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.""
MS licensing is very simple... (Score:4, Insightful)
buy it and you're 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: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: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?
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:Steve Ballmer is a whiner (Score:2, Insightful)
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." :)
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.
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.
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:Obligatory Open Source comment (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: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:Obligatory Open Source comment (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Absolutly (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 couldn't figure out what I needed for a small team development environment.
Note to Ballmer: there's a reason why developers don't like to develop for Microsoft products, and it's mostly tied up in the licensing crap. Second note to Ballmer: $12k/year for full VSTS 2008 is retarded. You want cool Microsoft software, lower the price down to about $250.
Re:Building PC's (Score:5, Insightful)
And the "Understatement of the Year" award goes to (Score:3, Insightful)
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:Obligatory Open Source comment (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 someone who's into computers) that I can keep it performing very, very nicely. The parts that get replaced get hand-me-downed into my other systems or added to the spare parts pile.
If I decide I need a new computer for purpose XYZ, I visit the parts pile in my computer room. I've got half a dozen ATX cases, about as many power supplies, various hard drives, sound cards, video cards, etc. An extra monitor or two, and lots of RAM sticks from all over. Example literally from last night: my Linux machine needs a boost ATM. It's running an old Athlon XP 2100 with 1GB of RAM. It's got a good case/ps though, and the 80GB hard drive is fine. I've got a Geforce 7300LE sitting in the pile o' stuff unused. Also over there is 2GB worth of DDR2 that my main system couldn't use (ran out of slots), and an Athlon X2 2.6Ghz that I took out of the main system when I upgraded it. All I was missing to get that system where I wanted it was an AM2 motherboard, which I ordered off of ebay for $40.
Incrementally adjusting a system like this has it's advantages. If you were to build from scratch the first time, you might still be breaking even, but you get a platform that's much more standard and lends itself to doing this type of thing (as opposed to so many proprietary systems where the case, mobo, ps, etc just won't work with industry standard stuff). Sure it's not for your average user, but generally Slashdot readers, or people who are looking for a system without Windows so as to install Linux, are not your average user.
Re:Absolutly (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Absolutly (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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:Obligatory Open Source comment (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: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 nothing? Or do you in fact enjoy doing the DIY stuff?
I do enjoy the DIY stuff, and *do* in fact reasearch and build my own personal system for that reason.
But when I order 10 units for work, its usually dealt with in two phone calls... the first to give the vendor the specs, the 2nd to approve/tweak the quote. Every now and then I compare to dell / hp / etc and we are generally neck and neck price wise with the dell enterprise units, but with slightly better specs. Or slightly behind the dell consumer units... but with better quality parts... and the whitebox doesn't preload it with crap like dell does with the consumer stuff.
Re:WTF? (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:Absolutly (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't think he broke any copyright laws. And the DCMA is rubbish anyway.
The fact is that he is right, he bought the product and should be able to do whatever and use it however he wants with it. All these EULA's or licensing agreements are completely one sided where the buyer has no rights what so ever. The sooner reasonable copyright laws are applied to software the better.
Buying software should be no different than buying a book, car, music, movie, a can of tuna, or any product.
Re:Absolutly (Score:2, Insightful)
DCMA? What's that? Oh wait, some silly law they have across that big body of water in that country that thinks it's the center of the universe...
As for copyright...where did the OP say he was gonna copy anything?