On love and hate in the MS debate

Mention the word "Microsoft", and eyes glaze over, either with apoplexy or religious fervour. But neither the pro nor against reaction is very useful (except perhaps in this one respect that, like the tobacco industry, Microsoft champions and detractors have for years been able to create whole industries out of their obsession).

Microsoft is learning that the backlash can be expensive if customers "vote with their feet" and walk away.

Carel Alberts, technology editor, ITWeb

Take licensing. The detractors say it`s too expensive, too hard to understand and it keeps growing new limbs. And yet, they have a point, something Microsoft is evidently trying to address with simpler rules, more cost-effective offerings, free training and relenting on planned discontinuation of support dates.

But is it doing enough? Juggernauts like Microsoft will always do as much as they are being forced to do, and the clearest picture I can paint is to say it is in the user`s hands - to try competitive products, to register dissatisfaction, and, above all, to negotiate.

One thing that stands out when any consumer actually exhausts the channel of problem resolution with a company is that most things are negotiable. Why does it always come as a surprise to, say, banking customers when they realise their repayment rates are not cast in stone? Because they hardly ever bother to dispute them.

Microsoft prides itself, rightly so, on the fact that it can customise customer licensing agreements to requirements. This goes beyond even the three vanilla-flavoured bands of corporate licensing, and affords customers more power than they think.

But on what basis does one negotiate? Anything, really. Your business plan might foresee a clientele of 100 000 customers in one year to break even. You have the marketing campaign all stitched up. Why not ask for deferred payment?

Aside from negotiation (Microsoft does, after all, want your business), the vendor is coming to the party in other ways too, to make its licences more cost-effective. A case in point is the current choice between per-user client access licences, where one can choose to pay only for as many users as are likely to use the server at peak time. That`s a saving right there, but how many people are making use of it? And once Windows 2003 launches, there will be a further choice between paying per user, or per device. (Of course, you have to spend a substantial amount of money on an upgrade.)

Furthermore, Microsoft is doing a pretty good job of explaining its admittedly once arcane licensing policies, running constant customer and partner seminars. And what`s more, the kind of Licensing 1.0 explanation that normally takes the vendor three hours to explain to roomfuls of buyers or partners can be self-taught in half an hour, given the right guidance. Just follow the links on the Web site.

Current developments on the licensing front represent moves, largely successful ones, in my opinion, to standardise nomenclature and ease up on the fragmented approach the vendor has been accused of: Gone are the days of version- product- or competitive upgrades (VUP, PUP and CUP) under a new, standard licensing plan anyone with a bit of time can understand.

The point of this is that once the bafflement is removed, you can trust yourself to negotiate your own pricing, and consequently, there`s no need for hellishly expensive licensing consultants.

In addition, the software-maker also spends more money on educating its partners than any other vendor I`ve come across. And although it will only deal with customers via the channel, it obviously wants customers to understand the licensing regime and the value they get from it. In certain cases Microsoft will therefore also interface with customers, to help its partners, but mostly its resources go to educating partners and customers.

At the highest level, MS partners with enterprise software advisors, who understand customers` business and requirements, and can advise on their software needs (including upgrade protection - or software assurance). At this level, customers often ask for a Microsoft roadmap, which it is happy to share inasmuch as this is definite (never predictable with a history of slipping debuts). This can protect your investment, and you are most assuredly entitled to ask for this guide, provided your investment warrants it.

The severest recent criticism of Microsoft came when the vendor introduced a system whereby customers who were quite happy with older server software have been forced to upgrade, or to pay upgrade licence fees for the right to be supported on old software.

But one is hardly ever without recourse. One result of a groundswell of opinion against Microsoft has been that it has had to extend end-of-line dates in many instances, thus extending (paid-for) support.

Microsoft is learning that the backlash can be expensive if customers "vote with their feet" and walk away. Assuming that upgrades are most often resisted because of a lack of knowledge, it provides free training on the benefits of upgrading to, say, Windows 2000 (never mind 2003). And if you`re worried that giants will never behave completely as they should, well, the sheer need for educating users on why it`s good to leave NT behind (based on the number of support calls it gets) should give you an idea of the task ahead of this particular behemoth.