft wouldn't seem like such a maniac for asking if they provided the predicates that caused the contact to be made. If they said that someone told us your not legal or you have registered 1000 machines and bought 900 licenses that would make sense - without this much i wouldnt even bother with corrosponding. They have nothing to lose by disclosing their concerns.

Meaningless blurb

[Jason1729]

The blurb uses a lot of words to say very little.

From TFA, MS is sending their sales people after customers claiming the customer is not in license compliance and they need to send an inspection team in. They are very threatening, implying if the company doesn't comply, they'll face legal prosecution. Once the inspection team gets in, they try to get the customer to buy more products.

Re:Meaningless blurb

[Jeff DeMaagd]

I would consider it to be a petty scare tactic. It doesn't make sense to try to sue your customer, and I don't think that any prosecutor would bother with this sort of case unless there is proof of infringement. BSA people can complain to the local Attourney General but unless there is some sort of proof.

Personally, I wouldn't allow any hostile entity into facilities entrusted to me unless there was a legitimate warrant of some kind. I think businesses are probably being smart enough to check with their legal counsel before being duped into allowing fishing expeditions.

Microsoft Customers Balk at Hard Sell

[magicjava]

In all fairness, if you're going to post articles about MS doing this, you should post about other companies doing this as well.

Re:Microsoft Customers Balk at Hard Sell

[magicjava]

Oracle's sales force hounded me for almost 3 months after I downloaded their free developers edition from their web site. They made the same claims. I wasn't properly licenced for the way I was using the database and I had to buy more products from them. Just for the record, I wasn't using the product at all. I never even got around to installing it. These tactics are well known, inside the software biz and outside it as well. Salesmen sell, that's their job.

Re:Microsoft Customers Balk at Hard Sell

[ADRA]

You're example is quite different from the rest of the discussion:
1. You have no prior business arrangement with Oracle
2. You haven't bought the piece of software in question
3. You aren't required to have a software audit upon request
4. They have no reason to question that you're using the software correctly or not (since you never used it, there's no dial home)

There's a difference between
"Buy our software because you haven't, but you should, so do it!"
and
"We've been mulling it over in the ol' license factory and we think you're lieing when you say you're only using our software 5 times. We think you need to license 100,000,000 users since one server's SMB share is available to the internet serving pr0n (good pr0n btw). So instead of using high pressure marketing techniques which obviously aren't working, we're going to use our manifest right to invade your workplace to mandate what's needed for compliance the way we see it."

Yeah, I was ranting... /self-slap

Re:Microsoft Customers Balk at Hard Sell

[Kohath]

Fairness? This is "fair" if it's true. It's "fair" if the story accurately reflects what actually happened. So what if other companies do this? This is a story about what Microsoft did. Some other story can be about what some other company does.

Re:Uhh. Yeah. It's called an account manager.

[DaHat]

Sure by saying this I will be labeled as a Microsoft lover and what not... but honestly... I fail to see the problem here.

It would be irresponsible for Microsoft NOT to investigate allegations of piracy at this level as was likely the initial cause of the emails in question. Sure they could turn it over to the BSA, however for all we know this could have been a report to a person who was ill-informed of the proper procedure for relaying reports of piracy and took it upon themselves to investigate.

After such an investigation both parties tend to want the violator to be legit so having access to a sales department (or being within one) does help that make that easier afterwards.

Been going on for a while now...

[BulletMagnet]

I've gotten I think 4 or so of these calls now. I answered the 1st one, and it turned out Redmond was trying to force a sale of MAS90 (Microsoft's accounting package) when I told them I worked for a construction company and we use an accounting package designed for Construction (Timberline) they said "we can make it work for a construction company" He got the hint after repeating "Not interested" 3 times.

I've had Reception add "any calls from Microsoft" to the forward straight to voicemail. If the BSA wants to talk to me about my license counts, I'm not one bit worried.

Brilliant

[KevMar]

Its underhanded and brilliant at the same time.

Any company that knowingly (or thinks they are) in vialation will quickly signup for whatever universal license agreement that will cover them. Most of the time those people have already looked at the options and know what they need to do.

Unfortuanatly they did not back off when someone called the bluff. Know when to fold um.

Im not justifying it, im just saying its thinking outside the box. And i would guess that its very effective.

You must be new here

[ColdWetDog]

If there were any real alternatives to technology in today's Microsoft dominated juggernaut, these "practices" would send customers screaming to the competition. Unfortunately, so far, there aren't.

Well, there is this interesting operating system that I heard about on this website called "slapdash" or something like that. Seems like it scales pretty well and some big computer companies like IBM are playing around with it.

I think it was called 'Linux' - could be wrong about that.

Re:You must be new here

[rolfwind]

I take it you haven't used Linux in years to be spouting off that FUD. Ubuntu is as user-friendly as it gets for completely free (or perhaps Mepis). All I would say is a requirement is a decent internet connection to download programs/updates.

And for a lot of people, all they use the computer for is email/internet. Add in openoffice (already included) and a surprising large portion of the population is taken care of. Before I hear cries of "photoshop" this and that, already granted but that is a different segment of the populace. It's also nice using an OS where I can download what I need in most cases and that it's legitimately free, not loaded down with bloat/spyware, or have a friend reminder pop up every 30 seconds of how I should register some software.

If by it's not a real alternative "right now" you mean it's not "perfect." Well, no, but neither is windows. With that attitude, nothing will get developed far enough to be "perfect" because no ones using it. But it's good enough for a lot of people, so it is an alternative.

Seriously, I don't know if you were trolling or what, but Desktop Linux today is far ahead of Desktop Linux of just 2 years ago and light years ahead of Desktop Linux 1999. On my personal linux workstation, I haven't used a commandline in months and I'm a semi-power user.

And yes, I have introduce Linux to Newbs (former Windows users) who have stuck with it. These aren't l33t hackers either.

