Slashdot Mirror
Ballmer: Don't Expect Simpler Licensing Soon
nk497 writes "Steve Ballmer has admitted Microsoft's licensing is too complicated and contains too much fine print, but has no plans to change it at the risk of angering shareholders — and even customers who benefit from the confusion. "I'm sure we have fine print we don't need. We're not saints," he said, adding that customers have a way of figuring out how to pay the least amount of cash possible to use Microsoft's software. "Customers always find an approach which pays us less money.""
buy it and you're fucked.
"Customers always find an approach which pays us less money.""
Other than piracy, switching to Mac or Linux I don't know what he means? Sounds like sour grapes. I guess he feels his paycheck should be bigger. It's a wallet not a phallic symbol.
Why the "Format C:" bit? Is the previous step in your money-saving plan "buy a computer with Windows on it"?
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
So what you are saying is that licensing is not that complicated if you have a bunch of cash to throw around?
It looks like most of the article takes small quotes from Ballmer and presumably paraphrases the rest. There aren't a whole lot of quotes form Ballmer himself. And the slashdot summary is even worse. Firstly, he appears to be referring to companies with this quote, not end user customer type peoples (emphasis mine):
But he claimed that the finer details of the licensing system give some companies the opportunity to save money. "Customers always find an approach which pays us less money," he claimed.
Here are some of the *other* quotes from the article that the summary left out.
"Every time you simplify something, you lose something that people used to save money," he added, suggesting that even minor changes to the system could hurt some of its customers.
"The goal is to simplify without a price increase," Ballmer said, adding: "Our shareholders want simplicity without a price decrease."
He added that customers donâ(TM)t want simplicity for the sake of it, claiming that the last time Microsoft tried that route, customer ratings of the firm "plummeted for two years."
Ballmer seems to also be noting that shareholders and customers want two different things: shareholders want Microsoft to charge more and do it more simply, and customers want Microsoft to charge less and do it more simply. Everyone wants it simpler, but simpler+price-decrease and simpler+price-increase are two different things. But don't read what he really said. Just assume he means the worst and let's pretend that one of the largest (the largest?) software companies has a complete idiot in charge and that EVERYONE knows he is an idiot but they keep him there anyway. Or something like that?
Have you ever tried to buy a computer without windows on it?
Uh-huh. They're called "parts." :)
No shit. When was the last time Microsoft did something the customers wanted, instead of forcing them to "take it or leave it". When was the last time any Office application didn't brake file compatibility with previous versions. When was the last time you felt like you actually own a Microsoft software product, and don't have to rent it AND justify yourself every time you need to install it on a new computer? Last time some Microsoft protocol didn't break compatibility with competing, or even older own protocols? I don't know, it feels like forever.
Licensing issues are really just the tip of the iceberg of this Satan's spawn called Microsoft.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
He added that customers don't want simplicity for the sake of it, claiming that the last time Microsoft tried that route, customer ratings of the firm "plummeted" for two years."
Unless Microsoft sees its product as being licenses rather than software (which is entirely possible, now I think of it) this is daft. People have to interact with the software on a daily basis. They only care about licenses when they get in their way... which is more likely to happen if they don't know what they're buying.
I'm not so sure about that. It's getting harder and harder to buy parts and build your own for cheaper than you can get a pre-assembled box. These days, the only reason to build your own is if you want to pick and choose every component for quality, in which case cost is not your primary driver. If you're going for cheap, something pre-assembled from Dell or a similar company is usually cheaper, especially if you consider the value of your time. Even if you value your time at $0/hr, you can still often get a pre-built from Dell cheaper than a comparable build-your-own system.
I've never bought a pre-built system in my life, but I'm seriously considering it now that I'm looking to replace my 4 year old desktop system. It's just not worth the hassle to build your own when it doesn't really save you any money anymore.
Yes it is nice.......... Until you realise that, if you stupidly buy into it, as a development company you are stipulating Microsoft software and licensing as a prerequisite for any deployment or implementation of your work for a customer. You can't use your MSDN licenses there. You will also have to factor that into your quote, budget and costs. Why do you think Microsoft has MSDN? A lot of silly companies who are built around being Microsoft partners and using MSDN have found it tough because Microsoft always takes their cut regardless.
