On Jan 1, 1:13 pm, "amicus_curious" <A...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> "Rex Ballard" <rex.ball...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>
> news:32f0f09c-d46d-4230-93ef-969d6e8b3989@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> > Given that many MSDN subcribers have been paying since the first
> > announcements of Longhorn, they have paid up to $9,000 ($1500 for 6
> > years) for "test" software, and now Microsoft wants them to fork over
> > another $300-400 for Vista Ultimate, for which Microsoft will give
> > them a "Free" copy of Vista Ultimate - "For testing".
>
> > Pardon me if I'm underwhelmed by Microsoft's generousity.
>
> You are apparently not an MSDN subscriber, else you would have a better
> understanding of the program. The retail copy of Vista Ultimate is for
> those who are not subscribers with access to the released products.
> Subscribers get the released stuff as part of the package. The people who
> did the Beta testing did not pay anything for the Beta products and they
> were time locked at the outset. The two for one is for unrestricted use of
> the two licenses, I believe.
I used to APPROVE MSDN subscriptions. I never got one for myself
because there were too many restrictions on information I already
had. Still, I was acutely familiar with the licenses and their terms
and restrictions.
Some things may have changed, but as I recall, these were Microsoft
DEVELOPER Network Licenses. They were intended to be used exclusively
to help DEVELOPERS who wanted to write and test software for
Microsoft's newest and latest platforms. They were allowed to use the
provided software on DEVELOPMENT systems only, not production systems
or even systems used for other personal or business uses.
> If you have a subscription, you can have any platform product in any
> language and as many as needed. A single key is only good for 10 instances,
> and even that is way more than needed anymore with the proliferation of
> virtualization in the test labs.
It depends on the kind of subscription you have. Corporate customers
have to pay on a "Per Developer" basis.
Still, Microsoft isn't really ugly when it comes to enforcement. They
tend to turn a blind eye to developers, especially developers who
really have put hundreds of hours into promoting Microsoft products,
developing new software for Microsoft, and often influencing key
decision makers into painting themselves into the corner with
Microsoft's "Glue" products, while Microsoft paints the side closest
to the cash register and the exit. In many cases, these developers
had helped Microsoft net several $million in revenues and profits, so
quibbling over a $200 license for Windows was just silly.
Which is what makes Microsoft's Generous "Offer" even more
surprising. Apparently, Microsoft has decided it hasn't gotten enough
from their MSDN developers this time around. They haven't been able
to convince CIOs and CTOs to upgrade to Vista en masse. They haven't
been able to convince business managers to scuttle their Linux servers
and replace them with Windows 2003. They haven't been able to derail
plans to order machines that run Linux and force corporate procurement
departments to purchase "Windows Only" machines.
Microsoft would never take such actions unless they were really
struggling for revenues and license counts.
Microsoft is also looking at more successful competition from OS/X and
Apple, Linux, including IBM, Novell, Red Hat, and Ubuntu. There are
even several Linux businesses who are doing very well at expanding and
generating very healthy markets for Linux and related software.
Microsoft's problem today isn't a single huge competitor that wants to
take 50% or more of the entire software market for themselves, it's
hundreds of competitors, all willing to charge a fraction of what
Microsoft charges, provide better support, and are only going after
little piece of the market. Many are quite happy making a few hundred
million dollars on less than 100 million users. There are a few
companies that are willing, and able, to make $billions, but even
then, they are making that money by offering services with clearly
observable value, rather than attempting to squeeze more and more
revenue while offering little additional value in terms of real
productivity, reduced effort, new revenue, or other forms of return on
investment.
It's a bit like how Levi's ended up going from the only blue jean
maker, to one of thousands of vendors, many of whom provided better
fit and style and often at lower cost and/or better comfort.
|
|
