Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Choosing Microsoft Products May Cost 10-40% More

Posted by timothy on Sun Oct 19, 2003 03:37 PM
from the more-than-what-is-the-question dept.
Microsoft Businesses The Almighty Buck
securitas writes "Jupiter Research has issued a report that says businesses that choose to stay with Microsoft products may end up paying anywhere from 10%-40% more than if they chose another solution. Software Assurance clients will see the lowest costs and SA-have-nots will see the highest costs. The rationale is that Microsoft's strategy of integrating server and client software, as it has done with the new Windows Server 2003 and Microsoft Office 2003 suite, will force costly upgrades and licenses. Ultimately the goal is to transform Office into a platform instead of a collection of applications. Analyst Joe Wilcox says, "Microsoft argues that increased integration will cut down ongoing costs, maintenance and what not, but whether that will be the case has yet to be seen. The increased acquisition costs, though, are pretty clear." This leaves the door open for other office suites like Corel WordPerfect, Sun StarOffice and OpenOffice. More on costs and integration at Jupiter/Wilcox's Microsoft Monitor Blog."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Choosing Microsoft Products May Cost 10-40% More 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • No surprises here (Score:4, Insightful)

    by henrygb (668225) on Sunday October 19 2003, @03:43PM (#7255790)
    1. Microsoft raises licence prices
    2. Consumers who use Microsoft have to pay more

    The logic is impressive.

  • Choosing Microsoft Products May Cost 10-40% More

    Really. Did they figure that one out themselves or do they have a team of monkeys working on this around the clock?
    • I would bet a team of 1000 monkeys on 1000 calculators figured it out. It's a pretty good team. They did my taxes last year. The IRS didn't penalize me as much as they did last year.
    • Did they figure that one out themselves or do they have a team of monkeys working on this around the clock?

      Normally I wouldn't bring this up but if you're going to put a copyright notice in your sig you should credit where the above came from.

      Kevin Spacey...The Usual Suspects....
      • No....

        Kevin Pollak (Todd Hockney) said it.

        I can put you in Queens on the night of the robbery.
        Really. I live in Queens. Did you figure that out yourself or do you have a team of monkeys working on this around the clock?

  • Information on alternatives. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by dripwipeflush (714251) on Sunday October 19 2003, @03:47PM (#7255827)
    FuckMicrosoft.com [fuckmicrosoft.com] has the largest list of Microsoft-alternative software that I have ever seen.
  • There are other costs associated with software than the upfront cost paid. This article does not account for those costs. Second, for those under SA you don't see the big costs of upgrading.

    Costs that come up when switch.
    Testing (QA) on the new product, mainly to help develop some means of support across the organization; ie standards. You also have to determine the best install of the package and how to deliver it. (is it easy to push?)

    Training. Sure it might LOOK like package X. The key is finding the quirks that generate support calls and find solutions.

    Prior investment. If it works, its even cheaper to not upgrade and keep the old stuff.

    • Costs that come up when switch.

      All true, even though staying on one particular version might not be a viable option sometimes. If you use a suite of packages, perhaps you can maintain interoperability only by keeping them all at similar versions. The manufacturer might force you to upgrade some components to a higher version, by dropping support or stopping the release of security patches for older versions. You may find that by being forced to upgrade a few components, you'll be forced to upgrade every

    • Umm, not too long ago, most server systems ran a UNIX flavor. Migrating from an NT-based OS to a UNIX-like or a UNIX flavor wouldn't cost much in that arena. Plus you can get people with 30+ years of experience in UNIX systems... something MS can't compete with.

      Most of your older support staff should be damned familiar with the systems and pick up something like Solaris, AIX, or Linux pretty damn quickly. Now, this doesn't factor in the .com era MCSEs and IT people your company probably hired when it ma
    • Yes, it costs to switch to other products, but that is a perfectly double edged sword. If a new business sets up with Linux desktops running OpenOffice, then it will cost to switch to some MS solution.

      The cost of initially setting up the system is pretty similar for either side really.

      Claims of costs to switch are, largely, irrelevant to a survey about business deciding which system to go with.

      Jedidiah

  • so how much saved by staying put? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by romanval (556418) on Sunday October 19 2003, @03:49PM (#7255842)
    I mean, if you think of software as only needing x amount of functionality in the first place, with little or no noticable productivity gains seen from upgradeing to the next major version, the question will pop up; Why upgrade at all?
  • "means some enterprises may end up paying 10 to 40 percent more" some... may... does not equal "issued a report that says businesses that choose to stay with Microsoft products may end up paying anywhere from 10%-40% more" The research is a little flawed, it makes no comparison of features or the benefits that come with the MS server products (good or bad, the data needs to be there). This is GREAT data for any enterprise that is using it's office suite for word processing... but there are not many of th

  • Shocking!! (Score:4, Funny)

    by Dr. Photo (640363) on Sunday October 19 2003, @03:54PM (#7255872) Journal
    I for one am shocked by these figures.

