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

[wawannem]

Based on my experience with their agreements, I would imagine that they are cost-prohibitive to most small businesses. Their volume licensing agreements like Open Licensing (http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/programs/open/ default.mspx) are really meant to give customers some peace-of-mind when managing a large deployment. This program is meant for organizations with less than 250 workstations, but I can't see anyone seeking this sort of agreement unless they have over 100.

What I would like to know, is how reliable this can be when only surveying 61 people. I mean, I know that statistics can be wrangled just about any way you want, but it doesn't seem to me to be very useful to ask such a small number. Before getting my hopes up that M$'s poor performance is finally being noticed by businesses, I will wait to see how their sales numbers look the next few quarters.

-W

Re:Question

[bladesjester]

Indeed. The sample set is amazingly small and it says nothing in the article about the kind of places that they asked.

Most larger places tend to be insane when it comes to getting large purchases approved. That's why a lot of them do the plans like this - the IT department only has to get it approved once instead of trying to convince the higher ups that they need to spend money every time a new operating system or office suite comes out. As a bonus, they also get support (which goes a long way in convincing the higher ups because it means that someone else can be held accountable if things go wrong).

I also have to say that I must be the first case in the history of Slashdot where a first post has had a positive rating...

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

[halcyon1234]

Forget small. I'm worried about the sample set being DISMEMBERED!

26 percent of the 61 IT professionals surveyed...

26% of 61 is 15.86! They chopped 14% off one of the surveyees! I wonder if that tainted the rest of the sample?

Re:Question

[Bemopolis]

26% of 61 is 15.86! They chopped 14% off one of the surveyees! I wonder if that tainted the rest of the sample?

I dunno — if your taint comprises 14% of your body, maybe software licensing isn't your largest concern.

Re:Question

[Technician]

Or do they have the license to damage your business at will?

It's in the EULA.

Forcing their hand does have it's drawbacks.. such as no MS software permitted anywhere..

http://www.penguinista.org/cgi-bin/article?article Id=723
http://www.qcs-rf.com/wordpress/?m=200703
http://bsadefense.com/resources/article_independen t-co-uk.asp

The bad publicity is supposed to shake up pirates to get legit.
The bad karma shakes up legal users into looking at alternatives.

This one swore off MS products entirely due to a BSA audit.
http://news.com.com/2008-1082_3-5065859.html

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.

Re:Don't ever pay in advance

[LoadWB]

Unfortunately Microsoft is beginning to move a lot of licensing functionality into SA to make it almost a requirement. For instance, look up the licensing for Office 2007 in conjunction with a Terminal Server, or the use of Office 2003 licensing for Office 2007 on Terminal Server. And charity licensing now gives you home use rights for your licenses, if you purchase SA.

Software Assurance is bullshit, frankly. It just a way for Microsoft to squeeze extra money out of its customers with the promise of a "free" upgrade to the next version, IF the next version is released within the SA period. Think about all the poor schmucks who bought a three year SA with Office 2003 upon release (or was only two years available then?)

All the while, by the way, Microsoft is sticking it to OEMs with stupid requirements. For instance, system builders who sell Office 2007 are not allowed to distribute 2007 media: they are required to provide some sort of recovery system to the user. And OEM licensing is no longer adequate for most usage purposes (like the TS example above.)

And now that people aren't buying Vista and Office 2007 in the numbers Microsoft wanted, we will soon be required to buy nothing but! Once stock of Office 2003 runs out in the channels I will no longer be able to offer this to my customers who do not like Office 2007, as MS has discontinued Office 2003 in the OEM channels. Windows XP will be gone sometime around January, 2008.

How many people would have been pissed if Windows 2000 and Office XP suffered the same fate? So is this Microsoft's way of not committing the same mistake before of supporting older generation software, or is this just a way of cramming shit down our throats? IMHO, so long as a product is still in mainstream support, I should be able to obtain said product. IIRC, Windows XP Pro SP2 is EOL in 2010.

And what about Office 2003 SP3 which has been announced and is supposedly in testing? This will contain back-ported features from Office 2007. Will it bring "ribbons" which 90% of my surveyed users hate (ah! statistics!) and make it so there is no option for "classic" menu styles?

I will not be moving to Vista any time soon. I've used the betas and release candidates, and I am not impressed. There are some neat things under the hood, but the gains balance the loses in my experience. And I just principally abhor kuldgy, klunky DRM and other restrictions. I received Vista Business in my Action Pack, and it has gone and will continue to go unused.