Re:You must be new here

[arivanov]

While you are correct that 70% of the Microsoft shops are not microsoft centric in their primary business function and workflow and can convert, very few businesses will even consider.

The reason for this is that 95% of the businesses which are Microsoft shops have a sales, marketing and middle management that is MS Exchange addicted and is living under the false impression that it is good process and business practice to drag any person from any other part of the business into a meeting on a whim based on his schedule in Exchange. They are the primary and usually unsurmounatble obstacle to conversion.
Just try going into a Microsoft shop and saying to the sales team "You will no longer drag Engineering into meetings. You will submit requests via an issue tracking (or CRM) system instead so they can have a correct resource allocation". The screams will reach CEO level with a speed which will make you wander if Einstein is right about C being the absolute speed limit.
In order to convert even a part of a Microsoft addicted business you have to create suitable processes and most importanly kill the S&M idea that the world is flat and they are the only pinnacle sticking out of it. This is a long and painfull process. Once it is complete parts of the business can use the right tool for their jobs (linux, BSD, Solaris, MacOS, even Windows which is configured to a specific business task). But not before that. And Microsoft knows this and does their best to provide "solutions" which allow you not to compartamentalise your business.

Re:You must be new here

[Nutria]

It's just inertia

And Exchange, and QuickBooks, and all the other important apps that are only written for Win32.

As someone who has solely used Linux at home for 5 years, and who must use Win2K at work, it is painfully but sadly obvious to me that there aren't enough apps (I said apps, not languages and utilities) for Linux/Unix.

Yes, it's MSFT's fault for illegally strong-arming itself into monopoly, but that's not the point. Until the ISVs start writing for *ix, *ix can's be brought onto the common user's desktop.

Re:You must be new here

[NutscrapeSucks]

The reason for this is that 95% of the businesses which are Microsoft shops have a sales, marketing and middle management that is MS Exchange addicted

I've worked in a few places that operated just like this, except with Lotus Notes.

Probably the worst thing about working in a "Microsoft-Addicted" business is the attitude that Excel+Email is the universal tool for solving everything. Because Microsoft pushes tools and not solutions, people thend to be very ad-hoc about process related stuff.

Re:You must be new here

[drinkypoo]

The problem with linux on the desktop is the same as it's ever been: You can't go down to best buy and buy a 1,001 of the best screensavers compilation for linux. Even if you could, odds are it wouldn't run when you got it home because of some customization you needed for some simple piece of hardware, like your wifi card.

Even with ubuntu, you have to go add a repository (the multiverse or whatever stupid name they use for it, I just did it but I forget) just to install acrobat reader, or mplayer plugins for firefox. For that matter, you have to actually know that you need the mplayer-plugins from the multiverse. This took me a bit of googling to find. The average user has no hope.

Then there's the other problem, that support lags behind windows. The latest flash player, for example, isn't available for linux yet, so even once you figure out how to install it (it's got a package in the multiverse too; the package downloads the binaries from adobe's servers) you may not be able to view sites.

Linux is great, linux is good, I'm pretty happy with ubuntu dapper beta on my stinkpad so far (updates have been flowing regularly, thank goodness) once I got it installed. The partition creation/selection part of the installer in flight 6 was broken, and I still have no idea how I got it to work... But then, it's beta.

Until users can trivially install the software they need (like acroread) without having to google for instructions, Linux can not possibly be ready for the mass-market desktop.

Re:You must be new here

[rolfwind]

Those are valid points but:

The problem with linux on the desktop is the same as it's ever been: You can't go down to best buy and buy a 1,001 of the best screensavers compilation for linux. Even if you could, odds are it wouldn't run when you got it home because of some customization you needed for some simple piece of hardware, like your wifi card.

The nice thing about linux (for me) is that I didn't have to buy software in years for it:) I understand some people might want something (like Photoshop) that's only available on Windows and don't want to use wine, but I think the majority of non-techies are just websurfers and do some IM/email with an office app pitched in.

Ironically, it's the computer professionals who will be harder to please as some good software is windows only, stuff like photoshop, etcetera, as the only technical market that is almost fully served by linux right now are the programmers.

Of course, I may just be biased, I've been using Linux so long now, as when I installed Windows XP to use some stupid program, I kept comparing how primitive/annoying that was compared to my linux box, XP doesn't even read ext3/2 partitions or bitching it doesn't come with any software!

Re:You must be new here

[Grishnakh]

None of these things are important.

You can't go down to best buy and buy a 1,001 of the best screensavers compilation for linux.

You don't need to buy screensavers and put them on your computer at work. In fact, your IT department doesn't want you putting that crap on your system.

Even with ubuntu, you have to go add a repository (the multiverse or whatever stupid name they use for it, I just did it but I forget) just to install acrobat reader, or mplayer plugins for firefox.

IT can pre-configure all that stuff for you.

Then there's the other problem, that support lags behind windows. The latest flash player, for example, isn't available for linux yet

Who cares? Corporate intranet sites don't use flash, and you're not supposed to be surfing Flash sites at work anyway.

Until users can trivially install the software they need (like acroread) without having to google for instructions, Linux can not possibly be ready for the mass-market desktop.

Users don't need to install software. Linux is more than ready for the corporate desktop, which is the subject of this article.

Re:You must be new here

[killjoe]

Are you under some impression that it's not possible to get programs for linux that allow you to share calenders and schedule appointments?

If so you need to disabuse yourself of that notion right now because it's not true. There are numerous open source and commercial softwares that allow you to do that.

Re:You must be new here

[mangu]

Until users can trivially install the software they need (like acroread) without having to google for instructions, Linux can not possibly be ready for the mass-market desktop.

Funny that you mention this, because I haven't a good idea on how to install acroread for XP. Do you go to superdownloads.com for that, or should you buy a CD at CompUSA? Who sells this "acroread", how can I install it in XP if all I know is the software's name?

In (K)Ubuntu I know it's very simple: click on the button at the lower left corner of the screen, go to the "System -> Packet Manager" menu, type the system password, type "acroread" in the box labelled "quick filter" and click on the button labelled "install package". It's the same way for every one of the 18000 or so packages that are available in the standard KUbuntu distribution.

