Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Microsoft Shoots Own Foot In Iceland

Posted by kdawson on Mon Mar 09, 2009 10:36 PM
from the blood-from-a-stone-middleman dept.
David Gerard writes "The Microsoft Certified Partner model is: an MCP buys contracts from Microsoft and sells them to businesses as a three-year timed contract, payable in annual installments. Iceland's economy has collapsed, so 1500 businesses have gone bankrupt and aren't paying the fees any more. But Microsoft has told the MCPs: 'Our deal was with you, not them. Pay up.' The MCPs that don't go bankrupt in turn are moving headlong to Free Software, taking most of the country with them. (Warning: link contains strong language and vivid imagery.)"
+ -
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived.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.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by Fastball (91927) on Monday March 09 2009, @10:38PM (#27130377) Journal

    and BSOD you!

    • by FearForWings (1189605) on Tuesday March 10 2009, @12:45AM (#27131165)
      BSOD and skull fucking I can deal with but why didn't anyone tell me I could get an STD from Microsoft.
      But seriously what the fuck is with the link: ../microsoft-skull-fucks-icelands-economy-contracts-syphilis/ How is any page with this kind of name even remotely legitimate news.
  • WWBD? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 09 2009, @10:41PM (#27130391)

    What would Bjork do?

  • by TheRon6 (929989) on Monday March 09 2009, @10:42PM (#27130397)

    (Warning: link contains strong language and vivid imagery.)

    Oh god, a 500 error! MY EYES! THEY BURN!

  • Screw this (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 09 2009, @10:42PM (#27130403)

    You know what, I'm not even going to bother clicking on a link composed of obscenities, even if it is about Microsoft making another PR blunder.

    I'd like some anti-Microsoft news that at least appears reputable, and not overly sensationalized "ZOMG Balmer blew up M$ eats babies" crap like the stuff I've seen here for the past few weeks.

    Give me something to read, please, not something designed to assimilate me into another angry mob.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 09 2009, @10:48PM (#27130459)

      I agree. "Skull-fucking"? What kind of journalism is that? There has to be a report on the subject that includes some amount of class and professionalism -- especially if it's going to make it to the front page of Slashdot..

    • by mihalis (28146) on Monday March 09 2009, @10:51PM (#27130489) Homepage

      I'd like some anti-Microsoft news that at least appears reputable, and not overly sensationalized "ZOMG Balmer blew up M$ eats babies" crap like the stuff I've seen here for the past few weeks.

      You're new around here, aren't you?

      • Re:Screw this (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Timothy Brownawell (627747) <tbrownaw@prjek.net> on Monday March 09 2009, @10:55PM (#27130529) Journal

        I'd like some anti-Microsoft news that at least appears reputable, and not overly sensationalized "ZOMG Balmer blew up M$ eats babies" crap like the stuff I've seen here for the past few weeks.

        You're new around here, aren't you?

        Or more likely, been around long enough to get tired of all the childish crap and instead want sane discussions about what happened and sane arguments over what to do about it.

    • Here's my translation for ya:

      [rumor] Microsoft [rumor] Economic Crisis [rumor] I can't confirm this but [rumor]. Open Office is better than Microsoft Office. [rumor] [bad logic] [rumor] [rumor] Pitiful prediction.

        • by nametaken (610866) on Tuesday March 10 2009, @12:18AM (#27131039)

          I particularly liked the part about how, unless Microsoft permanently reduces the cost of all their software to zero it's an attack on Icelands sovereignty.

          That made me giggle a little. And then depressed that the guy who wrote it believes it.

          "Unless, and this is important: Microsoft can redeem themselves towards the Icelandic economy if and only if they immediately reduce the price of all of their products to zero, permanently. Anything less will be an act of non-compliance towards the needs of the Icelandic economy, and can be considered an attack on the nationâ(TM)s sovereignty. Such an attack will inevitably be responded to by the market by way of an across-the-board adoption of free software."

          Puuuuke.

          • by Jurily (900488) <(jurily) (at) (gmail.com)> on Tuesday March 10 2009, @01:05AM (#27131243)

            I particularly liked the part about how, unless Microsoft permanently reduces the cost of all their software to zero it's an attack on Icelands sovereignty.

            It's not, however it's a good reminder not to rely on foreign companies too much.

            As retarded as he sounds writing that, he might have a point: If they can't pay, they're likely to migrate to free alternatives.