I was excited about Windows XP because it represented a MASSIVE shift in technology, usability, and stability over Windows 2000. (And many people will debate this, but I refuse to argue against my experience.) I was excited about Server 2003 for a lot of the same reasons. It really seemed like Microsoft was listening to us. I went to the training and free seminars and demonstrations. But now it seems as though Microsoft took a little exception to being told by its customers what they want, and now instead tell the customers what they can have, period.

And this is a take-it, no leave-it, situation. Many of us rely upon software which requires Windows to run, and at the same time have no IT budget to investigate alternative methods. In the end, we will still need Windows somewhere.

I grow weary of Microsoft's crap. Every time I turn around I feel like I am its whore for pushing its product. To be fair, Windows XP and Server 2003 have been great products for me to support. But licensing and upgrades by attrition is just too much anymore.

I am working to move out of this part of the industry soon. I would rather do server and network administration, and disaster recovery and risk assessment, anyway. This is far less complicated and easier to stomach than Microsoft software licensing and force-fed controls.

Keep on trucking, Microsoft. Like Rome, you shall fall; you will learn the lesson of IBM. You can only screw your customers for so long before they revolt. O

what microsoft hears?

[Zashi]

I don't think microsoft will ever admit what it hears from it's customers.

They certainly won't admit to what they've heard from me.

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.

You're really "nice"...

[Dr_Art]

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

Microsoft: You're not going to bail on me are you? You love me don't you?
Customer: No, I wouldn't do that. You're really "nice".
Microsoft: You mean it? I mean, you're not still upset with me about the chair throwing thing, right?
Customer: Of course not. I mean, I'm still using you on some of my desktops...
Microsoft: So why are you still using XP? You hate me, right?
Customer: Er, uh, well, uh, we were planning on upgrading but we've been a little busy with our Linux migration in the data center and all, and, uh, well would you look at the time! I've got to get going. I'll see you soon...
Microsoft: See, he really does love me! That darned study is just not representative of him!

Tune in tomorrow for the next episode of MS-in-de-nial...

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.

It is ... and it isn't.

[khasim]

It's not so much that anyone should believe this "report".

They're in the business of whoring themselves out to whomever has the biggest wallet.

That they're turning on Microsoft says more than their reports ever will. If they don't sell "reports", they don't get paid. So are more people looking to buy "reports" that do NOT favour Microsoft now? Has the market changed that much?

Re:It is ... and it isn't.

[jnnnnn]

It could just be that Microsoft hasn't bought any reports for a while, and Forrester want to encourage them a bit.

Perhaps Microsoft is starting to think that these kinds of reports aren't worth it?

i don't know

[mistahkurtz]

if i buy it.

i work in corporate IT sales, and it simply seems that this survey was done almost immediately after a major desktop OS and office suite release. it seems to me that many companies, especially in the SMB market would be more inclined to not renew SA now, and purchase it in the future before the next major releases. this seems to be consistent with what i've seen with my customers, some of who have opted to not renew SA on desktop OS and office, however renewed SA on server 2003, with the release of server 2008 on the horizon.

anyway, plenty of companies are still renewing their EA and Select and MOV agreements, whether they truly need all the features or not. remember, you get a lot more than free upgrades w/ SA.

my $.02

Re:Let's define HOW it is "easier".

[Vancorps]

I'm not sure, is this a troll? If so, well done sir!

If not you clearly don't know how Microsoft licensing works. You don't keep or maintain proof you own anything. It's all registered through Elicensing on Microsoft's own site. If you buy from vendor A they put in the paperwork with Microsoft and send you a copy so that you can authenticate through the licensing site. From there you can download any licensed product and you have a full inventory of all licensing you have purchased all in one place, serialized, and even commented.

Also, if you're a VL purchaser then you aren't activating Windows anyway as VL Windows XP at least doesn't require activation. With Vista there are a whole myriad of other options available even if they are more of a pain than with XP but don't kid yourself, there are a lot of options.

As for compliance checking, that is easily accomplished with an on-sight database. Hell, make it a Debian box running mysql. A simple login script can query all the installed applications and write all the information into a central inventory. Alternatively you can use Microsoft products for compliance monitoring such as Operations Manager and Systems Management Server if you have the money for such products.

Naturally there are plenty of open source compliance systems out there as well that make it perfectly easy to make sure you're not only in compliance with Microsoft but also Adobe and any other big software maker out there.

I would be curious about the number of businesses the BSA has investigated that have an existing VL agreement with Microsoft. I don't think it's ever happened although I recognize that it could happen so I guess it doesn't make any difference.

At any rate, genuine media is only a problem with Microsoft's retail products. OEM and VL products have different keys are difficult and/or pointless to fake in the case of a VL product since you can download the media yourself from the Eopen site.

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?