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.""

Comments

Absolutly

[afidel]

We take advantage of MSDN, it's MUCH cheaper to pay for MSDN subscriptions for our technical staff then it is to pay for ~2/3rd's of our environment (Dev+Test). It's also nice to use Windows Datacenter licenses to pay for an entire stack of VM's.

Re:Absolutly

[POTSandPANS]

So what you are saying is that licensing is not that complicated if you have a bunch of cash to throw around?

Re:Absolutly

[afidel]

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.

Obligatory Open Source comment

[jo42]

customers have a way of figuring out how to pay the least amount of cash possible to use Microsoft's software

Yes. It's "Format C:" followed by installing some flavor of Linux and Open Office.

Re:Obligatory Open Source comment

[eln]

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.

This is a non-issue for Microsoft's Customers

[mpapet]

I'll give you a hint, their customers are not the admins who actually have to comprehend and create policy/procedure to abide by License terms. They have two primary customers.
1. The retail consumer who doesn't read EULA's and willfully violates them.
2. The purchasing manager/executive class.

Sysadmins aren't on that list.

Moreover, Mr. Ballmer is giving the implicit nod to violate the terms of the license agreements. Guess who loses on that deal? The sysadmin!

Re:MS licensing is very simple...

[Anonymous Coward]

buy it and you're fucked.

The polar opposite of FOSS; don't buy it and don't get fucked :)

Ballmer: "We're not saints"

[blind biker]

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.

5 Simple rules of Microsoft licensing

[jd2112]

Rule 1: You are out of compliance.
Rule 2; If you have reviewed your licenses and purchased additional licenses to cover any license shortages (plus additional licenses just to be safe), See rule #1.
Rule 3: If you think you understand Microsoft license agreemenents, you are either delirious or just not paying attention.
Rule 4: If you are a lawyer for Microsoft in charge of writing license agreements, see rule #3.
Rule 5: See rule #1.

Re:Absolutely

[Anonymous Coward]

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.