Microsoft Customers Balk at Hard Sell 353
HangingChad writes "ComputerWorld is running an article about Microsoft's latest type of sales force scare tactic. Apparently Microsoft is using the new title of 'engagement manager' to attempt sales via intimidation. From the article: 'Indeed, according to Microsoft's Web site, the responsibility of someone with Lawless' title of "engagement manager" is to "perform as an integrated member of the account team, drive business development and closing of new services engagements in targeted accounts."'"
it's all about obfuscation (Score:5, Insightful)
What's up with Microsoft? I would recommend Thomas Peters' "In Search of Excellence" for their review. While I wouldn't agree 100% with all of "Search...", there are anecdotes and good evidence around "customer service", and what makes a company excellent.
Creating adversarial relationships, especially ones where Microsoft as much as accuses a customer of piracy (are we sure Microsoft hasn't purchased RIAA yet?) cultivates resentment and long term rot.
And now, Microsoft is creating account team members whose sole function is to instill FUD in their customer, intimidating them into shelling out even more money for services to ensure Microsoft checks and balances are in Microsoft's favor? Sheesh. This is a scam, pure and simple. As the article points out, if Microsoft truly thinks something is amiss "it sics the Business Software Alliance on the company. It doesn't turn the matter over to one of its sales managers".
Maybe Microsoft is doing this to themselves inadvertently, or maybe it's a strategy. From the Fine Article:
Microsoft's "complexities of software licensing" are the seed of irritation. Accusing customers of ripping them off because they can't figure these complex licenses out entirely is the fertilizer to grow that seed into full blown resentment.
If there were any real alternatives to technology in today's Microsoft dominated juggernaut, these "practices" would send customers screaming to the competition. Unfortunately, so far, there aren't.
You must be new here (Score:4, Funny)
Well, there is this interesting operating system that I heard about on this website called "slapdash" or something like that. Seems like it scales pretty well and some big computer companies like IBM are playing around with it.
I think it was called 'Linux' - could be wrong about that.
Unfortunately, Linux is not an alternative (Score:4, Insightful)
But, for most businesses, it's no alternative to windows.
Linux is good OS, but it doesn't run the apps that most businesses need. FYI: there are more apps than just wordprocessors and web-browsers. For just one very small example: UPS worldship software, used my many businesses, doesn't run on Linux.
Tons of specialized proprietary software doesn't run on Linux. I recently installed some specialized software for an auto-body shop. And guess what? It only runs on windows.
Sure Linux is fast, secure, stable, and inexpensive. But nobody runs an OS just to run an OS: it's all about the apps.
Re:Unfortunately, Linux is not an alternative (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Unfortunately, Linux is not an alternative (Score:3, Insightful)
Lol. Right. As an example, the last company I was at did software for a particular manufacturing industry. Our customers relied on this software to run their business. Yes, they needed it badly. No, they couldn't recreate the software for the cost of buying 50 or 100 Windows licenses. The software had hundreds of programmer-years worth of work in it.
Why weren't
Re:Unfortunately, Linux is not an alternative (Score:3, Insightful)
The Microsoft-way is running everything on Windows, using all Microsoft-formats and protocols and using lock-in techniques like Active Directory.
The (IMO saner) way is to run Windows where you really need it (on many, possibly most desktops) but use Unix/Linux on the server and even more importantly use open standards and formats whereever possible. (For example use Mozilla/html/LAMP instead of client/server/Win32 or IE/html/ASP)
Re:You must be new here (Score:5, Insightful)
And for a lot of people, all they use the computer for is email/internet. Add in openoffice (already included) and a surprising large portion of the population is taken care of. Before I hear cries of "photoshop" this and that, already granted but that is a different segment of the populace. It's also nice using an OS where I can download what I need in most cases and that it's legitimately free, not loaded down with bloat/spyware, or have a friend reminder pop up every 30 seconds of how I should register some software.
If by it's not a real alternative "right now" you mean it's not "perfect." Well, no, but neither is windows. With that attitude, nothing will get developed far enough to be "perfect" because no ones using it. But it's good enough for a lot of people, so it is an alternative.
Seriously, I don't know if you were trolling or what, but Desktop Linux today is far ahead of Desktop Linux of just 2 years ago and light years ahead of Desktop Linux 1999. On my personal linux workstation, I haven't used a commandline in months and I'm a semi-power user.
And yes, I have introduce Linux to Newbs (former Windows users) who have stuck with it. These aren't l33t hackers either.
Re:You must be new here (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem with linux on the desktop is the same as it's ever been: You can't go down to best buy and buy a 1,001 of the best screensavers compilation for linux. Even if you could, odds are it wouldn't run when you got it home because of some customization you needed for some simple piece of hardware, like your wifi card.