    10-40% is far too low to be plausible. ;)

  • This leaves the door open for other office suites like Corel WordPerfect, Sun StarOffice and OpenOffice.

    IIRC, MS Office costs anywhere from 2 or 3 times, in the case of WP, to 00 (that should be an infinity, but two zeros side by side is the best I could do) times, in the case of OOo, as much as MS Office. To my recollection, MS Office has always cost lots more than its competitors, but plenty of people still buy it and plenty of people frown at the idea of a "work-alike" or whatever you want to call it. As much as I would like to see Corel, Sun and OOo eat MS's lunch on the office suite (and I think we are approaching that) there is lots of inertia to overcome.

    • Re:Too bad things won't change quickly. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by NanoGator (522640) on Sunday October 19 2003, @04:15PM (#7255981) Homepage Journal
      " To my recollection, MS Office has always cost lots more than its competitors,"

      To be fair, I have yet to see a mail client that does all the stuff that Outlook does. I agree that you have your work-alike people (who probably aren't aware of the extra stuff Outlook can do), but there are also the people who are buying the right tool for the job.

  • Integration cuts costs? (Score:5, Funny)

    by oogoliegoogolie (635356) on Sunday October 19 2003, @03:59PM (#7255894)
    "Microsoft argues that increased integration will cut down ongoing costs, maintenance and what not, but whether that will be the case has yet to be seen...

    Yeah, like how integration of IE into windows OS has cut down on maintenance costs.
  • "Microsoft argues that increased integration will cut down ongoing costs, maintenance and what not, but whether that will be the case has yet to be seen. The increased acquisition costs, though, are pretty clear."

    Perhaps microsoft needs to usurp & change another dictionary word,. like the apparent change of acquisition from a word meaning to aquire ,. as in implied ownership.

    To a new usage defined closer to "toll, some thing paid each and every time used."

    Last time I checked, if you purchased 100 co

  • 10-40% higher than PREVIOUS MS SOLUTIONS (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mcc (14761) <amcclure@purdue.edu> on Sunday October 19 2003, @04:07PM (#7255947) Homepage
    If you look at the actual article, they note that "Wilcox estimates that firms taking Microsoft up on its offer to integrate back-end processes with front-end client software on the desktop may run up tabs 10 to 40 percent higher than with earlier editions of Microsoft's products, depending on the server licenses and client access licenses (CALs) they purchase. "

    That is all. This is not a comparison against Linux, Macintosh or whatever competing Office suites may be left. This is simply an alalysis of how Microsoft's vendor lock-in--- umm, i mean, how the vertical integration of Microsoft's products affects the amount that companies will pay to use those products.

    Isn't it grand how monopolies lower prices for consumers because they're more Efficient? Ahhh.

  • Departmental Savings (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ljavelin (41345) on Sunday October 19 2003, @04:24PM (#7256027)
    I can't speak for my entire organization, but I can speak for my department of 20 people.

    We've made the switch away from Microsoft. About 2/3 of us use RH9; the other 1/3rd use Mac OS X. I'm one of the linux guys.

    In a nutshell, we've managed (with some pain) to completely unload Microsoft. Pretty good, eh?

    Our primary Office products are Open Office and Mozilla (for Web & Email).

    Needless to say, we are an IT-centric organization, so we can take care of ourselves pretty well. In addition, our organization never standardized on the "viral" Microsoft practices, namely "MS-Exchange".

    The savings? Well, for starters, there is the fee for Microsoft Office for 20 people. Plus we were able to get rid of our IT support guy (he was a contractor - we paid about $50k/year for his services - VERY PART TIME).

    That's all pretty substantial $$$ - and it's money that flows right out the door.

    The downside? Well, none really. It was difficult at first - we had a bunch of older docs in Visio and PPT 2000 format and stuff like that.

    Now we have one PC in the office just for Windows.

    It's kind like the old days when you had an unused microfiche machine in the back room.

  • RTA, it compares MS to MS (Score:5, Informative)

    by rockhome (97505) on Sunday October 19 2003, @05:26PM (#7256337) Journal
    The article is not about the cost difference between say Office and Open Office, but between the current pricing and software structure versus the future.

    It would be ludicrous to use this articele as a vehicle to prove the viability of Star Office, say, versus Office. I find the description of this article very misleading. Any new generation/paradigm(is it a paradigm? I'll check Kuhn) can result in a rise in total cost of acquisition or even ownership.

    This applies to any software, free or not. If PHP or HTTP were radically changed, would it not require significant investment to reintegrate old applications? IPv6, while necessary in the lon run will undoubetedly cause an initial cost of migration.

