What should we do about Software Assurance?
-
What should we do about Software Assurance?
I saw this rumor that Microsoft was going to give some type of reparation to some software assurance customers who are upset about the delays in Vista and Office 2007. Then I caught of bunch of other articles, this is one, that say Microsoft is denying the report.
To be fair, the report doesn't give details, but it says that salespeople have been empowered to give satisfaction around these issues. eWeek is defending it's report and that would be surprising if they weren't 100% sure of what they had put out on the web.
Since we see a lot of posts on licensing here and most of us in the SQL Server world have had to deal with licensing, that's the poll this week?
Is the Software Assurance policy fair?
The current policy, at least as far as I understand it and please someone correct me if I'm wrong, is that you buy SA when you buy the software, you get some discount on the software, but more you get any upgrades in the meantime, which is the 3 year period from when you purchased software. Since Windows has typically released new versions in < 3 years (95, 98, 00, 01), it's worked out well for people. I'm not sure of the Office release schedule, but I think Office has followed closely.
However since 2001, SQL Server, Windows (desktop, not server), Office, and some other products haven't been updated. So if you were thinking you'd continue on the upgrade path from XP, Office 2003, etc., you're out of luck and need to purchase new upgrades for Vista and Office 2007.
It doesn't take much of a conspiracy to think that Microsoft could "shift" the release date by a few months to ensure that a large number of Software Assurance (SA) customers missed getting the upgrade. I mean there is a CRM/Sales/Financial system in Redmond that can tell you everyday how many customers are expiring and it wouldn't take much of a Reporting Services Report to tie those expirations to expected revenue for the company.
I doubt that Microsoft would slip a year or more, but I could see people in the finance department pushing hard to slip a ship date from November to February. Not saying they're doing it, but it's not a far fetched scenario.
Since Microsoft has pretty much gotten away from point released (no SQL Server 2000.5) this millennium, and they've slipped quite a bit on ship dates, I'm not sure SA makes sense for many corporations. If Microsoft might slip their development to 4 or 5 years, why not slip your upgrades that long and run on a 6 year cycle for upgrades? Many companies are probably considering or even planning this now.
SA as it currently is managed has the air of deception and unfairness around it. Especially since training and support don't necessarily get used. There are so many other resources that it's easy to count your support calls up and go with the $249 bargain price when you need it.
I don't think SA is fair as it stands because there's no commitment to upgrades or new releases. There's not even a commitment to service packs. If Microsoft wants to get us on a subscription model and have us locked in, then give us some fair guarantees.
- Provide a guaranteed schedule for upgrades, even if this means R2 and point releases.
- Don't release enhancements and new functionality in patches, make it a separate download so IT people aren't trying to patch and learn new features.
- Get a Service Pack schedule. If quarterly is too quick, go with every 4 or 6 months, but get a schedule going. If the security group can do it, the developers can as well.
Software Assurance should be about the software. Not training and not support. Those are nice, but they're not the biggest cost and they're not the biggest hassle. Be more fair to your customers.
Most of us aren't interested in moving to *nix. We like Windows, but we want a fair pricing scheme that recognizes that one of the most profitable companies on the planet cares about its customers as much as its profit.
Steve Jones
Follow me on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/way0utwest
Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
My Blog: www.voiceofthedba.com -
here here to this editorial!
im not a SA buyer, but if MS was to guarantee some of the options in the editorial that would go a long way to making me think that a subscription model might be a good idea..
ads
------------------------------
Life is far too important to be taken seriously -
Good job, Steve. No one is going to *nix. MS needs to get its act together. SA is just not the deal it should be. How about SA being 15% or 18% like the rest of the industry instead of 25% and 33%?
-
Years ago we did not purchase SA for our SQL Servers. Good thing since they slipped on the 2000 to 2005 versions. Microsoft was on-site talking to us about 2005 and we looked at SA again. It was going to cost us in excess of $250,000 to do it for all of our SQL Servers... in order to do that we would have to put together a huge presentation to the IT VP to be able to ask for that kind of cash. With our company going through a budget crunch and downsizing it just did not make sense.
-
Every Time I've looked SA just hasn't made sense. Even when they overhauled it in 02-03 it still didn't make sense. They kept telling us to sell it with WinXP because of the "free" upgrades people will get to whatever the codename was for Vista at the time.
I agree 100% that if MS wanted to sell it, they need to provide some sort of garunteed release Cycle that will be able to show some benefit to customers. But that needs to be doen not just for SA customers, that needs to be done so that we can all get onto a better technology refresh cycle and can plan it out a bit better. I just finished rolling out new XP machines for a company that was going to put in new machines and was palnning to go to Vista. They had the money earmarked for this quarter, but because of the delays, they had to install XP and didn't have enough Cash left over for SA. so they won't see Vista (or whatever else is out there at that time) for another 3 years when they do thier next refresh.