Even with ubuntu, you have to go add a repository (the multiverse or whatever stupid name they use for it, I just did it but I forget) just to install acrobat reader, or mplayer plugins for firefox. For that matter, you have to actually know that you need the mplayer-plugins from the multiverse. This took me a bit of googling to find. The average user has no hope.
Then there's the other problem, that support lags behind windows. The latest flash player, for example, isn't available for linux yet, so even once you figure out how to install it (it's got a package in the multiverse too; the package downloads the binaries from adobe's servers) you may not be able to view sites.
Linux is great, linux is good, I'm pretty happy with ubuntu dapper beta on my stinkpad so far (updates have been flowing regularly, thank goodness) once I got it installed. The partition creation/selection part of the installer in flight 6 was broken, and I still have no idea how I got it to work... But then, it's beta.
Until users can trivially install the software they need (like acroread) without having to google for instructions, Linux can not possibly be ready for the mass-market desktop.
Re:You must be new here (Score:3, Interesting)
The nice thing about linux (for me) is that I didn't have to buy software in years for it:) I understand some people might want something (like Photoshop) that'
Re:You must be new here (Score:3, Insightful)
You can't go down to best buy and buy a 1,001 of the best screensavers compilation for linux.
You don't need to buy screensavers and put them on your computer at work. In fact, your IT department doesn't want you putting that crap on your system.
Even with ubuntu, you have to go add a repository (the multiverse or whatever stupid name they use for it, I just did it but I forget) just to install acrobat reader, or mplayer plugins for firefox.
IT can pre-configure all that stu
Re:You must be new here (Score:3, Insightful)
Funny that you mention this, because I haven't a good idea on how to install acroread for XP. Do you go to superdownloads.com for that, or should you buy a CD at CompUSA? Who sells this "acroread", how can I install it in XP if all I know is the software's name?
In (K)Ubuntu I know it's very simple: click on the button at the lower le
Re:You must be new here (Score:3, Funny)
Funny that you mention this, because I haven't a good idea on how to install acroread for XP. Do you go to superdownloads.com for that, or should you buy a CD at CompUSA? Who sells this "acroread", how can I install it in XP if all I know is the software's name?
By "arcoread", do you mean Adobe Acrobat? It's in the "Start" menu, and was there when I bought the PC. I didn't have to install it. It's made by Adobe, BTW.
In (K)Ubuntu I know it's ver
Re:You must be new here (Score:5, Funny)
Easy = exactly the same as in Windows.
Nothing could possibly be better than Windows by definition.
Even if your Linux distro could foretell the future and installed software automatically before you knew you needed it, people like this would still "know" that the way Windows does it is easier.
You and I and a lot of other people know Ubuntu or Mandriva is generally a lot easier to use than Windows, but it is a waste of time trying to convince people who have an emotional investment in Windows and do not want to believe that Linux could be more user friendly.
Re:You must be new here (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason for this is that 95% of the businesses which are Microsoft shops have a sales, marketing and middle management that is MS Exchange addicted and is living under the false impression that it is good process and business practice to drag any person from any other part of the business into a meeting on a whim based on his schedule in Exchange. They are the primary and usually unsurmounatble obstacle to conversion.
Just try going into a Microsoft shop and saying to the sales team "You will no longer drag Engineering into meetings. You will submit requests via an issue tracking (or CRM) system instead so they can have a correct resource allocation". The screams will reach CEO level with a speed which will make you wander if Einstein is right about C being the absolute speed limit.
In order to convert even a part of a Microsoft addicted business you have to create suitable processes and most importanly kill the S&M idea that the world is flat and they are the only pinnacle sticking out of it. This is a long and painfull process. Once it is complete parts of the business can use the right tool for their jobs (linux, BSD, Solaris, MacOS, even Windows which is configured to a specific business task). But not before that. And Microsoft knows this and does their best to provide "solutions" which allow you not to compartamentalise your business.
Re:You must be new here (Score:4, Insightful)
I've worked in a few places that operated just like this, except with Lotus Notes.
Probably the worst thing about working in a "Microsoft-Addicted" business is the attitude that Excel+Email is the universal tool for solving everything. Because Microsoft pushes tools and not solutions, people thend to be very ad-hoc about process related stuff.
Re:You must be new here (Score:5, Insightful)
If so you need to disabuse yourself of that notion right now because it's not true. There are numerous open source and commercial softwares that allow you to do that.
Re:You must be new here (Score:5, Informative)
However, at the last check (about 5 months ago), not a single one provided the pretty integrated solution that Outlook and Exchange does. At best, they require a separate plugin for Outlook. I found that adding a plugin which sucks to a PIM which sucks does not tend to reduce the overall level of sucking - indeed, with any significant number of client PCs and a requirement that everyone shares their calendars in an integrated system, Exchange rapidly starts to look attractive.