    What are the costs of migrating from office to Open Office? What are the costs of then intregrating Open Office into the organization as tool for scheduling, data sharing, etc.?

  • Manipulating people through footnotes... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by sheldon (2322) on Sunday October 19 2003, @09:23PM (#7257571)
    If anybody needs a clear demonstration of how one can manipulate people by using facts and footnotes, this article is it. Forget about reading Al Franken's book about the right-wing media, this lesson has been adopted all journalists.

    Basically the argument boils down to this...

    If you look at Office 2003 and see all the wonderful features touted, you may have to pay 10-40% more than previous Office products to take full advantage of all the features touted.

    Pay careful attention to that phrase "features touted", as that's the key of this argument. The fact is you don't have to pay for integration if you don't want to use the features. You can continue to use Office with all the existing features it's ever had in a non-integrated fashion and paying about the same.

    In fact this guy isn't even arguing that the competition offers the same features for less. They don't. They just assume you don't want them.

    So somehow Microsoft is being dishonest in touting features of Office because they might involve integrating with extra server products.

    Uhh, whatever.

    I'm intelligent, I can look at products from multiple vendors, find out the system requirements to make the product perform the features they claim, and then add up the total cost.

    This article is more manipulative and deceptive than Microsoft's marketing group.
    • That's assuming they download every single piece of software from the project sites and order no distributions of Linux, etc. from large companies like Red Hat or Mandrake.
    • No, you have to think of the TCO. Support, training, updates, IT staff, time spent, etc...

      No solution is cost free.

      • Re:Choosing Microsoft Products May Cost 10-40% Mor (Score:4, Insightful)

        by b17bmbr (608864) on Sunday October 19 2003, @04:52PM (#7256157)
        first, the training, argument is bullshit. do busineses really sit down and say, "first you take the mouse, move it over the text, push and hold the button, no the left one...". no, you're expected to know how to use a freakin computer. with something like KDE, hell, if some worker drone can't figure it out, they're idiots. one simple email:

        dear worker drones:

        1. My Documents is now /home/drone
        2. you'll be using mozilla instead of IE for the internet. you'll notice the lack of popups.
        3. the big K = start button
        Thanks.

        management.

        p.s. since we have transitioned over to linux, and saved shitloads, we'll be upping the christmas, er, holiday bonus this year.

        sure, there is support options. but look at it this way: if you save money on software licenses, virus attacks, security holes, etc., then you got a few bucks to hire a linux admin. nuff said. it is that easy. businesses just have to be willing to bite the bullet.

        • Re:Choosing Microsoft Products May Cost 10-40% Mor (Score:4, Insightful)

          by ambar1073 (647291) on Sunday October 19 2003, @07:56PM (#7257143)
          do busineses really sit down and say, "first you take the mouse, move it over the text, push and hold the button, no the left one..."

          Hell yes, they do! And it's not because their employees are "stupid" or whatever other moronic arguments you make.

          If you work in IT, then it's obvious that you know something about how to use a computer. Sure, some companies expect some people in some jobs to have computer literacy skills, and usually those skills are on MS Office, or Wordperfect or Lotus 1-2-3. Training and retraining really is expensive. People in, say, accounting or manufacturing know how to do THEIR jobs, not YOURS. They don't spend their days tinkering with computers, they spend it doing a real job for which they get paid real money.

          If you were to take my marketing job, I GUARANTEE you would get your ass handed to you, day in and day out, forever. You don't know how to use a machine tool? You don't know how to close a company's quarterly books? You don't know how the mailroom works? Boy, you must be a complete moron.

          Yes, you're expected to know how to "use a freaking computer". That computer is called an x86 personal computer running Microsoft Windows and Microsoft Office. My marketing job is not valuable unless I know how to use that OS and those applications, and I know how to use them well.

        • I don't understand, I don't have any K on my computer, but I think a cracker got into my computer, he even left a footprint.

    • Re:Choosing Microsoft Products May Cost 10-40% Mor (Score:5, Informative)

      by Osty (16825) on Sunday October 19 2003, @03:48PM (#7255836) Homepage

      Surely if a company went with all open source software going with Microsoft would cost them a literally infinite amount more?

      I assume you're joking, however I'll still bite. You've made several bad assumptions:

      • Open Source Software may be Free Software, but it's not always free (ie, no monetary cost).
      • You're assuming a company's time is worth nothing. How much is it going to cost a company to hack together enough open source applications to get close to replacing all of Exchange's functionality (yes, there are tools that aim to replace Exchange, like Binari, but they're not free last I checked), and how much is it going to cost to maintain this ragtag solution? This is where "Total Cost of Ownership (TCO)" comes in. You have to measure everything from purchase price, to implementation costs, to maintenance costs and so on. Microsoft software may be more in the purchase price department compared to open source software, but if it's less in implementation costs or maintenance costs, its TCO will be lower.