    • by linzeal (197905) on Tuesday March 10 2009, @01:22AM (#27131315) Homepage Journal
      I like the salty language. Every programmer I know speaks fluent fuck you to at least 3 different compilers.
  • by cstec (521534) on Monday March 09 2009, @10:42PM (#27130405)

    "Hey, I only joined the military for the free college tuition. I never said anything about shooting people!"

    These MCP's were all happy to sign up, resell MS's products and take their cut for doing almost nothing. Now they're not selling and they don't want to pay their bill? Puh-lese. The cheese section is apparently in Iceland, along with the whine.

    • by Cassini2 (956052) on Monday March 09 2009, @10:47PM (#27130455)

      I think the complaint of the MCPs is Microsoft is demanding payment for product the customer isn't paying for. Specifically, my impression is that Microsoft wants to be payed for the full 3 year contract (over 3 years), even though the customer that purchased the software went bankrupt after the first year. It's a good deal from Microsoft's point of view ...

      • by jschen (1249578) on Monday March 09 2009, @10:53PM (#27130507)
        Microsoft's customer in this case is the MCP. Unless the MCP goes bankrupt and the contract gets voided (assuming things work similarly in Iceland as in the US), why shouldn't Microsoft be demanding payment? Whether or not the MCP has a good use for the contract isn't Microsoft's problem.
        • by Cassini2 (956052) on Monday March 09 2009, @11:00PM (#27130571)

          The legal doctine in common law countries is Force Majeure [wikipedia.org]. If something sufficiently big happens, all bets are off.

          The other business doctrine is that a big company shall not bankrupt the organizations selling their products:
          No sales companies = No salesmen = No sales.

          • by jschen (1249578) on Monday March 09 2009, @11:18PM (#27130697)

            Where's the line between Force Majeure and simply a regrettable business decision? Globally, lots of people in all walks of life are suffering from their decisions (whether sound at the time or not) made during better times that are haunting them in these rough economic times. What about this situation is unique to the MCP? How would the situation look if we allowed people across the board to declare Force Majeure?

            As for no salesmen = no sales, it's commonly accepted that Microsoft is a de facto monopoly. If we take that to be true, then there may not be much cost to MS in hanging the MCPs out to dry. The MCP's customer still needs the MS product, and a new MCP undoubtedly will fill in the void when times get better.

            • As for no salesmen = no sales, it's commonly accepted that Microsoft is a de facto monopoly. If we take that to be true, then there may not be much cost to MS in hanging the MCPs out to dry. The MCP's customer still needs the MS product, and a new MCP undoubtedly will fill in the void when times get better.

              Exactly correct. Whereas there is an effective water monopoly in place as a supplier, resellers are infinitely replaceable. One man goes to the wall, another will take their place. No martyrs, only failures.

          • by ColaMan (37550) on Tuesday March 10 2009, @01:09AM (#27131251) Homepage Journal

            If something sufficiently big happens, all bets are off.

            This is incorrect - the principle of "Force Majeure" is that it has to be completely unexpected - that is, a reasonable person would be unable to forsee the event, and would not have taken measures to mitigate it.

            Say I run a fishing company and all my boats are at sea and are sunk in a big storm. I can't really claim Force Majeure on your supply contracts, as it could be expected that, when fishing, one could encounter storms that might sink your fleet. However, if my boats were docked in a harbour with a narrow inlet with high cliffs and some construction work collapsed the cliffs and blocked the harbour preventing my boats from getting out, well that would fit under "Force Majeure".

            In the MCP's case, one can get insurance for loss of business income, and if one is beholden to continuous payments to a third party, it's a good idea to get it. This is basic financial disaster management - plenty of businesses will sit down and think, "what would happen if the building caught fire?", but few will think, "what happens if my customers suddenly can't pay?"

            • by pegdhcp (1158827) on Tuesday March 10 2009, @01:24AM (#27131333)
              Are you kidding, a non-paying customer moving -successfully- to OSS is more than just one lost sale. That is because, usual MS claim is that you cannot replace MS products with free software that is not reliable and with no backing of a commercial entity. If you put enough number of (around 4% according to marketing theory, as this is not wikipedia I will not give a reference , do your own research-) successful sample cases of MS->OSS transitions in a big population, you would lose that population as a market.

              Mr. Chair Thrower, probably because of the hidden macho inside him, turned tables around and made it possible for guys like RMS to declare it is a war against commercial software. Thus OSS supporters would only need to use negative samples against incumbent commercial software, instead of positive samples of their own. If they were trying to get into a market, just only by benefits and positive aspects of OSS products, they would need positive samples of those. Again theory says that you would need (I might need a correction here, but...) from 10%-30% positive samples for a stronghold in the market. This is what they try to hammer in business schools to people: If you do no have a competition, market is naturally yours. If there is competition, every small gain made by new competitor(s) are bigger losses for the incumbent.