At worst, they provide nothing more than a web-based interface (yes, this will get screams from those who "must" use Outlook), with one or more of the following:
If you're lucky, you'll be able to get a usable solution and find a web-based system which doesn't completely suck and you'll get buy-in from the rest of the business.
Now watch this get modded into oblivion because it doesn't tow the party line that There is a Good Open Source Replacement for Everything....
Re:You must be new here (Score:3, Insightful)
Which of these three buttons, attached to every meeting request, should you be clicking?
Re:You must be new here (Score:3)
And Exchange, and QuickBooks, and all the other important apps that are only written for Win32.
As someone who has solely used Linux at home for 5 years, and who must use Win2K at work, it is painfully but sadly obvious to me that there aren't enough apps (I said apps, not languages and utilities) for Linux/Unix.
Yes, it's MSFT's fault for illegally strong-arming itself into monopoly, but that's not the point. Until the ISVs start writing for *ix, *ix can's be brought onto the common user's
Re:it's all about obfuscation (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:it's all about obfuscation (Score:5, Insightful)
The legit problems is that since they have a virtual monopoly their biggest compeditor is the version of Windows (or Office, etc.) they sold customers a few years ago. Hence the only way to grow is to "encourage" people to buy new software even if they don't really need it.
They have a history of upsetting their userbase. Given that they have a virtual monopoly they don't really care if their users like them. MS takes a corporate mafia approach to sales, trying to strong arm customers into paying them off. I've seen these articles in the nears every few years for most of the last decade.
I keep hoping it will drive defections to Apple's OS X or Linux.
Re:it's all about obfuscation (Score:3, Interesting)
It's more like the RIAA licensed Microsoft's business methods. Long before this whole P2P thing blew up, Microsoft was performing surprise "licensing audits" against damn near everyone with more than 20 seats. Schools, corporations, and everything in between got a visit from Microsoft. People who were out
Re:it's all about obfuscation (Score:3, Funny)
Re:it's all about obfuscation (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, I disagree. Most people don't actually care. There's even a hell of a lot out there that actually love Microsoft products (they're an American company, wave flag, etc.), and another very large set that just likes the idea that a single source solution tends to play pretty well with itself.
Part of the problem for the alternate systems is to actually convince people that the MS monopoly is bad for them.
Re:it's all about obfuscation (Score:5, Insightful)
No, that attitude is the problem itself. Trying to sell a product on the basis of "It's not Microsoft" doesn't work in the real world because Microsoft is not percieved to be any worse of a problem than the Electric Company/other benevolant monopoly.
The Linux world focuses far too much on the negatives about MS and Windows and far too little on whatever positives they have. It's not hard to read between the lines and realize that even the stalwart Linux advocates don't believe in the product on it's own merits.
Re:it's all about obfuscation (Score:5, Insightful)
If by "Linux World" you mean "people who initiate threads about Linux on slashdot stories about Microsoft," then I agree wholeheartedly. Of course, they are often baited with phrases like, "no viable alternative."
Look on sites and mailing lists for Linux distros and developers, and you'll scarcely see a mention of Microsoft except in passing.
The same can be said for the Windows advocates around here. The highest praise I have seen in a while about Windows is "everyone uses it" and "I haven't had a problem in a long time and you wouldn't either if you patched religiously, never opened suspicious emails or installed suspicious software, and ran a firewall and 2 different malware scanners." That is, until your "benevolant [sic] monopoly" comment, which I'm not sure even Bill Gates would believe.
Re:it's all about obfuscation (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, a cheap *home* program produced for maybe a year in 1993 happened to be bad, that'll convince me not to run Windows XP! Good argument, sir!
Re:it's all about obfuscation (Score:3)
By profiling it as an american company (which ofcourse it is) they risk alienating a LOT of other countries which become sicker everyday of the american way. On the other hand... Maybe that will help getting a real alternative within maybe 3-5 years.
Re:it's all about obfuscation (Score:5, Insightful)
In fact, if I had to pick a single phrase that sums up Microsoft, that's what it would be: "good enough."
It's not wonderful, and it's not cheap, but it basically does what it says it's going to do, and the pricing is such that most businesses can afford it (or that they've rolled the cost of it up into their products and passed it onto their customers).
The only people that probably 'hate' Microsoft are probably at competitor companies (insofar as they exist anymore), and that only people who really 'love' them are probably at companies that are making money off of their dominance in some direct or indirect fashion.
To the very great majority of people, Microsoft software is like 120VAC electricity: they understand that there are other ways to run their toaster, and perhaps are even dimly aware that in other places, things work differently, but it's not particularly relevant to their business, and as a result they don't care.
