Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft 'Open Value Subscription' is None of the Above
daveofdoom writes "This week Microsoft launched an SMB program that contains the words 'open', 'value' and 'subscription', none of which are common to Microsoft products, culture, or marketing. Digging in a bit I found myself confused not only by what the program portends to be but why it would be called 'Open Value Subscription' unless they were hoping to leverage buzzwords and concepts related to open source and SaaS (software as a service). It's such lame and dishonest branding the marketing group should be ashamed."
It's such lame and dishonest branding the marketing group should be ashamed.
I'm sure they will be ashamed all the way to the bank. Let's face it, Microsoft marketing does these things because they work, as proven by Microsoft's success.
That's so lame. If they actually leased the software, there'd be a potential tax advantage for the buyer. But no...
...wouldn't be ashamed labeling sulfuric acid "delicious baby formula." You're barking up the wrong tree with that one.
I mean, proud.
Seriously, what is a marketing department for, if not to bamboozle people into buying your product who otherwise would not do so?
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Windows Genuine Advantage! Because the advantage it brings is genuine and is most definitely not anything like false advertising.
that this was to be tied somehow to F/OSS-like models.
From what I read on the MSDN site, there is no reference to any type of development, but more of a partner services sale structure.
It appears Dave Rosenberg is forcing a nefarious connection to support a column he wrote back in the summer of 2006.
If we don't fight for ourselves no one will.
Honestly, learn to read. Just because they use the word Open in the title doesn't mean it's OSS.
It doesn't pretend to be open source, it doesn't mention open source anywhere in the press release. It's a licensing model for resellers.
Consider this case. Say you're a company that needs to invest in 200 copies of a high-end piece of software that costs $5000 a seat. You're now looking down the mouth of a $1,000,000 bill that needs to be paid off in 30 days. This can be upsetting to your accounting folks. Now consider the lease option. Microsoft basically lets you finance your software licenses at a cost of something on the order of $10,000 a month, which is much more palatable for your accountants to manage throughout the year. Best part is, if you hire an additional 50 workers, you can just bump up the lease instead of paying out another increment of $250k.
Also, sometimes leasing things works out more favorably than owning in accounting.
This type of licensing makes no sense for personal use or small quantities of licenses, but on a large scale, there are potential benefits for customers over paying the full price up front.
If every lame and dishonest practice of marketing groups were to be published on
This isn't news for nerds. This isn't stuff that matters. Total nitwits are paid to come up with this crap, imho it doesn't deserve any additional coverage.
This sig is intentionally left blank
The summary uses the acronym "SMB", which is used in TFA...At no point does anyone define this term or give enough contextual clues for it to be obvious...it must mean "small and medium business"...
I agree with your points and the lack of defining what SMB means had me perplexed as well. I usually associate SMB with the Samba project (server message block). The problem is that the submitter and the author of the original article are both techno-dweebs. They therefore assume that everyone is clairvoyant, knows everything that they know and are capable of reading their minds. In a perfect world, Slashdot would've rejected the submission for failing to clarify what "SMB" means.
My God, you act as if Microsoft invented this. Auto dealers talk about "open pricing options." Real estate agents hold "open houses" all the time -- but guess what, you can't just stay there for free! Seriously, some days it's like a frickin' nursery around here. Adjust your diapers and move on.
Breakfast served all day!
In this case, I think "Open" has more to do with the "open pricing options" than "Open Source Software." That would make a lot more sense, given that Microsoft already has other "Open Licensing" plans than any attempt at undermining "Open Source."
My Sysadmin Blog
This whole article is summarizing Microsoft Launching it's Open Value Subscription in the US and in Canada.
According to some of my own research, in which I went to the following websites:
http://blogs.msdn.com/mssmallbiz/archive/2008/01/01/6933535.aspx
http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/programs/open/openvalue.mspx (note, this site is confusing.)
http://www.sellsoft.ie/microsoft_osl.html (much better description, but third party site)
I found out that the whole Open Value Subscription program is essentially a third option for those seeking to purchase site licenses for Microsoft Software. This option would allow you to run Microsoft software for a three year period, after which you have three options:
1) Discontinue use of the software
2) Renew the subscription for three more years
3) Purchase the license outright (a.k.a. buy the right to run the software on a permanent basis on your computers.)
At first glance, this looks all fine to me. However, the only thing I'm worried about is what conditions might come with the license... will Microsoft attempt to force organizations to upgrade in order to renew their subscriptions? (This would be a great way to force businesses to switch to Office 2007/Vista...)