              In my country BSA tried to claim, as a scare tactic, you can not have a license free software for office usage, and if you do not have a printed license then there is no license. They performed extensive computer scans in license free offices etc. This of course is complete BullCrap(tm). However as people (especially in rural areas) bought the idea for a while, MS hold the market in that sector of economy. But then one or two small companies started giving printed licenses with their OSS based products. They just sold licenses for one tenth or so prices of MS Office. You can guess the outcome. Competitor(s) made a small gain, MS lost ten folds of money.

        • Pity they couldn't simply return the unsold goods.

          Oh, wait...

        • by Mistlefoot (636417) on Tuesday March 10 2009, @01:53AM (#27131433)
          So Ford leases company A cars. Company A leases them out to end users. The end users go bankrupt and have no need for the cars. Ford forbids company A from for releasing the cars to anyone else as the agreements indicate that the leases are not transferable. Company A says - Ford is telling me that I cannot transfer these cars to anyone else - that Ford is enforcing the agreement that Ford made with the end user - Then Ford can deal with the bankrupt end user. If the agreement is between company A and the end user then they can transfer the licenses and sell them in say, England, or Canada or the US. But per Ford the agreement for money is between Ford and company A and the agreement with what can be done with the car is between is between Ford and the End user. That it's software and not a car doesn't make this correct.
        • by Creepy Crawler (680178) on Monday March 09 2009, @11:18PM (#27130701)

          The country controls their own court system.

          A company that's hostile to all companies in your country is probably not going to do well, regardless who is or is not right.

          And it all comes down to: Honor contracts to a foreign company with a failing financial market, or ignore contract disputes and switch to Linux and FOSS.

    • by Renraku (518261) on Monday March 09 2009, @11:08PM (#27130635) Homepage

      I'm sure they'd all like to be paying their bills, but when you set up a fiscal triage line, how important do you think payments to a multi-billion dollar corporation that sells software is going to be compared to say, keeping the lights on and paying the employees?

      This is actually quite common in business. Just like how you or I would pay for electricity and food over our credit card bills if we wanted to survive.

    • If the flaming article is right, and if I've understood it correctly, that "cut" was negative: "Microsoft Certified Partners (MCP's), which are local companies that lobby the software, generally at a loss to themselves, as they know that Microsoft's lock-in is powerful enough that they can only get service contracts from the company if they offer a substantial discount on the Microsoft products." In other words, the MS licenses were a loss leader.

      There's still a good argument that they're just like any business that gets stuck with unsold inventory when its customers get shot out from under it, but it doesn't sound like the MCPs were on a gravy train.

      Of course, any other business whose retail customers disappeared could eliminate the bills from their wholesaler by simply stopping their wholesale purchases.

    • by Arker (91948) on Monday March 09 2009, @11:43PM (#27130861) Homepage Journal

      You have a point. Clearly MS is within their rights in terms of the contracts.

      However a wise businessman in their position would be willing to "work with" their "partners" under such circumstances. Sticking to their rights here will blow up in their face, and cost them in the long run.

      Which is really a good thing, anyway, both for Iceland and the world, if it results in increased Free Software awareness, usage, and development.

  • xkcd (Score:5, Funny)

    by maugle (1369813) on Monday March 09 2009, @10:49PM (#27130467)
    I just noticed this in the link:

    http://smari.yaxic.org/blag/2009/03/06/microsoft-skull-fucks-icelands-economy-contracts-syphilis/

    xkcd is everywhere...

  • by Darkk (1296127) on Monday March 09 2009, @10:49PM (#27130469)

    "The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to complete your request."

    Maybe Microsoft revoked their license on the webserver? Possible?

    LOL.

    Ah well, it seems somebody over there saw this article and decided to pull it to save grace.

  • Optimism (Score:5, Funny)

    by Mr. Conrad (1461097) on Monday March 09 2009, @10:52PM (#27130501)
    I think it's rather impressive that Microsoft hasn't run out of feet to shoot. Nor bullets, apparently. Then again, they may have amassed an ample supply of peg-legs in their fight against piracy.
  • Wait, what? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Sinbios (852437) on Monday March 09 2009, @11:27PM (#27130773) Homepage

    The MCPs that don't go bankrupt in turn are moving headlong to Free Software

    Software resellers are moving headlong to Free Software? What is their business model supposed to be?