If people dislike Microsoft for something, it's mostly for their licensing structure. That's why you see most people trying to advocate Linux use to businesses focus on the small-F "free" aspect: very few people really care about the capital-F/libre definition of "Free," the only advantage of Linux is that it costs less.
However, I think during periods of market contraction, as companies look towards their overhead for ways to cut costs and maintain profitability, you'll see increased interest in free replacements for expensive software. Right now, most companies aren't under so much pressure that it's worth the transition problems to get rid of Windows (although it's worth transitioning from UNIX to Linux in many cases). As the market becomes more and more competitive and commoditized, I think eventually people are going to see the price of a Windows+Office license for every computer as a competitive disadvantage.
Re:it's all about obfuscation (Score:5, Interesting)
I think that's putting it way too simply. Everyone I have met who hates Microsoft has not been a competitor but a consumer, albeit perhaps a knowledgeable and self-interested one. The problem is that Microsoft does not just destroy its competitors -- it also destroys choice, either by drowning out alternatives with FUD and marketing, or with the classic "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish" strategy. And this angers those of us who want a choice.
If people dislike Microsoft for something, it's mostly for their licensing structure.
Microsoft's whole business model depends on being a monopoly, so they do everything they can to preserve it. Their licenses help them to do that, but they're not the real issue. See above.
That's why you see most people trying to advocate Linux use to businesses focus on the small-F "free" aspect: very few people really care about the capital-F/libre definition of "Free," the only advantage of Linux is that it costs less.
"Free as in beer" is not the only advantage of FOSS such as Linux. However, it is the first one that a business is likely to understand, so it's hardly a surprise that an advocate would mention it first in a business context.
As for the "free as in speech" part, which really is manifested in the use of open standards -- this also benefits a business because: it removes the threat of vendor lock-in; it promotes competition between software suppliers; and it protects the ability to access to documents and data in the event that the software company goes out of business or withdraws support for the formats.
Re:it's all about obfuscation (Score:3, Insightful)
Not wanting to defend MS Word (it's a bloated mess), but this is actually your mistake for thinking Word is a page layout program. It isn't. It reformats the text based on your default printer sett
Re:it's all about obfuscation (Score:4, Insightful)
By using *any* software, OSS or proprietary, you're putting yourself at the mercy of whatever development resources are working on that software, especially if you're not a developer yourself.
I must take exception to this especially. While neither I nor anyone else could possibly go over every line of code in every open-source program in an entire lifetime, that's not necessary either.
If I notice some unusual behavior from the kernel or a given application (for example, a program sending packets somewhere I didn't tell it to, a program accessing the Internet which should have no need to do so, etc.), I can go look at the -relevant portion- of the code. So can anyone else in the world-you are not at the "mercy of the developers" by any means with open-source. Even if you personally cannot read the code, you can call someone's attention to it who can, and that person can then alert the community if something untoward is occurring. This can also help prevent "false alarms"-it is entirely possible that the unusual behavior is perfectly harmless, and a look at the code will reveal this as well.
Finally, if it -is- discovered that the software is doing something it shouldn't be, it's then possible for anyone to fix the code. If a FOSS program were to begin installing spyware or malware, anyone who wishes can strip the malicious code out and offer the program without it. Any other developer can check to make sure they did the job properly, and fix it if they didn't.
Contrast that with closed-source software. Say I install a closed-source media player on my system. I have not asked it to play anything off the Internet, yet it is accessing (or attempting to access) it, and send encrypted information. Why? Is it trying to download ads or malware? Is it sending statistics about how I'm using it to someone? Is it checking a repository to see if a better version is available? I don't know-and I can't look. Or in other words, I'm at the mercy of the developers.
I find it exceptionally unlikely that commodity software will ever be open source. That's zealot speak.
Tell that to Red Hat, Novell, IBM, or any number of other companies who make pretty good money off commodity OSS. I'm sure those zealots will laugh at you all the way to the bank.
Contracts in force between MS & AWC???? (Score:5, Insightful)
a Select or Enterprise Agreement with MS, they had the right to audit
spelled out in the contract. The article is mum as to whether or not such
an agreement was in force between MS & AWC, though most companies of any
size have one or both agreements.
So, if MS has a Select or Enterprise Agreement with AWC, then MS is fully
within their right to request an audit and this is a non-news article.
Also, note that Computer World doesn't call this a "sales force scare
tactic" as the headline implies. That term isn't even used in the article.
Sales Force Scare Tactic. (Score:4, Informative)
note that Computer World doesn't call this a "sales force scare tactic" as the headline implies. That term isn't even used in the article.
The article says:
The attorney, suspecting that Lawless' actions were part of an elaborate sales effort, basically told her to back off.
and it adds up:
The fact is, if Microsoft really has reason to believe that a company is using unlicensed copies of its software, it sics the Business Software Alliance on the company. It doesn't turn the matter over to one of its sales managers.
