MS Partners Bailing Over Delays In Releases

Frosty Piss writes "A new study says past delays in Microsoft's products are causing some businesses to think twice about renewing the long-term service agreements that include rights to upgrade to future versions of its programs. 26 percent of the 61 IT professionals surveyed by Forrester Research said they had decided not to renew their Microsoft Software Assurance agreements when they expire, opting instead to buy the software as needed." Microsoft says the study is not representative of what it's hearing from its customers.

Comments

Question

[bladesjester]

The big question is whether they were asking IT people in large businesses, midsized, or small ones.

I can see smaller businesses and some mid sized ones not renewing, but most of the larger ones will probably continue to do so because it's easier.

Re:Question

[plover]

I think the bigger question is "why is any /. reader suddenly believing anything from Forrester?" Usually they're spewing out the pro-Microsoft stance that most readers here seem to reject on principle, rather than fact. But now there's a research article that shows a trend away from Microsoft and it's suddenly gospel?

As you seem to be implying, Forrester (and Gartner et al) take their surveys and extrapolate wildly, and not always with thought to the subject. I'd say this is as trustworthy a report as anything else they've produced -- which is saying pretty much nothing at all.

Re:Question

[bladesjester]

Ever try to get approval for large purchases in a big business? It's a pain.

If your choices are having to pitch it to the higher ups every time you need to upgrade operating systems/office suites and pitching one time to the higher ups this program where, for a fee, they never have to worry about hearing this conversation again, they get extra support when it's needed, and if anything goes wrong they have someone else to blame, I guarantee you that the better choice is generally going to be option 2.

Re:Question

[vtcodger]

***What I would like to know, is how reliable this can be when only surveying 61 people***

It can be pretty good. IF the 61 people are truly representative of the larger population. If they had a list of every "IT professional" in the world with Microsoft Software Assurance contracts; picked 61 names at random; and made sure that they talked to each and every one of the 61, they'd probably get a pretty good number. But that's likely not what they did.

I'm not an expert, but I believe that it's pretty well established both in theory and practice, that using large samples is not a very effective way to improve accuracy. What you want to do is eliminate bias. But that is more easily said than done.

Don't ever pay in advance

[GreatDrok]

Software Assurance was always a bad idea. It is clear that if you hand over the money before the work is done then they are far less likely to do the work as quickly as they would if you didn't pay until the work was finished. This is true in the real world (builders or decorators) so why shouldn't it be true with MS? They already have your money and so they don't really need to work hard. Companies should definitely tell them to stick it and buy as and when they feel the need to upgrade. Clearly very little of the software MS has produced since introducing SA6 has been of any value and I suspect the uptake would be much lower if people hadn't already paid up front. Don't be fooled twice is what I say, keep the money in your bank earning interest, not theirs.

I actually sell More software assurance

[cybrthng]

Because in the long run over other supported contracts its more affordable. Its not just a license but a pretty robust support infrastructure that is included in your pricing and scales well for businesses large and small and more times than not is cheaper than retail pricing.

Just my experience. Software Assurance is more like the commercial linus world where the value is the service & support rather than the actual software - as it is to more businesses than not.

Cost of the software itself is very little of the ultimate price at the end of the day. (not claiming its absolute, but very true more than not)

MS confirmed the report

[pavera]

If you read the article, in the last paragraph it quotes the MS representative thus: "Microsoft's Sloane countered Forrester's findings by pointing out that about 75 percent of the company's Enterprise Agreement customers are renewing those pacts." Well, if only 75% are renewing, doesn't that mean 25% aren't??

And the forrester report said 26%. I bet that's inside the margin for error of the survey.

Re:MS confirmed the report

[catwh0re]

The agreements provide value when taking into account two factors:

1. Microsoft release new software in the timeframe of the agreement.
2. Microsoft release upgrades that are worthwhile purchasing in that same time frame.

Since many companies don't really need upgrades (MS tend to roll out new ideas into new products, while giving lack lustre upgrades to existing products.) The only thing really pushing along MS upgrades is the fear falling so far behind in windows versions that MS stop releasing patches for them. (How many companies do you know that still believe windows 2000 was their peak?)

With numerous delays in Vista and the final product not having too much benefit over it's predecessor, it comes as no surprise that companies can't justify paying for another go on the merry-go-round.

buwahahahahahaha!

[loraksus]

Microsoft says the study is not representative of what it's hearing from its customers.

Microsoft owes me a new keyboard :(
Between that and "The next version of Office will be worth the wait!" or "Longhorn will be out in Q4 2005, we promise!", I sprayed coke all over my monitor and keyboard...

Software assurance lately hasn't really been worth a damn to businesses. There are more than a few legacy apps that don't work in Vista and few businesses are switching. I know of at least one Microsoft Vista call center that is staying on XP for call logging and business stuff (they give a second pc to techs to play with / walk customers through stuff)

Office 2007 might look different with its magical little orb, but you'd have a real hard time justifying the purchase if you had to pay for an upgrade in a medium sized office at $250+ a seat. Getting it for "free" makes it slightly more attractive, but the downside of retraining employees is still scary for a bunch of businesses - especially when the 2007 file format pack is a pretty small install.

Calling it "the beginning of the end" is premature

[Captain Sarcastic]

When Windows 95 came out, lots of companies and individual users were leery of switching over from their working-just-fine Windows 3.11 systems. I remembered seeing a demo of Windows 95, and someone was asking whether they could disable the animated graphic display that played during the file copy process.

Microsoft has a long history of, well, "stubbornness" isn't too harsh a term. NT 3.1, Bob, and ME were all products that didn't make the grade as far as most people were concerned. However, they kept marketing them while they worked on replacement technology and/or service packs. Thus, we got NT 3.5, Windows 98 SE, and Windows XP, which all simply ran into the "new product" glitches and bitches.

I honestly think that Microsoft will just keep on marketing Vista until they get at least one service pack, and possibly two. At that point, they'll either have shaken out most of the bugs that people are complaining about, or will come up with a different package, a different name, a different UI, and call it a "brand new" product.

Is Microsoft hurting? Perhaps, but I don't believe they've been sending out large numbers of pink slips to their employees. Are people looking at alternatives? Yes, but many of them are either going to sit tight and hope that XP will last long enough until either Vista SP 2, because they have too much of an investment in existing technology to feel comfortable (rightly or wrongly) with anything else.

Oh, I do believe both of them.

[Opportunist]

If I planned to cancel a subscription, the one I subscribe to would be the LAST to know until it's time to sever the bonds. First of all, it saves me from the constant pestering from their marketing dept. to get me back on board for longer. And second, how inclined are you to support a customer that already declared very clearly that he's not going to be your customer much longer?

Uhm, not really

[NTT]

I believe that line should read:

Microsoft says the study is not representative of what it wants to hear from its customers.

Headline should be

[geekoid]

IT departments regain some sense.

It was stupid agreement for any consumer to sign. MS tried to sell it like an IOMN service level agreement;which would explain why some companies thought it was a good idea. The IT departments failed to take into account MS's track record and the fact that they will cut support for older software with little notice.

FYI 18 Months it too short of a notice, 30 months is more appropriate.