Replying to Vijay's "Who understands Microsoft Licensing?" blog - why I think he is right and wrong

re: Replying to Vijay's "Who understands Microsoft Licensing?" blog - why I think he is right and wrong

David Overton — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 19:52:21 GMT

BJ,

gosh. So you don't have to buy some of the "larger" CALs, so there is no strong arm tactic, just more options.

You can still get the equivalent of XP Pro in the Vista world, it is Vista Business - just as before, you HAVE to get the OEM version 1st. Once again, you can get SA to get extra features, just now the list of extra features has increased with Vista .. why is that a bad thing, surely it is more value for money. Vista Enterprise is just the name for Vista Business + SA.

Every customer still has the option as to whether to buy SA or not. If you don't want the Enterprise CAL, don't buy it - you can still buy CALs for products that you use. All Microsoft has done is give you more choices :-)

thanks

David

re: Replying to Vijay's "Who understands Microsoft Licensing?" blog - why I think he is right and wrong

BJ — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 14:36:08 GMT

David thanks for the blog. I have been dealing with technology and Microsoft Licensing since DOS 1.X. Before that I was dealing with CPM and TRS DOS. I currently handle all of the Microsoft software licensing and am apart of the negotiation team for one of the top 10corporations’ in the world. Even after all of these years I still have a problem with the idea of a CAL. I pay for the Server NOS, and the desktop OS, I pay for the routers, switches, hubs, and the cables that connect them, but with all that being said the NOS is no good to me unless I pay for an invisible (no code) CAL. Starting in 2007 as if that wasn't bad enough they have now introduced yet another CAL (Enterprise CAL). The licensing tactics that Microsoft has introduced in the last 18 months are unparalleled in the history of Microsoft. SA use to be a good deal. Between 1990 and 2001 Microsoft delivered 7 major operating systems. This meant a new OS every 1.6 years. The corporation that I work for has always purchased the Enterprise Servers (Windows, SharePoint, Exchange, etc.) at 3-4 times the cost of the standard server. Microsoft could have doubled the SA cost on my servers and it would have cost much less than adding the enterprise CAL's. In the past I received all of the features and of the Enterprise Servers through SA (software assurance) but no longer. Another point of clarification would be for all of those corporations that have purchased their OS with their hardware (lease or purchase) in the past will no longer be able to continue to acquire the enterprise OS (Vista Enterprise) without putting it under SA. With Windows XP Professional customers could purcahse via OEM, but it is not even an option with Vista Enterprise. It is amazing that the end user who wants to purchase Vista Ultimate (which offers everything that Enterprise has PLUS the media software) with a computer using OEM software can. Microsoft has classified Ultimate as home software while Enterprise is for the medium to large enterprise customer. It seems to me that the loyal corporate customer who has the largest spend with Microsoft is taking it on the chin.

Regards,

The Schlog » Blog Archive » I’m not the only one yammering about Microsoft licensing

Sat, 15 Sep 2007 13:29:40 GMT

Pingback from The Schlog » Blog Archive » I’m not the only one yammering about Microsoft licensing

re: Replying to Vijay's "Who understands Microsoft Licensing?" blog - why I think he is right and wrong

Adam Vero — Sat, 15 Sep 2007 13:26:25 GMT

Well, the apathy is deafening on this and your other post about licensing ( http://tinyurl.com/39eenv ).

Maybe this reflects the fundamental problem - licensing is not interesting to lots of people. It's one of those "somebody else's problem" subjects.

Partners don't want to spend time on it as they might be able to make just as much money selling the easier solutions (OEM and FPP) as they will do on a volume programme.

Customers (who also read your blog) don't want to know about the complexities, they just want a good deal.

As always, though, nothing will change for the better without feedback.