Telling your sales force to threaten and intimidate customers is a scare tactic designed to sell crap. These idiots think they have the world by the nuts.
The complexities of license compliance and the threat of a BSA raid is one of the best reasons to avoid the non free software offered by M$ and the other BSA member companies.
Idiots? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Contracts in force between MS & AWC???? (Score:5, Insightful)
1. They did not request a 3rd party, independent audit. On the contrary, they claimed their in-house auditing service was the "only unbiased" audit, which is exactly 180-degrees from the truth; it's the very definition of bias.
2. They completely disregarded without even a glance the customer's legitimate efforts to demonstrate his legality. This shows MS was not in any way acting in good faith.
3. Any party that believes another has wronged them is obliged to take that grievance to the proper authorities, not threaten unilateral actions. What MS did here reeks of extortion; the threat of one-on-one remedies in order to coerce behavior without any involvement of the court system.
-Kurt
Re:Contracts in force between MS & AWC???? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Contracts in force between MS & AWC???? (Score:4, Insightful)
"No your honor, I don't mind if they audit us, but this exchange shows that this is nothing more than an attempt to strong arm us into buying more of their products. They would not even work with us to ensure that the audit went smoothly!"
IANAL though.
Not between equals. (Score:4, Interesting)
Meet the DMCA. If the BSA has "evidence" of your wrongdoing, you get to pay for the audit and the "violated" company's legal bills. See here [com.com] for a reference story and what to do about this kind of extortion. Essentially, you are screwed and have to pay the fines demanded without a fight. A fight would cost the average company half a million dollars, more if you include the cost of business disruption.
Software contracts and licenses are not normal contracts. The "agreement" between you and a non free software company is that you are so greatfull for the software that you will do as you are told.
Treating customers like this, Microsoft has completely lost it.
Hmm (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Hmm (Score:2)
Perhaps they should provide reasons... (Score:4, Insightful)
Meaningless blurb (Score:5, Informative)
From TFA, MS is sending their sales people after customers claiming the customer is not in license compliance and they need to send an inspection team in. They are very threatening, implying if the company doesn't comply, they'll face legal prosecution. Once the inspection team gets in, they try to get the customer to buy more products.
SOP (Score:2)
And they've been doing this for YEARS. It's nothing new. When we went to Notes from Exchange, it happened. It also hapened when we pased over SQL Server in favor of O
Re:Meaningless blurb (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, I wouldn't allow any hostile entity into facilities entrusted to me unless there was a legitimate warrant of some kind. I think businesses are probably being smart enough to check with their legal counsel before being duped into allowing fishing expeditions.
bad summary. (Score:5, Informative)
They never got to that point because AWC's lawyer told them to stick it.
It it works like a BSA raid, M$ will get a court order for an inspection based on some kind of "evidence", which could be anything from an anonymous phone call by a disgruntled employee to some program the secretary installed phoning home. AWC would then have the choice of paying for the inspection or another even more expensive "service" from a list M$ offers. The raid itself would involve massive disruption of work.
This is the appropriate response [com.com].
Re:Meaningless blurb (Score:2)
Can you please let me know how the heck do they convince the customer to buy more if he's totally legit?
And if he's not, buying the products he needs seems like the least evil that can happen to him (compared to legal prosecution).
Engage (Score:2)
Microsoft Customers Balk at Hard Sell (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Microsoft Customers Balk at Hard Sell (Score:2)
Who is "you"? If you know something and can back it up, then post it. Otherwise, STFU.
Re:Microsoft Customers Balk at Hard Sell (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Microsoft Customers Balk at Hard Sell (Score:4, Interesting)
1. You have no prior business arrangement with Oracle
2. You haven't bought the piece of software in question
3. You aren't required to have a software audit upon request
4. They have no reason to question that you're using the software correctly or not (since you never used it, there's no dial home)
There's a difference between
"Buy our software because you haven't, but you should, so do it!"
and
"We've been mulling it over in the ol' license factory and we think you're lieing when you say you're only using our software 5 times. We think you need to license 100,000,000 users since one server's SMB share is available to the internet serving pr0n (good pr0n btw). So instead of using high pressure marketing techniques which obviously aren't working, we're going to use our manifest right to invade your workplace to mandate what's needed for compliance the way we see it."
Yeah, I was ranting...
Re:Microsoft Customers Balk at Hard Sell (Score:2)
Re:Microsoft Customers Balk at Hard Sell (Score:5, Insightful)
Been going on for a while now... (Score:4, Informative)
I've had Reception add "any calls from Microsoft" to the forward straight to voicemail. If the BSA wants to talk to me about my license counts, I'm not one bit worried.