Uh, the vast majority of businesses are just fine paying for MS licenses to run software. There are a few all Linux/Unix shops out there but they are by far in the minority. I know most of the software we buy absolutely dwarfs the cost of the hardware + MS licenses (most of the purchases we've made in the last couple years have been mid 6-figures to 7 figures + equal costs for implementation consultants, the cost of our MS licenses barely breaks into the 6 figure range across all systems). It's a cost of doing business just like any other.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
That would be the subsidized trialware model. If you have plenty of companies paying to have their 30 day trial shit installed on every box, it offsets the cost of Windows, giving the illusion that Windows is free when it's not. Retailers should be forced to provide a Windows refund form with every sale of a new PC, since they refuse to offer the customer the choice of actually buying it without Windows. They should also be forced to list it as a separate item in the pricing, as it's not a requirement to run the PC.....of course doing that would let the whole trialware racket out of the bag too.
Yeah, if you can afford to throw around.. oh, what is it, $10-$12k per developer PER YEAR, then I guess MS licensing is not a problem? (That's the license cost for Visual Studio 2008 with Team Suite and all the trimmings.)
I'm pretty convinced that MS developer licensing is designed to be confusing in order to extract a maximum amount of money. The VAR that I used to work with that did the MS licensing couldn't figure it out, either, until they got an MS specialist on board, and EVEN THEN the MS specialist couldn't figure out what I needed for a small team development environment.
Note to Ballmer: there's a reason why developers don't like to develop for Microsoft products, and it's mostly tied up in the licensing crap. Second note to Ballmer: $12k/year for full VSTS 2008 is retarded. You want cool Microsoft software, lower the price down to about $250.
Just like any other business or government body, the lowest bidder gets the contract. When the P4 came out, Dell stopped making good quality PC's and focused more on low bidder parts fulfillment.
Being a spelling & grammar Nazi is a sign you do not poses the intelligence to contribute to the conversation
"Customers always find an approach which pays us less money." If that were true, wouldn't all of Microsoft's customers already be using Linux? (They still use Microsoft because they believe the costs of rewriting applications and retraining users exceed the cost of licensing the latest releases from Redmond.) I'm not even sure that customers even do a decent job of calculating Total Cost of Ownership, since they frequently neglect the potential cost of security holes, as well as the cost of not saving copies of all your licenses and then getting a visit from the BSA.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Stockholders tend to not care about 10 years down the road. They want their money now. If you are in MS shoes and you are being pressured to return to prior levels of financial growth despite being squeezed by Apple, Google, Linux etc., then the easy way out is to squeeze more licensing fees out of existing customers who's tool stack is based around MS products. They almost *have to* pay. The downside is that resentment is building which will start to bite back down the road. They ran out of logs and are now burning strips of cabin.
Table-ized A.I.
We bring in $100+M/ quarter, if we can make the business even slightly more efficient a couple million dollar project easily sees a positive ROI. You just have to do your due diligence and not take on projects that are unlikely to have a positive impact on the business. If you are spending money without justification then of course it can be a problem for the business, but then you're not really doing your job, are you? IT is a tool, not a goal or an end unto itself.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Comments similar to yours from our competitors bring nothing but cheer to my heart. Fortunately for our shop, Free software meets our needs practically from top to bottom. Not only does it meet our needs but it exceeds them in ways Microsoft can't. Not just in pricing but in functionality and flexibility. The interesting thing is, most or our competitors' infrastructures could be ran similarly but through a combination of sheer ignorance and the inability to ween themselves from the MS teet, they continue to needlessly spend millions on restrictive licenses while we invest the same money in things that actually add to the bottom line and help us grow. Consequently, in the recent economic downturn, we've thrived while some people I used to know in this business have just flat out gone under.
Not saying that Free software is for everybody because it isn't. You must have actual competent IT staff to wring the every last bit of value of it. A crew of MCSE's aren't going to cut it. We, with the help of a certain hire several years ago, saw the light and changed from being a complete MS shop over to Free software with very little problems. And it either meets your needs or not. But I'd be willing to bet that just about any outfit has some slack and could stand to save a few bucks on licenses somewhere.