I don't even have to know the name of the software, if I want to a software to run my scanner, for instance, I type "scanner" in the quick filter and Adept will show me all the packages which have scanner either in the name or the description. By reading the respective descriptions, I can tell the picture scanners apart from the virus scanners.

For anyone who can read and understand plain English (or whatever is the language in his installation), Ubuntu is more ready for the mass market than XP. Only power users know exactly where to get those CDs from which they rum "setup.exe" to install software.

Re:You must be new here

[batkiwi]

Accept|Tenative|Decline

Which of these three buttons, attached to every meeting request, should you be clicking?

Re:You must be new here

[pyrrhonist]

<DEVILSADVOCATE guise="average Windows XP user">

Funny that you mention this, because I haven't a good idea on how to install acroread for XP. Do you go to superdownloads.com for that, or should you buy a CD at CompUSA? Who sells this "acroread", how can I install it in XP if all I know is the software's name?

By "arcoread", do you mean Adobe Acrobat? It's in the "Start" menu, and was there when I bought the PC. I didn't have to install it. It's made by Adobe, BTW.

In (K)Ubuntu I know it's very simple: click on the button at the lower left corner of the screen, go to the "System -> Packet Manager" menu, type the system password, type "acroread" in the box labelled "quick filter" and click on the button labelled "install package". It's the same way for every one of the 18000 or so packages that are available in the standard KUbuntu distribution.

Hmm, I'd never remember all that. Everytime I want to run something I just go to the Start menu. Sometimes I can't find what I want there, but I can always get it at the store. Like that time I wanted to play, "Super Hi-Res Chess 2.2", but it wasn't in the Start menu. I just bought it at CompUSA, and now it's in my Start menu.

I don't even have to know the name of the software, if I want to a software to run my scanner, for instance, I type "scanner" in the quick filter and Adept will show me all the packages which have scanner either in the name or the description. By reading the respective descriptions, I can tell the picture scanners apart from the virus scanners.

Oh yeah, I have a scanner too. It came with a software disk. There's some really cool stuff on there that can take my typed documents and scan them right into a Word file. It's, like, totally killer.

For anyone who can read and understand plain English (or whatever is the language in his installation), Ubuntu is more ready for the mass market than XP. Only power users know exactly where to get those CDs from which they rum "setup.exe" to install software.

I don't know about the "setup.exe" rum, but when I want to install software in my Start menu, I just put the disk in and a box pops up that does it for me.

</DEVILSADVOCATE>

Kudos to anyone who spots the Apple reference!

Re:You must be new here

[the_womble]

Mangu, you do not understand.

Easy = exactly the same as in Windows.

Nothing could possibly be better than Windows by definition.

Even if your Linux distro could foretell the future and installed software automatically before you knew you needed it, people like this would still "know" that the way Windows does it is easier.

You and I and a lot of other people know Ubuntu or Mandriva is generally a lot easier to use than Windows, but it is a waste of time trying to convince people who have an emotional investment in Windows and do not want to believe that Linux could be more user friendly.

Re:You must be new here

[jimicus]

This part is true; I've evaluated several.

However, at the last check (about 5 months ago), not a single one provided the pretty integrated solution that Outlook and Exchange does. At best, they require a separate plugin for Outlook. I found that adding a plugin which sucks to a PIM which sucks does not tend to reduce the overall level of sucking - indeed, with any significant number of client PCs and a requirement that everyone shares their calendars in an integrated system, Exchange rapidly starts to look attractive.

At worst, they provide nothing more than a web-based interface (yes, this will get screams from those who "must" use Outlook), with one or more of the following:

• Poor multi-language support
  
• Bits which sort-of work, mostly don't.
  
• Help files in a completely different language.
  
• Very poor community in terms of users and support. I think this guy has a point.
  
• (this is the real killer to the sales, marketing and management folks who are focused on appearance and functionality, with little concern about Microsoft), THEY DON'T LOOK ANYTHING LIKE OUTLOOK.
  

If you're lucky, you'll be able to get a usable solution and find a web-based system which doesn't completely suck and you'll get buy-in from the rest of the business.

Now watch this get modded into oblivion because it doesn't tow the party line that There is a Good Open Source Replacement for Everything....

This is very common

[eebra82]

It's bad enough when Microsoft strong-arms other software vendors into submission as a means of thwarting competition. But when it engages in underhanded tactics to intimidate users in order to land a software deal, we have a very disturbing situation on our hands. And someone needs to have the guts to speak out about it.

This is not uncommon. In fact, I don't know any super large company that would not put pressure on vendors and small companies that rely on the bigger ones. This is the case with so many other businesses and occurs everywhere in all countries. I used to work for a small business (~30 employed) and we had only one big client which will remain nameless, but you have all heard of it. Because they knew we needed them to survive, they delayed wirings and pushed us down to a stupid low cost production model. We basically had our salaries cut every year to survive at all. First they told us that they would find someone else or produce it on their own. We were forced to agree. Next, they stripped us down even further by announcing that they would no longer need our services. We were looking at a feasible bankrupcy here. Shortly after, a company affiliate purchased what was left, fired most of the staff and outsourced it.

I might add that this fit perfectly into the schedule of this company. Our products were updated once every 7 months, and it so happened that our services were not needed just after the last shipment. All in all, they just made us desperate, stripped us down and then bought what was left, acquired the technology and kicked most of us out.

I don't feel bad about this today, but I wish to inform you that this is not an uncommon phenomenon.

What has happened to Microsoft?

[LibertineR]

Why the hell are they intimidating people?

Have they forgotten how effective BRIBING people can be?

Have all the creative people left the company?

Will someone PLEASE put Ballmer back in charge of Sales?

Engagement?

