Windows Server 2012: Fickle pricing smacks Europe, Oz, Japan The launch of Windows Server 2012 this week has again highlighted the pricing disparity confronting Microsoft customers across the globe, but it seems dear old Blighty has got off relatively lightly. A spotlight was shone on the firm's software costs earlier this year when Redmond aligned EU pricing to the euro, resulting in …
Prices are highest where customers are most chained to their supplier (by choice, lack of competition, strong "IP protection" or worse) or where customers have loads of cash floating around that they don't know what to do with. Another possibility is that the supplier has miscalculated and will soon revise his prices.
Apart from that:
"Microsoft Windows Server Standard Single License/ Software Assurance Pack OPEN 1 License No Level 2 PROC"
What does that gibberish even mean?
"Microsoft Windows Server Standard Single License/ Software Assurance Pack OPEN 1 License No Level 2 PROC"
What does that gibberish even mean?
"Microsoft Windows Server" - Windows Server
"Standard" - Edition
"Single" - An individual license, not a multi-license pack
"License/ Software Assurance Pack" - this purchase includes software assurance; being Open, that's three years of upgrades until it expires
"OPEN 1 License" - the agreement type; open agreements are individual orders, rather than a multi-year contract; this is a single-license order, so you could get bulk discounts if you ordered other things with it
"No Level" - Open agreements can come in several levels if you buy enough stuff; this is "no level", ie no buik discounts You could get a single order on level C if you had enough points accumulated from previous orders and that would be cheaper.
"2 PROC" - Two processor license (this is the usual for Windows Server Standard - if you want more than 2 processors then you just buy multiple licenses).
Note that this doesn't say "Windows Server 2012 Standard" because it's L+SA, and it includes future versions; if you looked at the License only SKU, then you'd find it did mention the version and would be cheaper.
Well, you asked.
And get charged extortionate rent and rates at stations and MSAs (and get hit with übertax at MSAs)
Anyway, wrt the article, does the licence permit someone from the more expensive areas buying the software from the cheaper areas at those prices and doing it that way; or is there some obscure licence term that says "You can only use this software in X, Y and Z"
It's been a while since I'm studied a Windows licence - last time I did, I was arguing with one of the people on the activation hotline and won!
(He said that the licence said that blah blah blah, I said the licence said <direct quote> He said that wasn't the case, so I refered him to the section of the licence and requoted. He gave in)
But the salesman will - these are corporate volume licences and you need to sign a contract; they will base pricing on the registered company address. If you have a US parent company, they can buy licenses for a non-US subsidiary, but a US subsidiary can't buy licenses and use them in their parent company.
One trick is to create a UK company, then create a US subsidiary, then create another UK company as a subsidiary of the US company. The third company is the actual trading entity, but the top-level company is the one you sell shares in. The intermediate US company can buy at US prices from a US registered office. Shell out a couple of thousand a year for it to exist (to rent a registered office address).
Of course, if the pound goes back up to $1.80 or so, then you'd be out of pocket.
"If customers pay it, then its not too expensive"
Or install Linux instead. Microsoft should be extremely concerned about driving customers away. I say this as a desktop customer who used to upgrade windows on release day and isn't considering any move for the long term, possibly ever.
As for them paying, nobody has paid anything yet. So at this point there's no way to tell what people will actually pay. It's meet the touchy-feely new boss, same as the old boss. Need a lot of touch guis on servers do we, Microsoft?
Rubbish. I've got software that only runs on a Mac, it doesn't make a Mac a monopoly.
In the traditional sense of monopoly, no. But if that software is critical to your business, then Apple have a monopoly on your business (in that you can't go anywhere else).
Those who are going to be using Windows Server fall into one of two categories: a) Stupid or b) reliant on some Windows only software. For those in category B (which is likely to be most of them) it's pretty much a case of "we have to pay what they ask".
As long as the cost of a Windows Server license is less than the cost of migrating data to a system not tied to Windows, they're going to have to swallow the cost. In today's short-sighted world, how many can go to the beancounters and say "OK, a new license is going to cost $4,000 but if we spend $15,000 to migrate our data to {insert software} we can recoup that money over x years" and actually get something other than "Money's too tight for that kind of long-term plan, just buy the license".
Ergo, Microsoft continue to monopolise their business through vendor lock-in (which may be a mess of the business's own making)
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