MAS90 made by MS? I think not. (Score:5, Informative)
MS's accounting software is Dynamics. Redmond did not call you to sell a competitor's product.
Furthermore, MAS products are generally not sold directly by Best, they are sold via resellers.
You just happened to have an agressive sales person contact you, that's all. In no way is that trying to "force a sale." There was no implied threat of lawsuit for failing to have licenses or anything like that.
Brilliant (Score:3, Interesting)
Any company that knowingly (or thinks they are) in vialation will quickly signup for whatever universal license agreement that will cover them. Most of the time those people have already looked at the options and know what they need to do.
Unfortuanatly they did not back off when someone called the bluff. Know when to fold um.
Im not justifying it, im just saying its thinking outside the box. And i would guess that its very effective.
This is very common (Score:2, Interesting)
This is not uncommon. In fact, I don't know any super large company that would not put pressure on vendors and small companies that rely on the bigger ones. This is the case with so many
What has happened to Microsoft? (Score:5, Funny)
Have they forgotten how effective BRIBING people can be?
Have all the creative people left the company?
Will someone PLEASE put Ballmer back in charge of Sales?
Please, no! (Score:4, Funny)
It's one thing to have some sales sleaze saying, "Dat's a nice server youse got there... shame if anything should happen to it," and quite another to have the top sales maniac saying, "I'm going to fucking KILL YOU!" and throwing chairs at your server.
Off-topic digression*:
If anyone out there likes making game hacks, someone write up "Ballmer Kong". The Ball-ape stands at the top, lobbing chairs down the scaffolding, while your character, a penguin, jumps over the chairs, or blows them up by throwing apples at them.
*Yes, I know; that's a superfluous redundancy.
Engagement? (Score:5, Funny)
Ironic (Score:5, Funny)
Nobody (Score:5, Funny)
Get legal! (Score:5, Informative)
Balk? (Score:2)
Apparently they still haven't figured out who holds the whip. Microsoft is about to educate them.
Correct Response, ala Ernie Ball year 2000 (Score:3, Informative)
This is why.... (Score:3, Funny)
I heard from these guys I think... (Score:3, Interesting)
When nicely told to stick it, the final word from this ass was (and I quote) "How confident are you that you have everything in order?"
I'd really hate for something to happen to your nice store there, Mister. You sure you don't want to hire us to make sure nothing gets broken?
My advice: Ignore them and they will go away (Score:5, Insightful)
Database vendors like Oracle also like to come in and do reviews/audits so they can help you save money and (sic) purchase the optimal license agreement. In reality, you already have the best license deal and the vendor wants to kill it and replace it with one that costs more.
We learned long ago that these sales weenies are just fishing for anyone who will talk to them. If you ignore them, they will go bug someone naive enough to talk with them. They have no legal authority and are, dare I say sharks, trying to rewrite your license agreement to get you to fork over more cash.
Stay legal on all your licensing and simply factor licenses into the purchase price of every machine. If you know that you purchase licenses with every machine and keep your license count current for upgrades and maintenance, the matter will take care of itself.
Note, young inexperienced managers will fall for the "cost savings" sales pitch quite often since they want to be perceived as doing something for the business. If they are foolish enough to start licensing conversations, make sure that you explain how much time and cost the audit process with take. Ask who is going to pay for the labor to install auditing software. Explain that vendors are not allowed access to servers and PCs. Ask them who is going to assume the security risk for any audit software and who will take responsibility if it causes problems in your production environment. After all, I am sure that all audit software is bulletproof and well written. Itemize all the costs and risks then make sure your manager's manager and/or customer see this risk/cost assessment.
My advice: Just ignore them and they will go away AND put your grumpiest and savviest technical manager in charge of any license renewals.
Proper response (Score:4, Insightful)
I think all the response this tactic deserves is an icy "If you want to discuss license compliance, let me transfer you to our legal department where someone can assist you.". Then you do just that, making sure your lawyer knows before the MS rep can talk that the rep has stated or implied that you lack licenses for some software.
Of course, also make sure you've got original media and license certificats and keys for every copy of software you've got installed, or relevant current license agreement documentation covering the installed software. Remember that there's what MS might like you to have to produce, then there's what you legally have to or should be able to produce, and the two aren't neccesarily identical.
they might convince me if they were nicer... (Score:3, Informative)
My first-hand impression is that they will do anything including lie to your face to get you to listen to their latest gimmick.
This is totally aside from the fact that I don't particularly like their software. I admit that because of this fact I'm probably biased, but my ACTUAL experience directly with the people is pretty bad too, so it totally doesn't help the case.