[erbmjw]

One definition is

a hostile encounter between military forces

Perhaps it should be expanded to include a hostile encounter by corporate forces

Ironic

[$RANDOMLUSER]

So the intimidation manager is actually named Lawless?

Sales Force Scare Tactic.

[twitter]

Winkydink says:

note that Computer World doesn't call this a "sales force scare tactic" as the headline implies. That term isn't even used in the article.

The article says:

The attorney, suspecting that Lawless' actions were part of an elaborate sales effort, basically told her to back off.

and it adds up:

The fact is, if Microsoft really has reason to believe that a company is using unlicensed copies of its software, it sics the Business Software Alliance on the company. It doesn't turn the matter over to one of its sales managers.

Telling your sales force to threaten and intimidate customers is a scare tactic designed to sell crap. These idiots think they have the world by the nuts.

The complexities of license compliance and the threat of a BSA raid is one of the best reasons to avoid the non free software offered by M$ and the other BSA member companies.

Nobody

[bahwi]

Nobody expects the MSFT Inquisition!

Get legal!

[Matt Perry]

Not sure if your licenses are in order? Get legal.

Re:Uhh. Yeah. It's called an account manager.

[Marxist Hacker 42]

After such an investigation both parties tend to want the violator to be legit so having access to a sales department (or being within one) does help that make that easier afterwards.

The problem is she wasn't satisfied with the same evidence the BSA would have been. The BSA would have taken the evidence of the audit, ran off to check it against Microsoft's records, and be done with it. She rejected the evidence and tried to send a SPY into his organization.

Re:How biased can this website get?

[nitefly]

The difference is car salesmen and telemarketers don't promise lawsuits or criminal charges if you don't let them "audit" the PRIVATE information you have on your computers.

It's not new, but not every has experienced it.

[khasim]

Microsoft has been doing this for years.

But not every one of their customers has experienced it. So it is "new" to them.

The reality is that many of Microsoft's customers are "pirates" but only in the sense that they do not keep the kind of records that Microsoft demands when doing an audit.

It isn't enough to have the box the software came in, along with the hologram and the license certificate and so on and on and on.

You also need to be able to PROVE that all of that isn't fake.

And since Microsoft specifically REFUSES to track the license keys and such, the only way to "prove" that the software is legit is to have the original sales receipt from an approved Microsoft vendor.

And that's even if you're not really pirating their software. In past versions, they've made it as easy as possible for companies to pirate their stuff AND as difficult as possible for companies to ensure that they are in compliance without spending lots of hours recording and checking their licenses.

So, even if you had 50 machines and you had bought 50 licenses ... you were out of compliance if:

#1. Those licenses couldn't be found.
#2. Those licenses weren't matched to receipts from MS vendors.
#3. The machines had been "imaged" with a common image without purchasing the MS license agreement that authorized that.

It's all about driving sales.

Re:How biased can this website get?

[Pantero Blanco]

"Geez, why not change the title to "Pick on Microsoft AT ALL COSTS." Is there ANYONE that doesn't balk at a hard sell? Why not post something about how horrible car salesmen are? What about telemarketers that don't hang up and keep up the pressure on you even if you're trying to be polite and hang up the phone nicely? So an overzealous saleswoman gave someone the hard sell. So what? Happens all the time in many many different industries."

I've never had a car salesman try to sell me a car by claiming I stole the one I'm driving from his lot...There's a huge gap between a "hard sell" and a baseless accusation... And a baseless accusation aimed at getting money out of someone is generally considered extortion.

MAS90 made by MS? I think not.

[Red Flayer]

MAS90, MAS200, and MAS500 are made by Best Software (formerly Sage Software, though originally Best Software).

MS's accounting software is Dynamics. Redmond did not call you to sell a competitor's product.

Furthermore, MAS products are generally not sold directly by Best, they are sold via resellers.

You just happened to have an agressive sales person contact you, that's all. In no way is that trying to "force a sale." There was no implied threat of lawsuit for failing to have licenses or anything like that.

bad summary.

[twitter]

Once the inspection team gets in, they try to get the customer to buy more products.

They never got to that point because AWC's lawyer told them to stick it.

It it works like a BSA raid, M$ will get a court order for an inspection based on some kind of "evidence", which could be anything from an anonymous phone call by a disgruntled employee to some program the secretary installed phoning home. AWC would then have the choice of paying for the inspection or another even more expensive "service" from a list M$ offers. The raid itself would involve massive disruption of work.

This is the appropriate response.

Re:How biased can this website get?

[Aqua_boy17]

Good points. I thought the article might be a troll until I saw it was written by CW's editor in chief and then I became puzzled. I mean, it talks about one instance at one company where there was probably a little bit of ego brusing and some pissing contests going on. This was IMHO a personality conflict, not an intimidation crusade by Microsoft. The company owner must be a golf buddy of the author.

Seriously, if there were numerous reports of MS staffers showing up on company's doorsteps toting baseball bats, this would be news. But this situation is not. At my company, we have an Enterprise Agreement with MS which gives them the right to come on sight and audit our usage. We true-up at the end of each year based on what we're actually using and everyone goes home happy.

In this case, the guy in question should have just escalated this with Microsoft's management and tried to speak with someone more reasonable. The fact that he decided to call a lawyer first makes me think he was a little nervous about something he might have overlooked. Just my 2 centavos.

Correct Response, ala Ernie Ball year 2000

[twitter]

How to really tell them to back off. Saves money and time. Things have only gotten easier in the last six years.

Re:That Tru-Coat...

[Richard Steiner]

Yup. Bit rot. Happens all the time with unlicensed code. No, really...

This is why....

[TheNoxx]

Yet again, I can add another reason as to why I don't want MS in the gaming market. I mention this because MS is pushing Vista as the next best thing since sliced bread for gaming (if you haven't heard their nutjob sales reps going "DIRECT X 10 WOOOO!", just do a google search), and I'm sure they'll try to hook it up with the 360. This might be a little off-topic, but they and their "business" tactics need to be kept as far away from the still young gaming industry. You know that as soon as they get a foothold, they'll stop developement and real innovation and use the same strong-arm intimidation to keep developers and distributors in tow. Want to improve the image of games as an art form? Too bad, MS is pushing the same shit in HALO 12.

