3.) But the big thing is what happens when a product becomes unsupported? Does the program up and quit and force an upgrade, possibly bring a screeching halt to whatever business process you working on at the time? Does the program send off a little message so the marketing drones relentlessly pound on my phone line, reminding me to renew? Are all my data files locked out?
In this case, at least, nothing. The subscription is only for version upgrade rights ("Software Assurance") for their volume-licensed products, and the base licenses themselves are still good in perpetuity. For example, if you buy a Windows 2000 Server license under a volume-license program, you're entitled to run that copy of Windows 2000 Server forever, whether you sign up for Software Assurance or not.
At first glance, the Software Assurance program appears similar to the yearly "upgrade protection" fees a lot of software companies sell now, but a the key difference is that Microsoft has completely eliminated the concept of a separate "upgrade license" for their volume-licensed software.
If you want the latest version of the volume-licensed Microsoft software you've purchased after you make the initial purchase, you either: a) have to have faithfully paid the recurring Software Assurance fees since the initial purchase, or b) buy a new license at full price for the new version. Now, if your company can say with confidence, today, that for the next ten years they'll be using the same Microsoft products they do now and will upgrade them on a regular schedule, even if they skip a version or two sometimes, your company will probably save some scratch by purchasing and staying current with Software Assurance.
This is exactly why Microsoft wants to make you pay for upgrade protection on a recurring basis, rather than simply institute a subscription for a basic usage license. With Software Assurance, they get the money up front, essentially making their customers pay for their new products before they're delivered, before they're even developed. At least with a usage license subscription, if you decide you don't want to use the product anymore, and want to switch to something else, you simply stop paying the subscription and put the new product in place. With Software Assurance, Microsoft initially doesn't care if you quit without using the latest version; you've already paid for it whether you use it or not! Granted, you got a slight discount compared to a new license at full cost, but what do they care if they've already got 75% to 90% of that license price without having to give you anything you're going to use? And since corporations don't generally like paying for things they don't use, many IT managers will feel compelled to stick with Microsoft so that they don't show a negative return on their investment.
Under both scenarios (a usage subscription and an upgrade subscription), Microsoft would obviously like to keep you as a customer, but under the current Software Assurance program, they make more money up front (the all-important cash flow factor) and provide a greater financial incentive for people to continue using their products once they've started down the Software Assurance road.
The ADK vulnerability was not a backdoor, it was a difficult-if-not-impossible to exploit bug, and it only potentially affected those users who actually employed ADK. The bug has been fixed, and the source code for PGP is, as always, still freely available for anyone to review. In fact, that's how the bug was found. The open source model worked; where's the problem?
Slashdot Mirror
3.) But the big thing is what happens when a product becomes unsupported? Does the program up and quit and force an upgrade, possibly bring a screeching halt to whatever business process you working on at the time? Does the program send off a little message so the marketing drones relentlessly pound on my phone line, reminding me to renew? Are all my data files locked out?
In this case, at least, nothing. The subscription is only for version upgrade rights ("Software Assurance") for their volume-licensed products, and the base licenses themselves are still good in perpetuity. For example, if you buy a Windows 2000 Server license under a volume-license program, you're entitled to run that copy of Windows 2000 Server forever, whether you sign up for Software Assurance or not.
At first glance, the Software Assurance program appears similar to the yearly "upgrade protection" fees a lot of software companies sell now, but a the key difference is that Microsoft has completely eliminated the concept of a separate "upgrade license" for their volume-licensed software.
If you want the latest version of the volume-licensed Microsoft software you've purchased after you make the initial purchase, you either: a) have to have faithfully paid the recurring Software Assurance fees since the initial purchase, or b) buy a new license at full price for the new version. Now, if your company can say with confidence, today, that for the next ten years they'll be using the same Microsoft products they do now and will upgrade them on a regular schedule, even if they skip a version or two sometimes, your company will probably save some scratch by purchasing and staying current with Software Assurance.
This is exactly why Microsoft wants to make you pay for upgrade protection on a recurring basis, rather than simply institute a subscription for a basic usage license. With Software Assurance, they get the money up front, essentially making their customers pay for their new products before they're delivered, before they're even developed. At least with a usage license subscription, if you decide you don't want to use the product anymore, and want to switch to something else, you simply stop paying the subscription and put the new product in place. With Software Assurance, Microsoft initially doesn't care if you quit without using the latest version; you've already paid for it whether you use it or not! Granted, you got a slight discount compared to a new license at full cost, but what do they care if they've already got 75% to 90% of that license price without having to give you anything you're going to use? And since corporations don't generally like paying for things they don't use, many IT managers will feel compelled to stick with Microsoft so that they don't show a negative return on their investment.
Under both scenarios (a usage subscription and an upgrade subscription), Microsoft would obviously like to keep you as a customer, but under the current Software Assurance program, they make more money up front (the all-important cash flow factor) and provide a greater financial incentive for people to continue using their products once they've started down the Software Assurance road.
The ADK vulnerability was not a backdoor, it was a difficult-if-not-impossible to exploit bug, and it only potentially affected those users who actually employed ADK. The bug has been fixed, and the source code for PGP is, as always, still freely available for anyone to review. In fact, that's how the bug was found. The open source model worked; where's the problem?