Slashdot Mirror
Software Audits: How High-Tech Software Vendors Play Hardball (infoworld.com)
snydeq writes: InfoWorld's Dan Tynan offers an inside look at how high-tech software vendors such as Adobe, Oracle, and IBM play hardball over software licensing, pushing customers to "true up" to the tune of billions of dollars per year -- and using the threat of audits as a sales tool to close lucrative deals. "When it comes to software audits, the code of omerta prevails," Tynan writes. "It's not a question of whether your organizations' software licenses will get audited. It's only a question of when, how often, and how painful the audits will be. The shakedown is such a sure thing that nearly every customer we contacted asked us to keep their names out of this story, lest it make their employers a target for future audits."
In the Microsoft licensing scheme you have to pay both device CAL's and user CAL's. So for each device you buy a device CAL and per user you pay for a user CAL. Server's also have to pay per processor (which is a toss-up between physical processor, core and thread depending on product and vendor or a combination of them).
I'm glad that Microsoft simplified their licensing at last.
The most dangerous drug
The only audit I ever ran into came from Adobe, and it was for some product that I had signed off on the requisition for someone who ended up never using it anyway, but it was still my job to track down the original P.O. Not a huge deal, but it was a waste of a few hours along with accompanying anxiety. My solution to prevent a recurrence in the future: I will never approve a requisition for any product from Adobe ever again.
In my distant past I was the guy who would made Oracle things happen for clients. But as I got more and more into dealing with clients I realized that Oracle is just a mean thing to do to people. One interesting part of the Oracle sales process seems to be to delay giving a final price. This way the project is well underway or even done before you present the client with some sticker-shock.
Then there were the prices themselves. I deployed quite a number of systems and could never predict the price. Would it be $30,000 or $300,000.
Then there were the end runs. Once Oracle got ahold of your client they were perfectly happy to see you swapped out and replaced with another consultancy who would slather the entire client with Oracle products. It was bordering on Oracle Doorbell for all your ding-dong needs.
There is no way I would ever use a solution that results in a company like that able to mess with my clients. No Microsoft, no Oracle, no IBM, or SAP.
My favourite is when I have a client who is in the process of throwing them out and they ask, "What will it cost to licence MariaDB." Then when they ask, "Can it handle our Enterprise database?" I will say, "Your $400,000 system has 40,000 rows of data in it. A $25 raspberry Pi could handle your needs." Then they ask about per seat licensing costs. "None." At this point I can see them fishing around in their heads for how they are going to be screwed; suddenly it dawns on them that the screwing is now over. They then go through a list of features that they have built up over time but couldn't afford. When they get the quote for those they pretty much throw up in disgust at how badly they had been treated over the years.
When they put it all together they realise that their previous consultant hadn't been working for them but effectively for a company like Oracle.
It has been over a decade since I dumped everything Oracle and will never go back.
Four years ago I was sent some audit paperwork (Microsoft SAM) as part of a shakedown with the excuse that the business I work for bought an NT server licence and 10 CAL licences in 1998. That was the last licence purchase from MS apart from OEM licence since the place was a *nix shop and moved to SAMBA around 2000 (no point having a single MS server - should have at least a backup domain controller anyway since MS server is so fragile). So in 2012, FOURTEEN YEARS after buying licences the vultures turned up.
I took a look at it, it had dozens of pages of things unrelated to the actual licences including questions about the number of android, mac and linux devices. I decided that it was a very offensive fishing expedition and marketing exercise and that I had no desire to ever be in the situation where they could legally inflict this upon me. so I told them the licences were not current and not in use so I was not their customer - several times, and eventually they stopped contacting me.
It was a whole lot more than just sending them details of current licences (of which I had none) and clearly was designed as a combination of shakedown and very intrusive marketing information aquisition.
So it's not just about satisfying them that you have current licences, they want to know about what else you have from other vendors, number of employees, company income etc which is none of their business.