I heard from these guys I think...

[All Names Have Been]

... I believe I've had contact with these jerks - I got a call from someone at MS stating that "They would like to help me ensure that we have the software we need for an organization our size." which quickly devolved into "send us copies of all your license certificates, then we'll send someone out to help check these against all your machines." (apparently they've got some tools for this?)

When nicely told to stick it, the final word from this ass was (and I quote) "How confident are you that you have everything in order?"

I'd really hate for something to happen to your nice store there, Mister. You sure you don't want to hire us to make sure nothing gets broken?

Re:Uhh. Yeah. It's called an account manager.

[sexyrexy]

It's entirely possible that this was simply the act of one stupid account manager who is very aggressive and should probably be fired. People often make the mistake of assuming that [giant organization] is a unified organism with a singular purpose. The reality is that every organization is made up of individuals, each of whom has their own distinct desires and ambitions, and personality traits. It's not at all unusual for a sales manager to say something really, really stupid, as probably every person here can confirm.

My advice: Ignore them and they will go away

[Proudrooster]

These has been a common tactic for years. I have trained all my higher-ups to ignore any offers to review licenses. Companies will call the higherups and tell them they can potentially save money by reviewing their licenses and getting into a new type of license program. Vendors are constantly switching license schemes e.g. network connections, to MIPS, to number of processors, to number of dual core processors, to number of instances.

Database vendors like Oracle also like to come in and do reviews/audits so they can help you save money and (sic) purchase the optimal license agreement. In reality, you already have the best license deal and the vendor wants to kill it and replace it with one that costs more.

We learned long ago that these sales weenies are just fishing for anyone who will talk to them. If you ignore them, they will go bug someone naive enough to talk with them. They have no legal authority and are, dare I say sharks, trying to rewrite your license agreement to get you to fork over more cash.

Stay legal on all your licensing and simply factor licenses into the purchase price of every machine. If you know that you purchase licenses with every machine and keep your license count current for upgrades and maintenance, the matter will take care of itself.

Note, young inexperienced managers will fall for the "cost savings" sales pitch quite often since they want to be perceived as doing something for the business. If they are foolish enough to start licensing conversations, make sure that you explain how much time and cost the audit process with take. Ask who is going to pay for the labor to install auditing software. Explain that vendors are not allowed access to servers and PCs. Ask them who is going to assume the security risk for any audit software and who will take responsibility if it causes problems in your production environment. After all, I am sure that all audit software is bulletproof and well written. Itemize all the costs and risks then make sure your manager's manager and/or customer see this risk/cost assessment.

My advice: Just ignore them and they will go away AND put your grumpiest and savviest technical manager in charge of any license renewals.

Re:Uhh. Yeah. It's called an account manager.

[Marxist Hacker 42]

You've been reading BOFH I see....

Please, no!

[geobeck]

Will someone PLEASE put Ballmer back in charge of Sales?

It's one thing to have some sales sleaze saying, "Dat's a nice server youse got there... shame if anything should happen to it," and quite another to have the top sales maniac saying, "I'm going to fucking KILL YOU!" and throwing chairs at your server.

Off-topic digression*:

If anyone out there likes making game hacks, someone write up "Ballmer Kong". The Ball-ape stands at the top, lobbing chairs down the scaffolding, while your character, a penguin, jumps over the chairs, or blows them up by throwing apples at them.

*Yes, I know; that's a superfluous redundancy.

Proper response

[Todd Knarr]

I think all the response this tactic deserves is an icy "If you want to discuss license compliance, let me transfer you to our legal department where someone can assist you.". Then you do just that, making sure your lawyer knows before the MS rep can talk that the rep has stated or implied that you lack licenses for some software.

Of course, also make sure you've got original media and license certificats and keys for every copy of software you've got installed, or relevant current license agreement documentation covering the installed software. Remember that there's what MS might like you to have to produce, then there's what you legally have to or should be able to produce, and the two aren't neccesarily identical.

Engagement manager's name is Lawless!

[grudan]

Anyone else notice how appropriate the engagement manager's name is!

they might convince me if they were nicer...

[radarsat1]

My experience with Microsoft marketing has been pretty bad so far.
My first-hand impression is that they will do anything including lie to your face to get you to listen to their latest gimmick.

This is totally aside from the fact that I don't particularly like their software. I admit that because of this fact I'm probably biased, but my ACTUAL experience directly with the people is pretty bad too, so it totally doesn't help the case.

Anyways, first thing that happened: As a student, I attended a .NET promotion thing they were doing for students. We were promised a free copy of Visual Studio 7 if we attended, which I thought sounded pretty good and worth sitting through some ads for. After two hours of being marketed to, sitting through tons of stuff that really didn't interest me much (for example advertising their new tablet PC for 45 minutes when it was supposed to be an information session on .NET), what happens? They get up there and have the gall to announce that, "Oh, sorry, the VS.NET CDs weren't ready, so we don't have any to give you... but we'll send them to you." I wrote my address, never received anythign.. (after emailing them even)

Another thing that happened: I attended a conference on real-time computing. I thought I'd check out a talk called "Choosing a real-time operating system". I figured it would be an interesting overview on all the options out there (and there are a lot of interesting ones!), but after I got in there and they closed to door: "Hi, so this is an information session on how to choose a Microsoft real-time Operating System." Turned out it was for choosing between CE and XP. What a load of shit.. I was really pissed.

So all in all, my impression is not at all good. They run their company like jerks, and their sales reps are jerks.

