Microsoft Shoots Own Foot In Iceland

David Gerard writes "The Microsoft Certified Partner model is: an MCP buys contracts from Microsoft and sells them to businesses as a three-year timed contract, payable in annual installments. Iceland's economy has collapsed, so 1500 businesses have gone bankrupt and aren't paying the fees any more. But Microsoft has told the MCPs: 'Our deal was with you, not them. Pay up.' The MCPs that don't go bankrupt in turn are moving headlong to Free Software, taking most of the country with them. (Warning: link contains strong language and vivid imagery.)"

Comments

Screw this

[Anonymous Coward]

You know what, I'm not even going to bother clicking on a link composed of obscenities, even if it is about Microsoft making another PR blunder.

I'd like some anti-Microsoft news that at least appears reputable, and not overly sensationalized "ZOMG Balmer blew up M$ eats babies" crap like the stuff I've seen here for the past few weeks.

Give me something to read, please, not something designed to assimilate me into another angry mob.

Re:Screw this

[Timothy Brownawell]

I'd like some anti-Microsoft news that at least appears reputable, and not overly sensationalized "ZOMG Balmer blew up M$ eats babies" crap like the stuff I've seen here for the past few weeks.

You're new around here, aren't you?

Or more likely, been around long enough to get tired of all the childish crap and instead want sane discussions about what happened and sane arguments over what to do about it.

Re:Screw this

[von_rick]

Aw come on now. If you call this childish, what would you say to that Cat Agreeing to an EULA story that got nearly 1000 replies. Internet forums aren't the top priority for anyone seeking highly intellectual arguments or discussions.

Re:Screw this

[hairyfeet]

Oh, it is worse than that, as this article should have in giant letters at the top "WRITTEN BY A TOTAL ZEALOT!!!" in giant red letters, so those of us who would actually care about the facts wouldn't bother. if you want to write about how MSFT is stupid for screwing their partners in a meltdown? Right there with you. Ditto if you want to argue that the money would be better off staying in country. But when you put out crap like this:

"The easiest switch would be to go to OpenOffice.org from Microsoft Office. This switch is easy because not only is OpenOffice.org superior software in every respect, it's also feature-compatible with Microsoft Office, supports reading and writing of Microsoft's file formats - even the ones that Microsoft Office itself no longer supports - and is free to boot, both free as in freedom and free as in price. The only important difference is that OpenOffice.org doesn't support all of Microsoft Office's weird macros, and it doesn't come with a drop-in replacement for Microsoft Access, the only database software on the planet that's better at printing mail-merged stickers than it is at storing data."

I'm afraid you have reached beyond the red line of the BS meter. OO.o is just fine for home users that are only writing letters and occasionally making a little speadsheet. But for business? I'm sorry but Calc is no way in hell comparable to Excel, and there are simply way too damned many businesses that live and breathe in Excel for this to be even a remotely viable solution. I've tried giving OO.o to SMBs for evaluation. Most have positive reviews UNTIL they get to Calc. If he wanted to suggest that businesses just take the hit(and probably a huge cost in rewriting a shitload of spreadsheets) that is one thing, but saying OO.o is "superior software in every respect" to anyone who has used Excel is simply spreading the BS a little thick.

And his BS just gets thicker from there. While I enjoy the occasional rant, especially if the writer is even remotely funny(this guy ain't) does a guy basically writing "MSFT is mean and sucks donkey nuts and teh Linux is teh rulez!" really deserve a place on Slashdot? This thing reads worse than a Twitter sockpuppet rant.

Re:Screw this

[Jurily]

this article should have in giant letters at the top "WRITTEN BY A TOTAL ZEALOT!!!" in giant red letters, so those of us who would actually care about the facts wouldn't bother.

We already have that.

Posted by kdawson

Re:Screw this

[syousef]

Aw come on now. If you call this childish, what would you say to that Cat Agreeing to an EULA story that got nearly 1000 replies.

At least that story was kinda funny in a perverse way. The thought of someone taking legalese nonsense and trying to respond with their own nonsense sticks it to the legal profession and pokes fun at the corporations trying to control software this way. The only thing that makes it kinda sad is that it went beyond a joke and is wasting real life legal resources.

Today's story on the other hand isn't humorous. It's just a childish profane rant demanding a megacorp give away their sofware.

Re:Screw this

[Tenebrousedge]

Software was originally given away freely. It's important to remember that.

Closed-source and/or for-profit software also has its place, but Microsoft might do well to (again) imitate Apple.

Also, in today's existence, it's difficult to not carry some measure of anger against the 'megacorp'. What have they touched that is not tarnished? What have they given us that is not tainted? Men have always harmed other men in pursuit of their own self-interest, but never is this more soul-less or harsh than when the ultimate goal of the organization is Profit.

