Matt Baxter-Reynolds
Yes
No
Ken Hess
Best Argument: No
Audience Favored: No (83%)
The moderater has delivered his final verdict.
Opening Statements
Complex systems need flexibility in procurement
Matt Baxter-Reyonolds: I think another way to look at this argument is that there's a presumption that is makes "more sense" to pay for software on a subscription basis as opposed to buying or leasing software as "big ticket" capital expenditure items.
No one would design an enterprise licensing framework like Microsoft's, or Oracles, or SAP's, or any of the big enterprise players. These organisations are about complex procurement of expensive systems built around relationships between the vendor and vendee. There is a reason why they are so complicated -- it's because these complex systems need flexibility in terms of their procurement.
That's the first part of my argument. The second part of my argument has to do with cheese.
We've had about thirty years of complex licensing from Microsoft. If the debacle over Windows 8's user interface changes are telling us anything, it's this -- Microsoft's customers do not like their cheese being moved. Whether people love or hate Microsoft's licensing frameworks are neither here nor there -- they may lose customers just by daring to change it.
Policies cannot and should not survive
Ken Hess: As early as 2001, TechRepublic writer Elizabeth Nelson shared a graphic summarizing a survey stating, "Microsoft's licensing policy opens the door to Linux." The survey results showed that 40.5 percent of the respondents said that they will consider Linux as a workstation alternative to Windows. Surprisingly, Microsoft has revamped its licensing policies but still a third-party company (Directions on Microsoft) has to offer a "Licensing Bootcamp", a two-day class on licensing compliance and policy. If that weren't strange enough, they have the audacity to charge $2,495 for the class.
In case you don't know why you should attend this $1,250 per day licensing extravaganza, they tell you why: "You already know this better than anyone: Microsoft licensing presents an overwhelming array of programs and choices, each with its own set of implications that could seriously impact your IT operations, budgets, and plans."
The financial impact to business is too great. Microsoft's licensing policies will force businesses to make some tough choices that won't favor Microsoft. The policies cannot and should not survive.
Talkback
Licenses, yes. The question is one of enforcement
Conversely, Microsoft's attempt to transform software sales into software subscriptions may also come into play here, though that will largely hinge upon their success.
Thus, my vote is "yes, it CAN survive, but it's not in Microsoft's best interest to do attempt to do so". A well-asked question begets an answer. A poorly asked question begets a question.
I am saying no
Next option:
License each product at a reasonable price. Remove OEM restrictions.
Windows $100
Office $200
I think products such as Exchange and SharePoint really should be services you subscribe to as needed.
As for volume licensing, just buy what you need without signing up for a contract or any tie ins like Software Assurance.
If I want 5,000 Windows licenses and a single retail license cost $100, cut that in half. Think of it as a damn privilege a customer still wants to use so much of your OS. If the customer experiences difficulties and can't afford the 5,000 license, be nice and say, don't worry, take as much as you need for uses.
Cut out the BS with transfer rights. If I want transfer uckin' software to the moon, let me have that right.
Complicated licensing only irritates those trying to be honest
No not really.
People like you scare me.
Using it as a storage mechanism for transmitting pictures is equally appalling. Better to just send them the JPEG's than kill them in a Word Doc.
I cringe when people try to use Word as a layout program and want help. Word truly is a horrible app.
Word is bloated garbage
Once the class was done, she wanted Word OFF HER COMPUTER and went back to LibreOffice. She said, and I quote, "Word is stupid! Most things are hidden all over the place! I did learn something about page layout, but it's so much easier to do the same stuff in LibreOffice!"
While it is just her experience, I personally agree, and I think most people are seeing the light these days.
If you feel that way, then why do you use it?
Certainly, there are plenty of free or nearly free alternatives which are compatible with Word, and there are other alternatives which are not compatible but still meet most people's needs. I am sorry that your wife was surprised to find out how complicated (powerful) Word is but if it were easy to use, one would not need a class to learn how to use it.
Actually, Word has some pretty good layout options
The issue isn't with Word itself...
We see the same thing all the time with Access and Excel as well where people try to do things with them for which they just are not well suited just because they don't know any better. There is nothing wrong with those programs when used within their intended purposes.
I think that those of you arguing the merits of things like Libra Office etc, just don't get this. The word processor in other packages still has its pros and cons Vs Word and it is still a word processor - not a full blown desktop publishing tool. So over using those other products is equally problematic.
Speaking of other products though, since the topic is licensing, cost and licensing issues are the the main reason for using an alternative product - not because one product is inherently better than another.
But, the recommendation I give to most people is that its easiest to use the same products at home that you do at work so you don't have to learn both. Most companies that use MS Office will be on Volume License agreements with Microsoft that allow "Home Use" which basically allows employees to download a license key for $10.00. So if you use it at work it is nearly free to use at home too...and yes that is yet another "complication" added to the mix. Students can usually buy through school at cut rate "academic" licensing prices. More complication. Most computers these days seem to come from places like Best Buy or Dell with a "starter" version that is plenty for most home users. More complication and yes more different versions.
But the complications and different versions also mean choice. If you don't like the idea of choice, go buy a Mac (sorry had to slip that one in there) With choice comes a certain amount of need to be a knowledgeable buyer to find the best deal for you or your company. It also means that there are probably not all that many people out there buying a shrink wrapped full version of Office with their own money.
Hahaha
I believe it is YOU who is stuck in an old paradigm!