Steve, You're absolutly correct that It's Software Assurance and should deal with the Software, not support and training.
-
Software Assurance seemed like a great idea. Ease corporate planning and budgeting for new software purchases. Then Slammer and all the other security problems hit the fan. Microsoft, in response, had to refocus their development teams on coding for security first. This probably caused 14-18 month delay on many larger products. The team managing the Software Assurance program should have recognized this then and developed some plans to mitigate the pain for current customers and ease purchase for new customers. Unless they announce something soon, I'd say they missed that opportunity.
I hope not.
Peter Shire
sqlSentry
-
I agree wholeheartedly with your editiorial, Steve. Our company bought Software Assurance with SQL2000, and never got to use it because SQL2005 came out years later. Microsoft did only what they were legally obligated to do, but not morally obligated (in my mind). We believe we have been badly burned by Microsoft, and plan to buy our SQL Server and other Server products at the last possible minute before implementation, no software assurance. We do 5-6 year cycles for upgrades and will probably never have shorter upgrade cycles than that.
I strongly prefer longer cycles; if MS does 2-3 year new release cycles, we will skip one to acheive 5-6 year upgrade cycles.
-
I tend to agree. Two to three years is almost too quick for major release upgrades. I understand they need to keep up with the competition but us poor soles that have to constantly upgrade all of our SQL Servers makes it almost impossible to do (we have 20 prod SQL Servers). 80% of our SQL Servers are packaged software so we cannot upgrade until they certify the new release of SQL Server and sometimes that takes YEARS.
-
Steve,
I mostly agree with your comments, however, I have to raise objection to the following:
"...but I could see people in the finance department pushing hard to slip a ship date from November to February. Not saying they're doing it, but it's not a far fetched scenario."
If you come at this from purely a skeptical point of view and you only consider the RTM release dates I can see how you could raise this question. However, given the degree of transparency of the development cycle that started in 2004 with SQL Server Yukon and Visual Studio Whidbey I don't think you can say with a straight face that we sat on the final releases waiting for SA to run out - it is a farfetched scenario (side note: I’m not sure that SA ran out on VS).
Talk to anyone @ MSFT and you'll hear a similar story - there is tremendous pressure, every day, to ship. It starts with CTPs but doesn't end with RTM. We're working on SQL2K5 SP2 and the pressure is still pretty intense. This is why you'll see lights on past 9pm in most MSFT buildings - even building 35 (the SQL Server building).
From my perspective the reason these products and Vista and Office have slipped is very simple - the teams bit off far more than they could chew. The reasons for that are extremely complex but it really boils down to this, if the teams had chosen to do less the products would have shipped in a more timely fashion. This isn't any great insight on my part and I'm sure it comes across a tad sophomoric. Managing scope if more science than art – there is no silver bullet or holly grail. It takes incredible persistency, confidence, and ownership to say “no, we’re not going to add that feature” or to say “yes, we’re going to cut this feature”. I’ve seen some changes to the process we’re using for Katmai, but old habits certainly die hard.
Cheers,
Dan
-
SET SUPPORT_MS ON
Warning: this is an extremely rare event !!!
Fair ? Who or what deity, supreme or not, promised you 'fair' out of life or anything else for that matter. MS is out to make a profit <period>
SET SUPPORT_MS OFF
It's all about your organization's situation specifics. This includes number of servers, clients, software presently in use, present licensing agreements and size. Even more import in this mix is the understanding and negotiation of the agreement(s) in place and those to be executed. Nothing with MS is set in stone. Thanks to a few key individuals in our organization we incurred an initial 1.3M cost saving due entirely to SA (that was 2 years ago) and have been reaping additional annual savings as well. We just renegitiated a renewal for our EA, SA and Premier agreements. Yes, our SA agreement has the perk mentioned in the editorial and we got MS to throw in a few more !
RegardsRudy KomacsarSenior Database Administrator"Ave Caesar! - Morituri te salutamus."
-
Fair is not the word I would use. I just have never seen anything in it for me and my organization.
Russel Loski, MCSE Business Intelligence, Data Platform
-
I understand that SA is not for 3 years since SW is purchased but as they explained to me it is valid as long as SA is included in the Enterprise or Select agreement that is normally signred for 3 years and after that may or may not be renewed with SA. I may or may not be correct, but this is a qoute from an email from our contract provider SW company: "The Software Assurance will expire when the contract expires on xx/xx/200x. At that time you would have the option to renew the Software Assurance. If you choose not to renew you would still own the license but not enititled to any rev's should there be any in the next contract period."
Regards,Yelena Varsha
-
We passed on SA when we purchased a SQL Server 2k license a while back for the simple reason that the cost of the SA was *more* than the already published cost of the soon-to-be-released SQL 2005... what kind of assurance is that?
Steve G.
Viewing 13 posts - 1 through 12 (of 12 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply