I agree entirely with your point. This article is a load of unfounded FUD.
However, I don't quite see the logic in your point that, if you have a small number of systems and you decide to upgrade to avoid the cost of the $4000 patch, this is good for Microsoft as it's extra revenue. By definition, avoiding the $4000 cost and upgrading systems for a total cost less than $4000 constitutes less revenue for Microsoft (since you went for the cheaper option of upgrading) assuming you require the DST patch (if you don't, this issue wouldn't cause you to upgrade). Furthermore, by upgrading one might argue Microsoft are losing further revenue since they must now provide free support to you rather than paid-for support (and you paid less to upgrade than to buy the patch). Of course, this could be mitigated by the fact that by upgrading you are staying with Microsoft and will probably buy other products in the future.
Once again, I agree with your point that Microsoft can do this entirely legitimately (and I do not believe anyone in a corporate setting would wish to deny a company the right to charge for updates to products outside of an agreed contract). Just nitpicking...
Slashdot Mirror
I agree entirely with your point. This article is a load of unfounded FUD.
However, I don't quite see the logic in your point that, if you have a small number of systems and you decide to upgrade to avoid the cost of the $4000 patch, this is good for Microsoft as it's extra revenue. By definition, avoiding the $4000 cost and upgrading systems for a total cost less than $4000 constitutes less revenue for Microsoft (since you went for the cheaper option of upgrading) assuming you require the DST patch (if you don't, this issue wouldn't cause you to upgrade). Furthermore, by upgrading one might argue Microsoft are losing further revenue since they must now provide free support to you rather than paid-for support (and you paid less to upgrade than to buy the patch). Of course, this could be mitigated by the fact that by upgrading you are staying with Microsoft and will probably buy other products in the future.
Once again, I agree with your point that Microsoft can do this entirely legitimately (and I do not believe anyone in a corporate setting would wish to deny a company the right to charge for updates to products outside of an agreed contract). Just nitpicking...
What's the point of speakers if they're always muted? That's like having a girlfriend and never shagging her.