Re:Screw this

[jmorris42]

> Yeah, the world would be such a happy fucking place without corporations.

I'm a Reagan conservative when I'm not all the way out in Ayn Rand territory. And I'm starting to think the corporation, at least as we know it, is a mistake. As soon as the founder is gone some clueless twit with an MBA is given control over billions in capital without any clue how capital is made or grown, no responsibility if (usually when) he fails or commits a major ethical lapse and a golden parachute when he screws the place up so bad it becomes takeover fodder. Stockholders have no moral hazzard other than their financial stake, which is often traded purely on such a short term horizon that the corporation is forced, even if the CEO isn't an idiot, to do stupid short sighted things.

The public chartered corporation once served a purpose in that it allowed huge capital intensive projects to be undertaken in the nominally private sector. There is still a need for something that serves that purpose but the rules need to be adjusted such that only such big infrastructure projects will be attractive investments.

This seems strangely familiar

[cstec]

"Hey, I only joined the military for the free college tuition. I never said anything about shooting people!"

These MCP's were all happy to sign up, resell MS's products and take their cut for doing almost nothing. Now they're not selling and they don't want to pay their bill? Puh-lese. The cheese section is apparently in Iceland, along with the whine.

Re:This seems strangely familiar

[jschen]

Microsoft's customer in this case is the MCP. Unless the MCP goes bankrupt and the contract gets voided (assuming things work similarly in Iceland as in the US), why shouldn't Microsoft be demanding payment? Whether or not the MCP has a good use for the contract isn't Microsoft's problem.

Re:This seems strangely familiar

[Renraku]

I'm sure they'd all like to be paying their bills, but when you set up a fiscal triage line, how important do you think payments to a multi-billion dollar corporation that sells software is going to be compared to say, keeping the lights on and paying the employees?

This is actually quite common in business. Just like how you or I would pay for electricity and food over our credit card bills if we wanted to survive.

Re:This seems strangely familiar

[jschen]

Where's the line between Force Majeure and simply a regrettable business decision? Globally, lots of people in all walks of life are suffering from their decisions (whether sound at the time or not) made during better times that are haunting them in these rough economic times. What about this situation is unique to the MCP? How would the situation look if we allowed people across the board to declare Force Majeure?

As for no salesmen = no sales, it's commonly accepted that Microsoft is a de facto monopoly. If we take that to be true, then there may not be much cost to MS in hanging the MCPs out to dry. The MCP's customer still needs the MS product, and a new MCP undoubtedly will fill in the void when times get better.

Re:This seems strangely familiar

[Creepy Crawler]

The country controls their own court system.

A company that's hostile to all companies in your country is probably not going to do well, regardless who is or is not right.

And it all comes down to: Honor contracts to a foreign company with a failing financial market, or ignore contract disputes and switch to Linux and FOSS.

Re:This seems strangely familiar

[Nefarious Wheel]

Pity they couldn't simply return the unsold goods.

Oh, wait...

Re:This seems strangely familiar

[Nefarious Wheel]

As for no salesmen = no sales, it's commonly accepted that Microsoft is a de facto monopoly. If we take that to be true, then there may not be much cost to MS in hanging the MCPs out to dry. The MCP's customer still needs the MS product, and a new MCP undoubtedly will fill in the void when times get better.

Exactly correct. Whereas there is an effective water monopoly in place as a supplier, resellers are infinitely replaceable. One man goes to the wall, another will take their place. No martyrs, only failures.

Re:This seems strangely familiar

[cailith1970]

This remark is particularly insightful, IMHO. However, the goods WERE sold. The question is more along the lines of "why can't they simply repossess them?"

THEN you get to the "Oh, wait..." :)

Re:This seems strangely familiar

[Arker]

You have a point. Clearly MS is within their rights in terms of the contracts.

However a wise businessman in their position would be willing to "work with" their "partners" under such circumstances. Sticking to their rights here will blow up in their face, and cost them in the long run.

Which is really a good thing, anyway, both for Iceland and the world, if it results in increased Free Software awareness, usage, and development.

Re:This seems strangely familiar

[Anonymous Coward]

Durh. I guess its better to divorce your wife if she has a headache and won't have sex tonight, instead of being gentle and considerate and waiting until tomorrow for the sex.

Re:This seems strangely familiar

[Mistlefoot]

So Ford leases company A cars. Company A leases them out to end users. The end users go bankrupt and have no need for the cars. Ford forbids company A from for releasing the cars to anyone else as the agreements indicate that the leases are not transferable. Company A says - Ford is telling me that I cannot transfer these cars to anyone else - that Ford is enforcing the agreement that Ford made with the end user - Then Ford can deal with the bankrupt end user. If the agreement is between company A and the end user then they can transfer the licenses and sell them in say, England, or Canada or the US. But per Ford the agreement for money is between Ford and company A and the agreement with what can be done with the car is between is between Ford and the End user. That it's software and not a car doesn't make this correct.