      • Re:Choosing Microsoft Products May Cost 10-40% Mor (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Well, we just replaced 30 of our desktops at work with Debian.

        Exchange was a bit of trouble of course, but we did get it solved. www.opengroupware.org.

        Otherwise, our setup is pretty easy. OpenLDAP is our directory server... like AD, it hosts users/groups/otherstuff. Each desktop is configured to get account information from it.

        Home directories are mounted over NFS.

        Email is handled by Postfix, Cyrus IMAP. Two very easy packages.

        OpenGroupware let use get teh Calendar/Contact stuff. We're using their Web

        • Re:Choosing Microsoft Products May Cost 10-40% Mor (Score:4, Insightful)

          by yoshi_mon (172895) on Sunday October 19 2003, @05:37PM (#7256399)
          Hrm, shame you posted as an AC because you bring up some very good points.

          I think many people like the functionality of MS products, like Exchange, and think that moving over to something else will be a very big hassle so they just stay with an all MS solution but they just don't know enough.

          Key of course is getting a good set of admins and then letting them goto work. Of course having a good set of admins is key for any enterprise level IT but as has been noted many times before here on /. MCSE's are easier to find. Some of them actually even know what they are doing but...still.
    • You're making a funny, right? Only if the open source software is free. And then the purchase price of software is only one factor in the ultimate price-there is support, IT, training, hardware. After you consider all the costs then purchase price probably is one of the smaller costs.
    • Surely if a company went with all open source software going with Microsoft would cost them a literally infinite amount more?

      Only assuming that there are no other costs to software than purchase price. In general support needed by users (for IT depts), training (if any) needed for using tools, time needed to learn tools (OS or non-OS), all have associated costs. And in these areas, open source solutions have costs too, even if there's no sticker price.

    • X=OS product
      Y=Microsoft product

      X * (inf) = Y
    • On the same note, it takes about 15 minutes for a sysadmin to run Windows Update on each machine in a Windows network every week. For an office of 100 machines that's 25 hours of admin time x $15/hr. $375 a week just to keep Windows up to date. But that's just one figure. It doesn't really mean anything until you take a look a the bigger picture in which case Linux wins on the TCO argument.
      • Not to sound trollish but according to the FBI Sendmail and Apache are right behind IIS/Exchange under security exploits.

        Unix in general has horrible security and its just happens to be better then Windows.

        Anyway you need to patch Unix boxes almost as often. Inet and xinet as well have some holes in it. I recommend FreeBSD over Linux for this reason since its port based and patching without dependancy problems is alot easier.

        The real question is how often do Linux machines need to be patched vs Windows m
      • Not only that, when the company switches to Linux, the Windows-only IT staff gets laid off. The members of IT staff that know how to work with Linux without expensive 'retraining' get to stay. It's a good way to clean house -- to keep the smart, self-motivated professionally-minded people.

        • Integration has been known to lower costs. Microsoft uses integration in a rather clever manner than takes advantage of that assumption. When you buy a single microsoft product, it is becoming increasingly difficult not to have to buy a whole slew of products just to use it. As someone pointed out in another slashdot comment, Exchange 2003 server requires AD which requires Windows 200x. Microsoft has been slowly increasing dependencies between products since windows 95. This is a good business practice
    • Did anybody ever mention to you that if your premises are false your conclusion is false, even if the logical steps are flawless?

      Leaving aside, for the moment the ludicrous time parameters you use I'd point out the more subtle idea that not all hours are created equal.

      You are not worth $12 and hour. You are only provisionally worth $12 an hour under certain limited conditions.

      I would posit that if it takes you more than 5 minutes to copy a file on Linux more than once you never manage to meet those condi
        • Yes just as fast as sayyyyyyyyyyyy

          xcopy filename newfilename

          Actually, on equal hardware, dealing with files is faster on Linux. Linux does the caching thing a lot better than other systems. I ran a simple benchmark (random access writes/reads on a large file) w/ Linux, Windows and HP-UX. Linux was 30 times faster than Windows. HP-UX was as slow as windows. And the Linux machine had the slowest CPU and disk.

          Yes mr admin you are ssssssssoooo smart with your cp command.

          Yeah, 'cp' is pretty much rocket
      • Auto-destruct e-mail is something that banks and governments could get in a whole lot of trouble for! Many organizations are required to keep *all* e-mails for a number of years. A company I worked for was involved in a merger and one of the stipulations of the go-ahead from the competition commission included this. Besides, what is the point of auto-destruct e-mails unless they also disable all screen-grabbing software and develop fonts that can't be photographed?

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.