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.
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.
Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
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 have the attention span of a strobe lit goldfish, please get to the point quickly!"
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)
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.
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.
1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcf