Ballmer: Don't Expect Simpler Licensing Soon 260
nk497 writes "Steve Ballmer has admitted Microsoft's licensing is too complicated and contains too much fine print, but has no plans to change it at the risk of angering shareholders — and even customers who benefit from the confusion. "I'm sure we have fine print we don't need. We're not saints," he said, adding that customers have a way of figuring out how to pay the least amount of cash possible to use Microsoft's software. "Customers always find an approach which pays us less money.""
Absolutly (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Absolutly (Score:5, Insightful)
So what you are saying is that licensing is not that complicated if you have a bunch of cash to throw around?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, if you can afford to throw around.. oh, what is it, $10-$12k per developer PER YEAR, then I guess MS licensing is not a problem? (That's the license cost for Visual Studio 2008 with Team Suite and all the trimmings.)
I'm pretty convinced that MS developer licensing is designed to be confusing in order to extract a maximum amount of money. The VAR that I used to work with that did the MS licensing couldn't figure it out, either, until they got an MS specialist on board, and EVEN THEN the MS specialist
Keep over charging (Score:5, Funny)
Stop over charging for your software, and perhaps more people would buy it instead of pirating it.
They should keep overcharging to encourage their customers to look for cheaper and better alternatives.
Re:Absolutly (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes it is nice.......... Until you realise that, if you stupidly buy into it, as a development company you are stipulating Microsoft software and licensing as a prerequisite for any deployment or implementation of your work for a customer. You can't use your MSDN licenses there. You will also have to factor that into your quote, budget and costs. Why do you think Microsoft has MSDN? A lot of silly companies who are built around being Microsoft partners and using MSDN have found it tough because Microsoft always takes their cut regardless.
Re:Absolutly (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Absolutly (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Absolutely (Score:5, Insightful)
Comments similar to yours from our competitors bring nothing but cheer to my heart. Fortunately for our shop, Free software meets our needs practically from top to bottom. Not only does it meet our needs but it exceeds them in ways Microsoft can't. Not just in pricing but in functionality and flexibility. The interesting thing is, most or our competitors' infrastructures could be ran similarly but through a combination of sheer ignorance and the inability to ween themselves from the MS teet, they continue to needlessly spend millions on restrictive licenses while we invest the same money in things that actually add to the bottom line and help us grow. Consequently, in the recent economic downturn, we've thrived while some people I used to know in this business have just flat out gone under.
Not saying that Free software is for everybody because it isn't. You must have actual competent IT staff to wring the every last bit of value of it. A crew of MCSE's aren't going to cut it. We, with the help of a certain hire several years ago, saw the light and changed from being a complete MS shop over to Free software with very little problems. And it either meets your needs or not. But I'd be willing to bet that just about any outfit has some slack and could stand to save a few bucks on licenses somewhere.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Uh, the vast majority of businesses are just fine paying for MS licenses to run software. There are a few all Linux/Unix shops out there but they are by far in the minority.
That's almost entirely beside the point though. IBM will sell you $15K/seat licences for WebSphere for Linux, or you could fire up notepad and develop Windows stuff for free.
Re: (Score:2)
you are stipulating Microsoft software and licensing as a prerequisite for any deployment or implementation of your work for a customer.
Well, where I work we tend to use whatever the customer wants us to use, at least in terms of the OS. We get asked for Windows, .NET, MS SQL Server, etc, just as we get asked for Linux, Java, Oracle, etc.
Besides which, the cost of the MS software is utterly dwarfed by some of the COTS products we've used - on my last project the CMS alone cost a quarter of a million GBP bef
Re: (Score:2)
on my last project the CMS alone cost a quarter of a million GBP before we even started to customise it.
Which CMS? (no, I'm not going to suggest anything open source; I have run some of the expensive commercial CMS's and am just curious what you meant)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The number one problem with Microsoft's licensing scheme is just that. The licensing scheme itself. "This product is licensed, not sold." I call "BULLSHIT!" I bought it, just like I would buy a damned BOOK! I have the physical floppies and CD's for several MS operating systems. They are mine, and not MS's. I will use them as I see fit, as often as I see fit, and in any manner that I see fit to use them. End of story. When MS understands that concept, then we might get along. When they understand t
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Obligatory Open Source comment (Score:5, Funny)
customers have a way of figuring out how to pay the least amount of cash possible to use Microsoft's software
Yes. It's "Format C:" followed by installing some flavor of Linux and Open Office.
Re:Obligatory Open Source comment (Score:4, Insightful)
Why the "Format C:" bit? Is the previous step in your money-saving plan "buy a computer with Windows on it"?
Re:Obligatory Open Source comment (Score:4, Informative)
Hell Yeah, Have you ever tried to buy a computer without windows on it? It is always cheaper to by a windows machine and wipe the OS then it is to buy a NoOS machine.
Re:Obligatory Open Source comment (Score:5, Insightful)
Have you ever tried to buy a computer without windows on it?
Uh-huh. They're called "parts." :)
Re:Obligatory Open Source comment (Score:5, Insightful)
I've never bought a pre-built system in my life, but I'm seriously considering it now that I'm looking to replace my 4 year old desktop system. It's just not worth the hassle to build your own when it doesn't really save you any money anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Dells are not terribly flexible and you are pretty much buying yourself an oversized Mac mini.
OTOH, the Dells are also dramatically cheaper and can be bought with more options.
Re: (Score:2)
This is interesting because I have just finished pricing out a middle-range desktop at Newegg and have been comparing it to nearly identical prebuilt setups from the usual suspects.
They're pretty much identical in price.
I'll leave discovering why shipping an assembled system isn't as smart as shipping components as an exercise for the reader, but this also gives you fine-grain control over part quality. If that's not something you're concerned about, you should really just eat an extra fifty and go pick up
Re:Building PC's (Score:5, Informative)
Same here, until my last computer - that is.
Prebuilt consumer computers are really crappy. Take my latest HP Pavillion Quad Core as an example, after 1 month, the keyboard stopped working, after 3 months the wireless module went to wifi-heaven where little wifi things go (All wifi's goes to heaven, the movie), and after the 5th month, the DVD stopped accepting pretty much any DVD & games even though there where no dust. I'm just waiting for the next thing to break for no reason. At work it's the same thing, the pre-built one breaks down, not the ones I built - they still stand!
Re:Building PC's (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Ditto here, from experience. My home brews just keep on going, and going, and going, while the pretty store bought machines that the wife likes fall apart. I don't buy the most expensive, highest quality parts either - just good, solid items with good reviews. The wife finally took a stab at her own home brew machine, without asking my advice. The result was only very slightly better than a store bought, because she didn't know which numbers to look at, and didn't take the customer reviews into account.
Re: (Score:2)
Step one: google for overclocking forums, visit them, and see what all the super nerds are using for mainboards. Choose popular mainboard that you can afford, then choose the fastest CPU you can afford for that architecture.
Absolutely correct. I also search the game/DVD copying forums to pick out the best optical drive.
I don't really care about copying that much, but the drives they like the best seem to be able to read everything without any issues, and do so at the highest possible speed. You also learn that the most expensive drive is rarely the best...there are a lot of $30 DVD writers that are close to the best you can buy.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Ditto here, from experience. My home brews just keep on going, and going, and going, while the pretty store bought machines that the wife likes fall apart.
They definitely can, but don't necessarily. I've had my share of dead components in homebrew machines over the years, that's for sure, and from reputable manufs. I've had ASUS and Intel boards just conk out. Not often, not all the time, but it happens, and it's no less annoying then, either.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Mmmm - yes, you make a point. But, I'm not certain that we understand each other's points, fully. Yes, Asus is a reputable mainboard company. One of the best boards I've ever owned is an Asus. It's already 7 years old, I've upgraded the BIOS twice, added peripherals that weren't supported when it was new - it's a great board. BUT - the wife's semi-successful homebrew is based on an Asus K8N board. It isn't as high quality as my SK8V, it was built for the abandoned socket 754, and most importantly, you
Re: (Score:2)
I agree, especially if you hold out for a slickdeal. I just helped my brother get set up with a core2quad dell vostro (not the SFF one). We maxed the ram out and put a monster video card in, it destroys his old machine, he's happy.
I couldn't have built it from scratch as cheap as he got it, and certainly not if you include the massive widescreen ultrasharp that came with it.
Just avoid the extreme low-end and/or SFF machines. That's the only time you'll run into issues with prebuilt machines, ime.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't even know you could still get Monster video cards. Much less that a 3dfx Voodoo II would be competitive in todays game market.
Re:Obligatory Open Source comment (Score:4, Informative)
DIY = CUSTOM build
The reason to DIY is because you need a config that DELL doesn't offer. Oh, like building a MythTV box with SATA Raid and hot swap cage for the HDs. Or even the proverbial "Gaming Rig".
However, if what you want is a computer for your house, then DELL (or HP or ...) is a completely viable choice.
The problem isn't DIY being "cheaper" it is that you can get a customized rig built the way you want for the purposes you need.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The other part of DIY is that I, like I suspect many others, simply don't buy whole computers at a time anymore. I keep several systems up and running for various OS's and such, but pretty much never do I build a whole one from scratch.
For my "main" system, it gets upgrades - always. A processor here, a motherboard there, few extra sticks of ram, throw in a hard drive, etc. It's a constantly evolving beast. I've found that if I chuck $150-250 per year into that system (which really isn't that much for
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
he problem isn't DIY being "cheaper" it is that you can get a customized rig built the way you want for the purposes you need.
DIY also gives you the option to get quality parts, and build an inexpensive low spec system that will last. With dell if you go low end, you get junk. USB ports that don't output power to spec, and can't drive device loads they should be able to. Power supplies that are oddball shaped and don't last, generic dvdrws that are noisy and don't last. Low end hard drives with stripped dow
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I've done both. I'd say the DIY cost me 5x what the Dell costs, but that's because my time is worth something.
The typical white box vendor will assemble, install the OS, and test for like $50 bucks. Unless your buying DELL's for $10 there is no way a custom built PC could cost 5x what a Dell costs. And I've even got my whitebox vendor 'trained' to the point that I just have to give a specs list, and he'll quote me a PC that meets those specs with parts I am likely to approve of.
Is your time really worth not
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It all depends. You cannot save money by building a lower-end machine yourself anymore; economies of scale did away with that. But, you can still save money building a mid-range computer. If you get newegg's mailings, they usually have some nice deals on some combination of motherboard/cpu/memory/tower that'll save you a lot of money.
You say you value your time - do you enjoy building computers, or is it a chore? Given an $800 pre-built and $800 worth of equivalent parts, I'd take the parts in a heartbe
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not so sure about that. ... Even if you value your time at $0/hr, you can still often get a pre-built from Dell cheaper than a comparable build-your-own system.
Well I'm not so sure about that. It's sometimes true if you're willing to accept the usually minimal default configuration and they have a particularly good sale going on, but once you start adding upgrades, the cost of building your own soon wins out. This occurs much sooner if you are a Linux user (or if you can transfer your Windows license) and you can reuse components (monitor, case, optical drive, keyboard & mouse, etc.). And that doesn't take into account the various things you can almost neve
Re: (Score:2)
It's getting harder and harder to buy parts and build your own for cheaper than you can get a pre-assembled box. These days, the only reason to build your own is if you want to pick and choose every component for quality, in which case cost is not your primary driver. If you're going for cheap, something pre-assembled from Dell or a similar company is usually cheaper, especially if you consider the value of your time. Even if you value your time at $0/hr, you can still often get a pre-built from Dell cheaper than a comparable build-your-own system.
It's absolutely true that if you want the $200 "Black Friday special", then you can't beat a pre-built system. Or, if you hit Dell when what you want is on sale, you get a great deal. But, if you want more than the default RAM/hard disk/processor/etc. at "regular" prices, parts are the only way to go.
For example, when not on sale, a Dell Core i7 system that defaults to 3GB of RAM will cost you $150 extra to upgrade to 6GB, when you could just buy the 6GB outright for $110. Hard drives are the same...jump
Re: (Score:2)
A computer is almost synonymous with "laptop" or "netbook" these days.
Hm. That's news to me. Oh well.
Re: (Score:2)
You can built a nettop from parts if you are stubborn enough.
Before ION nettops got on the market there were plenty of impatient people building their own.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
ebuyer begs to differ:
Acer Extensa E420 Desktop, AMD 1640B Athlon, 1GB RAM, 160GB HDD, DVDRW, Linux
Extra Value Celeron Dual Core E3200 Business PC 4GB DDR2, 320GB SATA HDD, DVDRW, NO O/S
Extra Value Pentium Dual Core E5400 Business PC 2.7GHz, 4GB DDR2, 750GB SATA HDD, DVDRW, NO O/S
Mesh Desktop PC, Pentium E5400 2.7GHz, 4GB RAM, 500GB HDD, DVDRW, No Operating System
Prices start at £149 inc tax for the low-end Acer.
Re:Obligatory Open Source comment (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But in the case where you declined completely to use Windows the trialware companies would be entitled to a refund also.
Not unless the trialware companies can show good cause that they can't make their products compatible with Wine.
Re:Obligatory Open Source comment (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the last 3 I bought didn't have Windows on them, and no they weren't all Macs.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
customers have a way of figuring out how to pay the least amount of cash possible to use Microsoft's software
Yes. It's "Format C:" followed by installing some flavor of Linux and Open Office.
You are modded as informative, so does this mean Microsoft now owns "some Linux flavor" as well as owns Open Office?
If not, how exactly is installing 'some linux distro' and open office a way to pay the least for Microsoft software??
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
Actually, the "Format C:" step is a waste of time, because the Linux installer will reformat the drive again for you using the file system of your choice (default is typically ext3 or ext4).
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
customers have a way of figuring out how to pay the least amount of cash possible to use Microsoft's software
Yes. It's "Format C:" followed by installing some flavor of Linux and Open Office.
Ah yes, you must be referring to Microsoft's linux distro [mslinux.org].
MS licensing is very simple... (Score:4, Insightful)
buy it and you're fucked.
Re:MS licensing is very simple... (Score:5, Funny)
buy it and you're fucked.
The polar opposite of FOSS; don't buy it and don't get fucked :)
WTF? (Score:4, Insightful)
"Customers always find an approach which pays us less money.""
Other than piracy, switching to Mac or Linux I don't know what he means? Sounds like sour grapes. I guess he feels his paycheck should be bigger. It's a wallet not a phallic symbol.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:WTF? (Score:5, Informative)
He's talking about bulk-licencing customers. Corporations and educational institutions.
Re: (Score:2)
Yah, we save a ton with our Microsoft Campus Agreement. We pay about $4000/year for the ability to install about 300 copies of Windows and Office. Considering the cost of XP is about $150+, it's a pretty good deal, even over the long term.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Considering their fear of a non-MS generation of graduates, I suspect MS would pay YOU to use their stuff if your budget couldn't find that $4k.
Most corporations are considered "captive" and get very little in the way of discounts unless they have an Enterprise Agreement. MS has a wide variety of programs that look like volume discounts, but are in fact not discounts at all. For example, my company would routinely buy OEM copies of MS Works and keep the media kits in a storage closet. That enabled us to
Re:FUD (Score:4, Interesting)
When I went to school, I told them I didn't want to do Windows, but wanted to learn Unix admin. They said it was "much to complicated for a novice" and I "had to learn Windows first to understand the basics". Translation: they didn't have a Unix curriculum.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yah, we save a ton with our Microsoft Campus Agreement. We pay about $4000/year for the ability to install about 300 copies of Windows and Office. Considering the cost of XP is about $150+, it's a pretty good deal, even over the long term.
License costs saved: $41,000
Damage done by producing students who only know cr*p software: immeasurable
Re: (Score:2)
"It's a wallet not a phallic symbol."
Tell that to my ex wife.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, that quote made no sense. Of course customers will try for the lowest priced option, but if any customers are paying more than the least amount MS offers, it's the customers that pay more that are getting screwed, by MS. Not the customers that avail themselves of MS's lowest offer.
If they don't want to offer their lowest offer, then make something else the lowest offer. If they offer it, surely they think that it's a fair price!
Dastardly Customers! (Score:2)
This is a non-issue for Microsoft's Customers (Score:5, Interesting)
I'll give you a hint, their customers are not the admins who actually have to comprehend and create policy/procedure to abide by License terms. They have two primary customers.
1. The retail consumer who doesn't read EULA's and willfully violates them.
2. The purchasing manager/executive class.
Sysadmins aren't on that list.
Moreover, Mr. Ballmer is giving the implicit nod to violate the terms of the license agreements. Guess who loses on that deal? The sysadmin!
Re: (Score:2)
I'll give you a hint, their customers are not the admins who actually have to comprehend and create policy/procedure to abide by License terms. They have two primary customers.
1. The retail consumer who doesn't read EULA's and willfully violates them.
2. The purchasing manager/executive class.
Sysadmins aren't on that list.
Moreover, Mr. Ballmer is giving the implicit nod to violate the terms of the license agreements. Guess who loses on that deal? The sysadmin!
You read my mind brother, and apparently the fine print of my job description. +5 truth.
Bad summary. And bad article. (Score:5, Insightful)
It looks like most of the article takes small quotes from Ballmer and presumably paraphrases the rest. There aren't a whole lot of quotes form Ballmer himself. And the slashdot summary is even worse. Firstly, he appears to be referring to companies with this quote, not end user customer type peoples (emphasis mine):
But he claimed that the finer details of the licensing system give some companies the opportunity to save money. "Customers always find an approach which pays us less money," he claimed.
Here are some of the *other* quotes from the article that the summary left out.
"Every time you simplify something, you lose something that people used to save money," he added, suggesting that even minor changes to the system could hurt some of its customers.
"The goal is to simplify without a price increase," Ballmer said, adding: "Our shareholders want simplicity without a price decrease."
He added that customers donâ(TM)t want simplicity for the sake of it, claiming that the last time Microsoft tried that route, customer ratings of the firm "plummeted for two years."
Ballmer seems to also be noting that shareholders and customers want two different things: shareholders want Microsoft to charge more and do it more simply, and customers want Microsoft to charge less and do it more simply. Everyone wants it simpler, but simpler+price-decrease and simpler+price-increase are two different things. But don't read what he really said. Just assume he means the worst and let's pretend that one of the largest (the largest?) software companies has a complete idiot in charge and that EVERYONE knows he is an idiot but they keep him there anyway. Or something like that?
Re: (Score:2)
He added that customers don't want simplicity for the sake of it, claiming that the last time Microsoft tried that route, customer ratings of the firm "plummeted" for two years."
Is talking about Bob?
No, serious question. Maybe he's referring to a licensing situation that I am unaware of.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"Customers always find an approach..." (Score:2)
No no no... *some* customers find ways to pay as little money as possible. Since Windows rarely, if ever, goes "on sale" though, most people who follow the rules just pay full price or pay the Microsoft Tax when they buy a new computer. Factor in school deals, corporate deals, etc. and you have a crap-ton of licenses being sold for the Microsoft-price (the one they agree to).
Ballmer: "We're not saints" (Score:5, Insightful)
No shit. When was the last time Microsoft did something the customers wanted, instead of forcing them to "take it or leave it". When was the last time any Office application didn't brake file compatibility with previous versions. When was the last time you felt like you actually own a Microsoft software product, and don't have to rent it AND justify yourself every time you need to install it on a new computer? Last time some Microsoft protocol didn't break compatibility with competing, or even older own protocols? I don't know, it feels like forever.
Licensing issues are really just the tip of the iceberg of this Satan's spawn called Microsoft.
Re:Ballmer: "We're not saints" (Score:5, Informative)
When was the last time Microsoft did something the customers wanted, instead of forcing them to "take it or leave it".
I've never been forced to. I upgrade/install on my own. Work/corporate environment is a different story, but at home I choose my OS.
When was the last time any Office application didn't brake file compatibility with previous versions.
Saving or reading? I just save in XP/2000/2007 format. Works fine, including with openoffice, which is what I use anyway.
When was the last time you felt like you actually own a Microsoft software product, and don't have to rent it AND justify yourself every time you need to install it on a new computer?
I've installed and re-installed XP many, many times. I have always felt like I owned it. I've installed Vista (and Windows 7, actually) multiple times with no problem. Yes, I "register" or activate it. No issues with it. Even the phone activation is quite simple. Some of my other software, like Sibelius [sibelius.com] gives me a much, much, much harder time with activation and whatnot. But it's good software and I like using it, so I deal with it.
Last time some Microsoft protocol didn't break compatibility with competing, or even older own protocols?
Like what?
I don't know, it feels like forever.
When was the last time you USED a Microsoft OS (or Office)?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I hate to say it but your post is an example of fanboyish ranting distracting people from the true nature of the problem. A recent "last time" in most of those cases is actually trivial to find. Microsoft's badness isn't a consistent history of doing everything exactly wrong, it's that they do almost everything right up to the point where it affects their bottom line. Then they'll make decisions which protect their market dominance, decisions which have nasty consequences for everyone else. It's easy to thi
Re: (Score:2)
Retail gives you one computer and one "mobile" computer, which means one desktop and one laptop or two laptops, provided they're used by the same people. The home versions used to appear in "Home and Student" editions with three-computer licences, with no restriction on who the users were or (IIRC) where the computers were, but I'm not sure they still do that.
The Gates Comeback (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The does suck speeches happened in the past as well, it is a usual Microsoft tactic. Well we screwed up but the next *fill in whatever you want* will be better so please do not buy from our competition.
That has been the standard speech every two years since 1982.
Microsoft's product? (Score:5, Insightful)
He added that customers don't want simplicity for the sake of it, claiming that the last time Microsoft tried that route, customer ratings of the firm "plummeted" for two years."
Unless Microsoft sees its product as being licenses rather than software (which is entirely possible, now I think of it) this is daft. People have to interact with the software on a daily basis. They only care about licenses when they get in their way... which is more likely to happen if they don't know what they're buying.
Balance (Score:3, Insightful)
"Customers always find an approach which pays us less money."
That's okay Steve, Microsoft always finds a way to make clunky, insecure software: There is balance in the Microsoft universe.
Retail Customers (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
My wife was in the market for a new computer and at the local Microcenter they had decent refurb machines for $300. Strangely the box I bought (an HP) came with XP Media Center Edition even though the PC itself was some bog standard HP office minitower with no media hardware (other than a lightscribe DVD RW drive and a xd/CF reader).
I don't know how the OS got chosen for this box; my guess was HP did the refurb and the box was actually a return or something from corporate client that had open licensing and
Even MS can't understand it (Score:5, Informative)
It's remarkable really. Even MS support can't tell you consistently what you actually need to be legal for a given situation. Call three times with the same scenario and get three different answers.
Talk about business risks, you're just begging to have the BSA commandos sweep in and decide that whatever you guessed (or what MS told you to do) isn't correct and you are now a dirty thief who owes a pile of cash. No, thanks!
If they're going to get all bent out of shape about license compliance, the onus is on them to make it possible to know with certainty what you must do (and spend) in order to be compliant. Given that their own support people aren't sure, I'd say they failed miserably.
Re: (Score:2)
5 Simple rules of Microsoft licensing (Score:5, Funny)
Rule 2; If you have reviewed your licenses and purchased additional licenses to cover any license shortages (plus additional licenses just to be safe), See rule #1.
Rule 3: If you think you understand Microsoft license agreemenents, you are either delirious or just not paying attention.
Rule 4: If you are a lawyer for Microsoft in charge of writing license agreements, see rule #3.
Rule 5: See rule #1.
Re:5 Simple rules of Microsoft licensing (Score:4, Funny)
- from Good Omens
Re: (Score:2)
This is great, why did my mod points have to expire?
Back on topic, Microsoft admitted its licensing was ridiculous when it made an MCP certification just for licensing.
Also, MS SQL licensing for virtual servers pisses me off to no end, in that each logical processor is considered 1 CPU. On a normal install, each physical socket with a processor is considered 1 CPU, so multi-core processors can be used to your advantage. On a virtual machine, each core is normally considered 1 logical CPU, so you are stuck b
well duh... (Score:2)
>> "Customers always find an approach which pays us less money.""
Maybe, if you simplified the licencing there wouldnt be as many loopholes, you dummy.
Anyway whats wrong with people optimising their purchasing decisions for cost? sounds perfectly reasonable and normal to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but would "You are about to install Microsoft Windows on your desktop, your soul is ours" work well with the DoJ
Simple is better! (Score:2)
Like the US tax code, those with the resources will always pay less. Large corporations actually hire people to do nothing other than manage software licenses. Sure its great that it gives some guy a job, but other than him, who really benefits.
Strange.. (Score:2)
but has no plans to change it at the risk of angering shareholders â" and even customers who benefit from the confusion
Somehow, when I read that, it came out all different in my head... something more like:
"but has no plans to change it as the risk of angering the company's customers -- oh yeah, and you little people who buy their software might benefit from it too"
Remember when a company's customers were actually the people buying from them, and not their shareholders... or at least they pretended that was the case?
Ballmer is an idiot... (Score:2)
M$ confusing licensing doing us a favor (Score:3, Interesting)
Part of the reason that several of my past companies/clients drifted away from Microsoft was due to the incredibly complex licensing. You can do XYZ for this price, but only if you have up to N seats. After N+1 seats, you pay using an entirely new cost schedule (could be higher...could be lower)....etc. It got to the point where our "Microsoft sales rep" literally had to periodically visit us and attempt to explain how we could do a project with their tools while not running afoul of some obscure CAL fee that nobody even knew about. Combine that with the never ending upgrade merry-go-round and it is easy to see why companies just throw up their hands and look for a way out.
And the "Understatement of the Year" award goes to (Score:3, Insightful)
BING (Score:3, Funny)
Bing = Bing Is Not Google!!!
I disagree (Score:4, Insightful)
Symptom of Doom? (Score:4, Insightful)
Stockholders tend to not care about 10 years down the road. They want their money now. If you are in MS shoes and you are being pressured to return to prior levels of financial growth despite being squeezed by Apple, Google, Linux etc., then the easy way out is to squeeze more licensing fees out of existing customers who's tool stack is based around MS products. They almost *have to* pay. The downside is that resentment is building which will start to bite back down the road. They ran out of logs and are now burning strips of cabin.
Re: (Score:2)
Angering whom? (Score:3, Insightful)
but has no plans to change it at the risk of angering shareholders
Customers, Steve. Its all about the customers. Shareholders come and go, but customers need attention.
Take a lesson from Detroit. Build crap and your market share evaporates. Turn things around, start building quality and it will still take a generation to get those customers back. Sure, Detroit didn't have proprietary format lock in working for them. But customers are getting educated about that. Even if MS switches to all open formats, the memory of the old days will keep customers scared away for years to come once they've left.
Who are the real customers? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Apart from licensing costs (which are outrageously high), the complexity of their licensing schemes have other results. During my SAM review, I was told that a pack of 5 CALs I'd bought for one of our Server 2003 machines had to be installed as device CALs, because, apparently, the copy of Server 2003 in question had been bought via bulk licensing, and somewhere in the vast licensing agreements it apparently states that you can't run retail CALs as user CALs on a bulk-purchased version of Server.
Re: (Score:2)
If they didn't grossly overcharge for the product, most people would have no complaints.
I daresay that you don't know "most people" so well... ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't they already own one? http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/31/microsoft_screw_google/ [theregister.co.uk]