Frankly I think some of their products are pretty good. A lot of their development utilities are really nice. XP works pretty well for it's target audience. But damn... stop lying to me and trying to trick me. It's not cool.

article text

[0232793]

Rotten Effort
Don Tennant Today's Top Stories or Other IT Management Stories

May 08, 2006 (Computerworld) -- It's bad enough when Microsoft strong-arms other software vendors into submission as a means of thwarting competition. But when it engages in underhanded tactics to intimidate users in order to land a software deal, we have a very disturbing situation on our hands. And someone needs to have the guts to speak out about it.

Fortunately, someone has. Last week, Dale Frantz, CIO at Auto Warehousing Co., brought to my attention an alarming business practice that shows Microsoft at its shoddy and arrogant worst.

AWC was contacted several weeks ago by Janet Lawless, a software asset management engagement manager at Microsoft, who claimed that "a preliminary review of [AWC's software licensing] information indicates that your company may not be licensed properly." Lawless urged AWC to "understand that the potential inconsistency in licensing is an urgent matter and needs immediate attention." She wanted to send a consultant to AWC to conduct an inventory of its installed software.

Frantz was stunned. He says he always errs on the side of caution with respect to software licenses. He does regular audits and maintains extensive records of purchases, license keys and registration codes. Frantz had no doubt that he was 100% compliant. When he told Lawless that, she ratcheted up the threatening tone of her e-mail correspondence.

"Simply commenting on your licensing environment does not address our concerns in a tangible, proven manner," she wrote. "We continue to believe that Auto Warehousing may not be licensed properly. Since this is a compliance issue, I am obligated to notify an officer of Auto Warehousing of the situation and the significant risk your organization may be subject to by not resolving this situation in a timely manner."

At that point, Frantz got his corporate attorney involved. The attorney suggested that an olive branch be proffered to avoid legal action, so Frantz offered to send Lawless detailed records of all purchases of Microsoft software in the past five years. But Lawless blew that off as well. She seemed determined to get a consultant into the IT bowels of AWC.

"Thank you for your offer to send your purchase records to me," she wrote, "however our Software Asset Management (SAM) program is the only unbiased way to create an accurate baseline and resolve this matter."

That did it. Frantz informed Lawless that he wasn't going to waste anymore time with her, and he left the matter with his attorney. The attorney, suspecting that Lawless' actions were part of an elaborate sales effort, basically told her to back off.

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." So why was someone in a sales position leaning so hard on AWC about a supposed licensing compliance concern?

When I phoned Lawless to find out, she referred me to Microsoft's PR machine. The responses I got through that channel stressed that Microsoft's aim is to help customers navigate the complexities of software licensing and that one of the roles of engagement managers is to assist in that effort by informing customers of a potential licensing risk. I was told to attribute the responses to Lawless.

The fact is, if Microsoft really has reason to believe that a company is using unlicensed copies of its software, it sics the Business Software Alliance on the company. It doesn't turn the matter over to one of its sales managers.

The folks at Microsoft should have done their homework. They would have realized that trying to intimidate Dale Frantz would be a fruitless effort. And what a rotten fruitless effort it was.

A fly on the wall...

[FooGoo]

Balmer: What's your name?
Gates: FUCK YOU, that's my name!! You know why, Mister? 'Cause you drove a Hyundai to get here tonight, I drove a eighty thousand dollar BMW. That's my name!! And your name is "you're wanting." And you can't play in a man's game. You can't close them. (at a near whisper) And you go home and tell your wife your troubles. Because only one thing counts in this life! Get them to sign on the line which is dotted! You hear me, you fucking faggots?
(Gates flips over a blackboard which has two sets of letters on it: ABC, and AIDA.)
Gates: A-B-C. A-always, B-be, C-closing. Always be closing! Always be closing!! A-I-D-A. Attention, interest, decision, action. Attention -- do I have your attention? Interest -- are you interested? I know you are because it's fuck or walk. You close or you hit the bricks! Decision -- have you made your decision for Christ?!! And action. A-I-D-A; get out there!! You got the prospects comin' in; you think they came in to get out of the rain? Guy doesn't walk on the lot unless he wants to buy. Sitting out there waiting to give you their money! Are you gonna take it? Are you man enough to take it? What's the problem pal? You. Balmer.
Balmer: You're such a hero, you're so rich. Why you coming down here and waste your time on a bunch of bums?
(Gates sits and takes off his gold watch)
Blake: You see this watch? You see this watch?
Balmer: Yeah.
Gates: That watch cost more than your car. I made $970,000,000 last year. How much you make? You see, pal, that's who I am. And you're nothing. Nice guy? I don't give a shit. Good father? Fuck you -- go home and play with your kids!! You wanna work here? Close!! You think this is abuse? You think this is abuse, you cocksucker? You can't take this -- how can you take the abuse you get on a sit?! You don't like it -- leave. I can go out there tonight with the materials you got, make myself fifty thousand dollars! Tonight! In two hours! Can you? Can you? Go and do likewise! A-I-D-A!! Get mad! You sons of bitches! Get mad!! You know what it takes to sell software?
(He pulls something out of his briefcase)
Gates: It takes brass balls to sell software.

Re:How biased can this website get?

[Alioth]

If you want pro-Microsoft or "unbiased" articles, then don't go to a website that advocates open source software. This is after all Slashdot, *not* Cee Colon Backslash Dot.

"account team" sounds like sales to me...

[argent]

This happens just like this when someone, usually from within the company, notifies Microsoft they thing software piracy is occuring.

They get a sales manager to lean on them? Not an attorney?

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.

And so ends Linux licensing FUD

[stinky wizzleteats]

So much for turning to commercially licensed closed source software as a way to reduce your exposure to IP legal threats.

"Good customers" don't have any choice.

[khasim]

Microsoft comes in and all your holograms are in order and you're a good customer. I find it highly unlikley they will bust you because you lack sales reciepts or can't "PROVE" that they aren't fake.

Ah, that's where you are mistaken.

If you are a "good customer" of Microsoft's then you have a LOT of time / effort / data invested in their products. Migrating to anything else is VERY FUCKING EXPENSIVE. Not just in money, but in time and effort and all the tiny incompatibilities that will result in your users asking what the fuck you were thinking when you decided to drop Microsoft.