Re:Article text here.

[sstrick]

Quote "The easiest switch would be to go to OpenOffice.org from Microsoft Office. This switch is easy because not only is OpenOffice.org superior software in every respect ...".

Looks like a nice impartial artice.

Wait, what?

[Sinbios]

The MCPs that don't go bankrupt in turn are moving headlong to Free Software

Software resellers are moving headlong to Free Software? What is their business model supposed to be?

I'm going to assume this line is trying to say "The MCPs that don't go bankrupt in turn are going to bankrupt themselves for the Free Software cause, for no particular reason".

Re:Wait, what?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

TFA specifically mentioned that MS licences were, historically, loss leaders that the MCPs used to drive service/support sales. Presumably, FOSS will be the (smaller) loss leader instead, with the added perk of not being locked into any contract.

TFA isn't a masterpiece of unbiased discourse; but that part is fairly clear.

Re:Wait, what?

[Hooya]

From what I gathered from the article, most MCPs were selling licenses at a loss anyhow since that is how they could compete with the other MCPs - all with the hope that they could make that up in support contracts.

If that's true, then they were starting with a loss - and sold support.

Why not start at $0 and sell support?

I feel so sad for these poor MCPs... NOT!

[Anonymous Coward]

So let me get this straight; several MCPs in Iceland decided to dance with the devil, buying three-year software contracts from Microsoft for Office and some other applications. After purchasing said contracts directly from Microsoft, these MCP then turned around and sold the same contracts to other companies in Iceland, charging an annual fee to those companies while, I imagine, paying Microsoft on some type of installment plan. Now, when the economy tanks and the folks who paid last year aren't around this year when the bill comes due, these MCPs are surprised, shocked if you will, that Microsoft wants them to pay for the contracts they purchased directly from Microsoft? Truly, am I missing something here?

It doesn't take even a back-of-the-envelope calculation to see that, if you buy a three year contract from vender 'A' and sell it with an annual maintenance fee to customer 'B', you have in fact become a creditor for customer 'B'. It should therefore come as no surprise to these MCPs that, yes, Microsoft really does want them to pay for the contracts they purchased from Microsoft. I can't imagine anyone at Microsoft stuck a gun to their heads and said, "Sell Microsoft software contracts or die." If you dance with the devil, and willingly did business with Microsoft, than you'd better be prepared to pay for the software contracts you purchased from the company.

Perhaps I'm just not enough of a Microsoft-hater, but I fail to see the 'skull fucking' here. What I do see is an angry rant from, I assume, someone who's likely receiving calls from bill collectors in Redmond. I'm sorry that MCP thing didn't work out for you, and if you want to switch from plugging Microsoft products to promoting Open Source Software, than more power to you. But please don't ask me to overlook the poor business decision you made in becoming a de-facto creditor to your customers. If you don't like the way Microsoft does business in Iceland, you don't have to join their game. Take your marbles and go play in some other park with rules more suitable to your taste.

Re:Or I will gouge out your eyeballs...

[FearForWings]

BSOD and skull fucking I can deal with but why didn't anyone tell me I could get an STD from Microsoft.
But seriously what the fuck is with the link: ../microsoft-skull-fucks-icelands-economy-contracts-syphilis/ How is any page with this kind of name even remotely legitimate news.

Re:Just so you know what you missed

[Jurily]

I particularly liked the part about how, unless Microsoft permanently reduces the cost of all their software to zero it's an attack on Icelands sovereignty.

It's not, however it's a good reminder not to rely on foreign companies too much.

As retarded as he sounds writing that, he might have a point: If they can't pay, they're likely to migrate to free alternatives.

Uhmmm.

[Evil Shabazz]

Certainly I'm no expert in Icelandic contract law, but frankly, why is this any different than any other form of reseller?

If I am a local grocer (the MCP) in a town, and I have just bought 10 tons of corn from the local farm (Microsoft) on agreement to pay for the corn over the next 3 years, but then suddenly all the area folks (other local businesses) cannot afford to buy corn from me anymore - what kind of nonsense suddenly absolves me of having to pay for the corn?

Sure, maybe Microsoft could be doing more negotiating on the contracts to help keep people in business - but guess what? They're a business too. Just because you don't like them doesn't make their contracts any less valid. Just because it's software and not a commodity doesn't make the contracts any less valid. If you take on the risk (the agreement to pay over 3 years, assuming you have revenue to pay for those 3 years), and your risk goes sour - you damned well better have to eat your sour grapes.

Incidentally, that's what is wrong with the bailouts in the US - the US goverment - ie, G W "Idiotboy" Bush and his Republican cronies told all the Wall Street CEOs - take on all the risk you want with other peoples' money, we got your back if it goes bad.