Anyways, first thing that happened: As a student, I attended a
Another thing that happened: I attended a conference on real-time computing. I thought I'd check out a talk called "Choosing a real-time operating system". I figured it would be an interesting overview on all the options out there (and there are a lot of interesting ones!), but after I got in there and they closed to door: "Hi, so this is an information session on how to choose a Microsoft real-time Operating System." Turned out it was for choosing between CE and XP. What a load of shit.. I was really pissed.
So all in all, my impression is not at all good. They run their company like jerks, and their sales reps are jerks.
Frankly I think some of their products are pretty good. A lot of their development utilities are really nice. XP works pretty well for it's target audience. But damn... stop lying to me and trying to trick me. It's not cool.
A fly on the wall... (Score:4, Funny)
Gates: FUCK YOU, that's my name!! You know why, Mister? 'Cause you drove a Hyundai to get here tonight, I drove a eighty thousand dollar BMW. That's my name!! And your name is "you're wanting." And you can't play in a man's game. You can't close them. (at a near whisper) And you go home and tell your wife your troubles. Because only one thing counts in this life! Get them to sign on the line which is dotted! You hear me, you fucking faggots?
(Gates flips over a blackboard which has two sets of letters on it: ABC, and AIDA.)
Gates: A-B-C. A-always, B-be, C-closing. Always be closing! Always be closing!! A-I-D-A. Attention, interest, decision, action. Attention -- do I have your attention? Interest -- are you interested? I know you are because it's fuck or walk. You close or you hit the bricks! Decision -- have you made your decision for Christ?!! And action. A-I-D-A; get out there!! You got the prospects comin' in; you think they came in to get out of the rain? Guy doesn't walk on the lot unless he wants to buy. Sitting out there waiting to give you their money! Are you gonna take it? Are you man enough to take it? What's the problem pal? You. Balmer.
Balmer: You're such a hero, you're so rich. Why you coming down here and waste your time on a bunch of bums?
(Gates sits and takes off his gold watch)
Blake: You see this watch? You see this watch?
Balmer: Yeah.
Gates: That watch cost more than your car. I made $970,000,000 last year. How much you make? You see, pal, that's who I am. And you're nothing. Nice guy? I don't give a shit. Good father? Fuck you -- go home and play with your kids!! You wanna work here? Close!! You think this is abuse? You think this is abuse, you cocksucker? You can't take this -- how can you take the abuse you get on a sit?! You don't like it -- leave. I can go out there tonight with the materials you got, make myself fifty thousand dollars! Tonight! In two hours! Can you? Can you? Go and do likewise! A-I-D-A!! Get mad! You sons of bitches! Get mad!! You know what it takes to sell software?
(He pulls something out of his briefcase)
Gates: It takes brass balls to sell software.
And so ends Linux licensing FUD (Score:5, Funny)
One more good argument for OSS (Score:3, Insightful)
Today, if you want your competitor gone, sick the BSA on them. I bet my rear that NOT A SINGLE COMPANY that uses MS products got all their bases covered. With different licensing models and licensing terms, it's virtually impossible to get everything perfectly licensed.
Switch to OSS and you can simply give 'em the finger if they decide to show up at your door.
Remember that big mistake a year or two back... (Score:3, Informative)
As I recall, Microsoft backed off that stance almost immedately but it was a bit late. They woke up a large number of shops to their "single source vulnerability".
Racketeering? (Score:4, Interesting)
The act of engaging in criminal activity as a structured group is referred to in the U.S. as racketeering.
M$: We need to check your license with our auditing software.
IT Guy: Here's all of of licenses and the machines they are installed on.
M$: No, we need to run the audit to see how much software you're pirating.
IT Guy: We're not pirating anything! Our records are accurate!
M$: Either you let us inventory your systems or we break your computers and then your legs.
Isn't RICO applicable here?
MS treats paying customer like trash?" (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Uhh. Yeah. It's called an account manager. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Uhh. Yeah. It's called an account manager. (Score:2, Funny)
It's just Bill and his minions being their autistic, demanding, clueless selves.
Re:Uhh. Yeah. It's called an account manager. (Score:3, Insightful)
It would be irresponsible for Microsoft NOT to investigate allegations of piracy at this level as was likely the initial cause of the emails in question. Sure they could turn it over to the BSA, however for all we know this could have been a report to a person who was ill-informed of the proper procedure for relaying reports of piracy and took it upon themselves to investigate.
After such
Re:Uhh. Yeah. It's called an account manager. (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is she wasn't satisfied with the same evidence the BSA would have been. The BSA would have taken the evidence of the audit, ran off to check it against Microsoft's records, and be done with it. She rejected the evidence and tried to send a SPY into his organization.
Re:Uhh. Yeah. It's called an account manager. (Score:2)
OK, but reading the article, I kept thinking to myself, "Who takes these kinds of jobs, and why do they try so hard at them?"