    I'm going to assume this line is trying to say "The MCPs that don't go bankrupt in turn are going to bankrupt themselves for the Free Software cause, for no particular reason".

    • Re:Wait, what? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Monday March 09 2009, @11:36PM (#27130831) Journal
      TFA specifically mentioned that MS licences were, historically, loss leaders that the MCPs used to drive service/support sales. Presumably, FOSS will be the (smaller) loss leader instead, with the added perk of not being locked into any contract.

      TFA isn't a masterpiece of unbiased discourse; but that part is fairly clear.
    • Re:Wait, what? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Hooya (518216) on Monday March 09 2009, @11:51PM (#27130891) Homepage

      From what I gathered from the article, most MCPs were selling licenses at a loss anyhow since that is how they could compete with the other MCPs - all with the hope that they could make that up in support contracts.

      If that's true, then they were starting with a loss - and sold support.

      Why not start at $0 and sell support?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 10 2009, @12:05AM (#27130971)

    So let me get this straight; several MCPs in Iceland decided to dance with the devil, buying three-year software contracts from Microsoft for Office and some other applications. After purchasing said contracts directly from Microsoft, these MCP then turned around and sold the same contracts to other companies in Iceland, charging an annual fee to those companies while, I imagine, paying Microsoft on some type of installment plan. Now, when the economy tanks and the folks who paid last year aren't around this year when the bill comes due, these MCPs are surprised, shocked if you will, that Microsoft wants them to pay for the contracts they purchased directly from Microsoft? Truly, am I missing something here?

    It doesn't take even a back-of-the-envelope calculation to see that, if you buy a three year contract from vender 'A' and sell it with an annual maintenance fee to customer 'B', you have in fact become a creditor for customer 'B'. It should therefore come as no surprise to these MCPs that, yes, Microsoft really does want them to pay for the contracts they purchased from Microsoft. I can't imagine anyone at Microsoft stuck a gun to their heads and said, "Sell Microsoft software contracts or die." If you dance with the devil, and willingly did business with Microsoft, than you'd better be prepared to pay for the software contracts you purchased from the company.

    Perhaps I'm just not enough of a Microsoft-hater, but I fail to see the 'skull fucking' here. What I do see is an angry rant from, I assume, someone who's likely receiving calls from bill collectors in Redmond. I'm sorry that MCP thing didn't work out for you, and if you want to switch from plugging Microsoft products to promoting Open Source Software, than more power to you. But please don't ask me to overlook the poor business decision you made in becoming a de-facto creditor to your customers. If you don't like the way Microsoft does business in Iceland, you don't have to join their game. Take your marbles and go play in some other park with rules more suitable to your taste.

  • Uhmmm. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Evil Shabazz (937088) on Tuesday March 10 2009, @01:17AM (#27131291)
    Certainly I'm no expert in Icelandic contract law, but frankly, why is this any different than any other form of reseller?

    If I am a local grocer (the MCP) in a town, and I have just bought 10 tons of corn from the local farm (Microsoft) on agreement to pay for the corn over the next 3 years, but then suddenly all the area folks (other local businesses) cannot afford to buy corn from me anymore - what kind of nonsense suddenly absolves me of having to pay for the corn?

    Sure, maybe Microsoft could be doing more negotiating on the contracts to help keep people in business - but guess what? They're a business too. Just because you don't like them doesn't make their contracts any less valid. Just because it's software and not a commodity doesn't make the contracts any less valid. If you take on the risk (the agreement to pay over 3 years, assuming you have revenue to pay for those 3 years), and your risk goes sour - you damned well better have to eat your sour grapes.

    Incidentally, that's what is wrong with the bailouts in the US - the US goverment - ie, G W "Idiotboy" Bush and his Republican cronies told all the Wall Street CEOs - take on all the risk you want with other peoples' money, we got your back if it goes bad.
      • by phantomfive (622387) on Tuesday March 10 2009, @01:05AM (#27131245) Homepage Journal
        Possible; I'm not going to try to predict what will happen with the rest of this recession, but in the last year Microsoft stock lost 50% of its value, which is right in line with the NASDAQ as a whole. If you look at this chart, [google.com] you can see that Microsoft has become a standard blue chip stock.

        On the other hand, they don't really have any place to expand their revenue, unless they can get people in developing countries to start paying for windows, and with hardware prices coming down, they are going to have to start charging less in order to remain competitive, so they are looking at reduced revenue on multiple fronts, and not many places to increase revenue.

        Would I short them? Heck no. It can take a long time for all of these to come into play, and as Milton Friedman said, the market can remain irrational much longer than you can remain solvent.