So the easiest source of revenue is for Microsoft to "audit" their "good customers" and hit them with a bill for the most common errors that IT departments make.

After working in IT for more than 10 years, I can say that most shops are out of compliance simply because they don't really care.

That's not uncommon.

The problem is that Microsoft is threatening those customers who DO care and DO spend the time and money to stay legit.

AND

Microsoft is NOT putting any time / effort / money into providing any easy way for their "good customers" to track their licenses (or even validate that a license is legit).

This is Microsoft we're talking about. They have BILLIONS of dollars. They have very smart people. They should be able to work up a system where I can enter each and every license I have and validate that it is legit and that it is mine.

But they aren't interested in that. That approach would cost them money to implement and it would result in fewer sales because "good customers" would already have had Microsoft approve their licenses.

And that is why this whole situation is so fucked up. It's all about Microsoft making the situation as difficult as possible so they can wring every last dollar from it.

Here's an example:

You buy 50 workstations from Dell. Each comes with WinXP.
You then buy a retail version of WinXP. That's 51 licenses for 50 boxes.
You image one box using the full retail license and dump that image on the other 49.

You're out of compliance because Microsoft licensed Dell to only license each copy of WinXP to a specific machine. The licenses are non-transferable. You've just "pirated" 49 copies of WinXP. That's 49 licenses at $200 retail ... $9,800 minimum.

And that's if you're 100% legit on 50 machines. And provided that you can "prove" that that 1 retail copy wasn't also "stolen".

Wow.

[Wovel]

The blurb on slashdot, is not very telling and about the worst part of the article. If you read the article you will see a clear case of Microsoft trying to extort a company into paying for their professional services. The best line is where MS claims this is the only unbiased way to resolve the issue. The extortion is clearly criminal. if there are people who actually bought into this act, it would be a good time to look in Criminal and Civil RICO.

Re:Actually this has nothing to do with sales...

[Opportunist]

Well, check what happened to JFK...

One more good argument for OSS

[Opportunist]

Back in the 1930s, if you wanted to get a mafia boss with a squeaky clean file behind bars, sick the IRS on him. It's almost impossible to get ALL your tax records perfectly legal, so if you can't get them any other way, that's the way to go.

Today, if you want your competitor gone, sick the BSA on them. I bet my rear that NOT A SINGLE COMPANY that uses MS products got all their bases covered. With different licensing models and licensing terms, it's virtually impossible to get everything perfectly licensed.

Switch to OSS and you can simply give 'em the finger if they decide to show up at your door.

Remember that big mistake a year or two back...

[CFD339]

...where MS tried to force IT shops to upgrade sooner? They declared that upgrade pricing would be valid for six months only, after which shops that hadn't upgraded would pay full boat. IT managers pretty much told them to go to hell. It was the best thing to happen for Linux as a server platform in corporations all at once since the 2.6 kernel release. I recall a quote from on manager saying, "This would give the control over millions of dollars of my budget -- to be spent within a few months of whenever they demand it. That's just not going to happen."

As I recall, Microsoft backed off that stance almost immedately but it was a bit late. They woke up a large number of shops to their "single source vulnerability".

Racketeering?

[thewiz]

IANAL, but this sounds like racketeering to me and it seems to fit the definition:
The act of engaging in criminal activity as a structured group is referred to in the U.S. as racketeering.

M$: We need to check your license with our auditing software.
IT Guy: Here's all of of licenses and the machines they are installed on.
M$: No, we need to run the audit to see how much software you're pirating.
IT Guy: We're not pirating anything! Our records are accurate!
M$: Either you let us inventory your systems or we break your computers and then your legs.

Isn't RICO applicable here?

Not between equals.

[twitter]

one could possibly force them face you in court and explain why they didn't just politely work with you and your concerns in the first place. Right to audit ought not to mean right to intimidate.

Meet the DMCA. If the BSA has "evidence" of your wrongdoing, you get to pay for the audit and the "violated" company's legal bills. See here for a reference story and what to do about this kind of extortion. Essentially, you are screwed and have to pay the fines demanded without a fight. A fight would cost the average company half a million dollars, more if you include the cost of business disruption.

Software contracts and licenses are not normal contracts. The "agreement" between you and a non free software company is that you are so greatfull for the software that you will do as you are told.

Treating customers like this, Microsoft has completely lost it.

It speaks volumes!!

[suezz]

I think it speaks volumes when microsoft has to resort to tactics similar to the mpaa and riaa - guilty until proven not guilty.

I don't know much about their products since I don't use them and have no plans to but I wonder about their products when they have to resort to these tactics.

Shouldn't the product sell itself?

I use nothing but linux and it is really really easy to install as long as you do your homework and buy hardware that is compatible - but that is any os.

To those businesses tired of being strong armed by software vendors I suggest you really try linux. It is robust and stable operating system and has all the applications you will ever need. No more trips to the local computer store to buy the 10.00 special on software. You will have all the software you will ever need or want. And you will be able to get your work done and run your business instead of counting licenses.

The three or four I would recommend trying are Ubuntu, Suse, Centos and or Fedora, and Mandriva.

go ahead and give them try they will just work and all it will cost you is a little time but your business will be better off in the long run and you will get the time back easily in money saved by license fees.

Unfortunately, Linux is not an alternative

[walterbyrd]

I like Linux, I'm using linux right now.

But, for most businesses, it's no alternative to windows.

Linux is good OS, but it doesn't run the apps that most businesses need. FYI: there are more apps than just wordprocessors and web-browsers. For just one very small example: UPS worldship software, used my many businesses, doesn't run on Linux.

Tons of specialized proprietary software doesn't run on Linux. I recently installed some specialized software for an auto-body shop. And guess what? It only runs on windows.

Sure Linux is fast, secure, stable, and inexpensive. But nobody runs an OS just to run an OS: it's all about the apps.