Are these people on commission or are they just naturally assholes and like it that way?
Re:Uhh. Yeah. It's called an account manager. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Uhh. Yeah. It's called an account manager. (Score:2)
If I own a business, I wouldn't want anyone who didn't work for me to touch any of my computers, much less use them, and much less go snooping around on them looking for something to incriminate me or my business. I assume most business owners feel the same way.
Re:Uhh. Yeah. It's called an account manager. (Score:2)
-matthew
Re:Uhh. Yeah. It's called an account manager. (Score:2)
Re:Uhh. Yeah. It's called an account manager. (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not new, but not every has experienced it. (Score:5, Informative)
But not every one of their customers has experienced it. So it is "new" to them.
The reality is that many of Microsoft's customers are "pirates" but only in the sense that they do not keep the kind of records that Microsoft demands when doing an audit.
It isn't enough to have the box the software came in, along with the hologram and the license certificate and so on and on and on.
You also need to be able to PROVE that all of that isn't fake.
And since Microsoft specifically REFUSES to track the license keys and such, the only way to "prove" that the software is legit is to have the original sales receipt from an approved Microsoft vendor.
And that's even if you're not really pirating their software. In past versions, they've made it as easy as possible for companies to pirate their stuff AND as difficult as possible for companies to ensure that they are in compliance without spending lots of hours recording and checking their licenses.
So, even if you had 50 machines and you had bought 50 licenses
#1. Those licenses couldn't be found.
#2. Those licenses weren't matched to receipts from MS vendors.
#3. The machines had been "imaged" with a common image without purchasing the MS license agreement that authorized that.
It's all about driving sales.
"Good customers" don't have any choice. (Score:5, Informative)
If you are a "good customer" of Microsoft's then you have a LOT of time / effort / data invested in their products. Migrating to anything else is VERY FUCKING EXPENSIVE. Not just in money, but in time and effort and all the tiny incompatibilities that will result in your users asking what the fuck you were thinking when you decided to drop Microsoft.
So the easiest source of revenue is for Microsoft to "audit" their "good customers" and hit them with a bill for the most common errors that IT departments make. That's not uncommon.
The problem is that Microsoft is threatening those customers who DO care and DO spend the time and money to stay legit.
AND
Microsoft is NOT putting any time / effort / money into providing any easy way for their "good customers" to track their licenses (or even validate that a license is legit).
This is Microsoft we're talking about. They have BILLIONS of dollars. They have very smart people. They should be able to work up a system where I can enter each and every license I have and validate that it is legit and that it is mine.
But they aren't interested in that. That approach would cost them money to implement and it would result in fewer sales because "good customers" would already have had Microsoft approve their licenses.
And that is why this whole situation is so fucked up. It's all about Microsoft making the situation as difficult as possible so they can wring every last dollar from it.
Here's an example:
You buy 50 workstations from Dell. Each comes with WinXP.
You then buy a retail version of WinXP. That's 51 licenses for 50 boxes.
You image one box using the full retail license and dump that image on the other 49.
You're out of compliance because Microsoft licensed Dell to only license each copy of WinXP to a specific machine. The licenses are non-transferable. You've just "pirated" 49 copies of WinXP. That's 49 licenses at $200 retail
And that's if you're 100% legit on 50 machines. And provided that you can "prove" that that 1 retail copy wasn't also "stolen".
Re:How biased can this website get? (Score:2)
Re:How biased can this website get? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:How biased can this website get? (Score:3, Insightful)
I've never had a car salesman try to sell me a car by claiming I stole
Re:How biased can this website get? (Score:2)
Fact is, if that company WAS out of compliance, they'd be better served to get someone from MS in there to determine if they were or not because that's who is going to sue 'em.
Actually... Some would say that's why Microsoft should be the last choice. If they're going to spend $$ investigating, they're going to do everything they can to recover the cost of the investigation at the very least.
If it were me, I'd prefer a neutral third party.
Re:How biased can this website get? (Score:2, Interesting)
Seriously, if there were numerous reports of MS staffers showing up on company's doorsteps toting baseba
Re:How biased can this website get? (Score:2)
But all bias aside, this is a pretty egregious sales tactic. They are basically threatening their customers. I mean, when's the last time you heard of a used car salesman saying something like, "Well, the fromitz on your car is expired and the McPhearson Valve looks like it's ready to blow. You'd better leave it in our shop so we can see what else is wrong with it. We really c
Re:How biased can this website get? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:How biased can this website get? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:That Tru-Coat... (Score:3, Funny)
"account team" sounds like sales to me... (Score:3, Insightful)
They get a sales manager to lean on them? Not an attorney?
Re:Actually this has nothing to do with sales... (Score:3, Funny)