Can Microsoft’s complicated software licensing policies survive?

Moderated by Jason Hiner | March 25, 2013 -- 07:00 GMT (00:00 PDT)

Summary: Matt Baxter Reynolds and Ken Hess debate the future prospects of Microsoft's approach to volume licensing.

Matt Baxter-Reynolds

Matt Baxter-Reynolds

Yes

or

No

Ken Hess

Ken Hess

Best Argument: No

17%
83%

Audience Favored: No (83%)

The moderator has delivered a 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

43 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Licenses, yes. The question is one of enforcement

    I think that it would certainly be in Microsoft's best interest to greatly simplify licensing for their software, and subsequently enforce it. Microsoft can certainly continue their largely-unenforced, overly-convoluted licensing policy and continue to attempt to make it stick. We we in many software companies that among the last legs of their existence is the conversion of the R&D department to the legal department. I wouldn't be surprised to see Microsoft head down that road.

    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.
    voyager529
    Reply Vote I'm for Yes
  • I am saying no

    Microsoft continues to make fumbles in licensing. They have great software, but they are not evolving with the times. For instance, SKUs. I think every single product needs to be a single SKU. Windows Server, Windows Client, Office, Lync, Visual Studio, Exchange, SharePoint, SCCM, etc. That takes away a huge portion of the complexity in licensing already.

    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.
    adacosta38
    Reply 3 Votes I'm for No
  • Complicated licensing only irritates those trying to be honest

    and truth be told, Open Office is catching up fast.
    happyharry_z
    Reply 3 Votes I'm for No
    • No not really.

      Its still stuck in the Office 95 paradigm. In fact, OpenOffice is far behind it will remain a niche option for persons who either don't know about Microsoft Office (which rare, but it does happen) or is staunch set against it like the average Linux user. Its a very inflexible suite to use, not to mention slow. I use Word daily and its such wonder how powerful it is. For instance, I emailed a set of photos inserted in a Word doc and emailed it to someone who needed them. The person replied saying they only needed 3 pics out of the doc. I just right clicked and save picture of the three requested and emailed them. (This functionality is not even in Office 2007. But it shows the power of Office in just the little things.
      adacosta38
      Reply 4 Votes I'm Undecided
      • People like you scare me.

        Word is a poor page layout application. It fails at the most basic layout tasks and often ignores basic formatting. That's if it doesn't corrupt things when you get complex "layouts".

        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.
        itguy10
        Reply 4 Votes I'm Undecided
        • Word is bloated garbage

          Absolutely correct! My wife recently took a college class for Word 2010, she thought it would be an easy credit... WRONG! The text book attempted to show the student, step-by-step, how to create layouts and where all the little hidden features were to make text flow correctly on the page. The problem is that half the options shown in the screen shots had been moved by Microsoft in an update, or no longer worked as described in the text book! In the end, by trial and error, she would mess with settings until she could get the result shown in the text book...

          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.
          Technical John
          Reply 2 Votes I'm Undecided
          • If you feel that way, then why do you use it?

            Word is far more powerful (and thus more complicated) than most people need.

            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.
            M Wagner
            Reply 1 Vote I'm Undecided
        • Actually, Word has some pretty good layout options

          The new guides in Word 2013 work very well; older versions don't have as many features so to make this relevant to licensing I'll point out that SA and EA and VL licences give you rights to get new versions of software without extra payments - if that's not what you want, you can choose a different licence. Complexity is an unavoidable element of choice.
          mary.branscombe
          Reply 1 Vote I'm Undecided
        • The issue isn't with Word itself...

          The issue is misuse of Word. It is a word processing tool that can do side duty as a light weight page layout tool...for people who don't have anything else. The problem is that people tend to use what they have. Its the old saying "if the only tool you have in your bag is a hammer, then everything starts to look like a nail".

          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.
          cornpie
          Reply 1 Vote I'm Undecided
      • Hahaha

        You're emailing photos inserted in a Word doc?
        I believe it is YOU who is stuck in an old paradigm!
        adacosta28
        Reply 6 Votes I'm Undecided