Re:Unfortunately, Linux is not an alternative

[Gordonjcp]

So ask for Linux versions. If you don't get them, you'll take your business somewhere else. If you need the software *that* badly you can probably pay someone to write it for less than the cost of all those Microsoft licence fees.

Re:Unfortunately, Linux is not an alternative

[rseuhs]

I agree with you, however there are still 2 ways of running Win32-software:

The Microsoft-way is running everything on Windows, using all Microsoft-formats and protocols and using lock-in techniques like Active Directory.

The (IMO saner) way is to run Windows where you really need it (on many, possibly most desktops) but use Unix/Linux on the server and even more importantly use open standards and formats whereever possible. (For example use Mozilla/html/LAMP instead of client/server/Win32 or IE/html/ASP)

Not only will you be less dependent on Microsoft, you also won't need to upgrade so often because Mozilla and OpenOffice run on much more versions of Windows than their Microsoft-counterparts. (For example OO and Mozilla runs from Win98 on and AFAIK the newest MSO will require Win2K or even XP and IE7 will require XP, too)

Re:Unfortunately, Linux is not an alternative

[murdocj]

If you need the software *that* badly you can probably pay someone to write it for less than the cost of all those Microsoft licence fees.

Lol. Right. As an example, the last company I was at did software for a particular manufacturing industry. Our customers relied on this software to run their business. Yes, they needed it badly. No, they couldn't recreate the software for the cost of buying 50 or 100 Windows licenses. The software had hundreds of programmer-years worth of work in it.

Why weren't we running on Linux (you ask)? Well, about 5 years ago we had to get off our O/S platform and we looked at going to Linux. There was no market for our system running on Linux. It was not saleable. Believe me, if customers had wanted to buy Linux, we would have happily gone there.

Re:Unfortunately, Linux is not an alternative

[plague3106]

So ask for Linux versions. If you don't get them, you'll take your business somewhere else. If you need the software *that* badly you can probably pay someone to write it for less than the cost of all those Microsoft licence fees.

Bull. In some industries, there are few if any choices, and a lot of those are Windows only. And no, it wouldn't be cheaper to pay someone to recreate off the shelf software for linux. http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/howtobu y/licensing/pricing.mspx

$15,000 for 105 licenses, $1000 for the standard 2003 R2 server, $42,000 for XP pro. Note this is all pricing according to MS; you'll likely get volume discounts when you actually perchase. Now, $58,000 is less than I make a year, and that doesn't include benefits. Do you really think you can hire a TEAM of programmers to build software that ALREADY available off the shelf for less?

Re:How biased can this website get?

[level_headed_midwest]

Then to be more true to its roots, should /. become ./ ?

The Battle MS has won

[Kineel]

The battle that Microsoft has won is not the desktop, it's the support group. No, I don't mean MS support, I mean your desktop support group. Companies have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on a tech support staff to keep all of those computers working. They are not about to swtich to a new OS (or an old one in the case of Linux) and have to retrain their entire support staff.

That's the battle MS has won. And the number of people trained to support Microsoft on the Desktop is growing every day. Linux (or OS X for that matter) will have to make a much much bigger dent before it can overcome that hurdle. And forget about saying that OS X doesn't require tech support. That argument doesn't hold up in a real business. When things break, you don't want the VP of Marketing fixing his own system.

Why, yes, I am...

[shummer_mc]

I agree... to a point. I'll admit that I recently have been moving to Ubuntu. I quite like it, by the way.

However, I'm a bit of a hack. So, I went off to install a database engine that I have some experience with (iAnywhere ASA). Now, I'm not much on Linux... I'm just switching. So, I download the tar file. Hmmm.. read the setup. It's a shell file. Should I run it? How do I run it? Will it screw something up? Let me just cut to the chase... I never got it working (it wasn't too high on my priority list).

Linux really needs a universal installation engine. I LOVE repositories. I LOVE lots of things about Ubuntu (much better than Suse, imho). I had to search around and figure out how to get this tar converted to a deb then installed.... What a mess! Once I got it "installed" (probably incorrectly) it wasn't able to load its plug-ins in the manager (Sybase Central).

On a positive note, I learned a few things (that's what makes Linux fun). On a negative note, I doubt many of my colleagues (developers in a windows shop) could have figured it out.

So, as long as it's in a repository... yes. I agree. When it's not... hmmm. No. I disagree.

MS treats paying customer like trash?"

[KwKSilver]

What else is new? I understand the next time I boot the Windows partition on this box, & it tries to get security updates, I will be challenged to prove that XP is genuine. Well, it came on the machine from HP. What the fork does MS want? Think I'll burn the FreeBSD 6.1 install DVD for AMD64, first. I think FreeBSD would be happy to be where the XP & recovery partitions are. Then I can upgrade the Breezy patition to Dapper. F' 'em. MS gives me the creeps.

Missing functionality in open source

[ghakko]

It's a common misconception that a complete open source consumer desktop is all that's needed for businesses to ditch all their current proprietary software. The enterprise, on the other hand, really needs easy-to-use tools for managing large networks of users, printers, computers.

One major problem is a lack of a directory service on par with Microsoft's Active Directory--a directory service that's seamlessly integrated into just about everything: authentication & public key management, printing, desktop settings, package management, filesystem access control and contact lists in IM and e-mail. (Novell's eDirectory is a proprietary product, and does not count as open source.) Right now, there are many individual components--OpenLDAP, PAM, NFS4, POSIX ACLs, GConf and Evolution--which are more or less complete in themselves, but are poorly-integrated with each other. Getting them to work in concert with the directory service as glue is fiddly, frustrating and in many cases, would involve substantial amounts of coding.

Also needed is groupware on par with Exchange Server (Novell's Groupwise does not count because it's not open source.) that can seamlessly integrate scheduling, contact management, backup and archival, search, IMAP/POP access, load-balancing & replication and server-side mail filtering. Again, there are a whole lot of individual open source components which have to be stitched tediously together to get anywhere near the same functionality.