Windows 10 Versions announced
-
@Dashrender said:
I agree!
If they need to charge more for businesses, then create more CAL types and raise the prices there!
Agreed!!!
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
I've rarely purchased it within 90days. I always paid yearly for the volume licenses /SA for every machine. I've just always bought computer with professional on them anyway.
Can't upgrade to pro, only from pro.
Huh? The computer would have professional and volume is enterprise. Though enterprise allows you to install pro as well if you'd like for some reason.
Exactly, to get Enterprise you have to have already bought Pro on the desktop (or full retail box.)
-
@scottalanmiller yes. That's what I said.
-
But buying Software Assurance isn't what gives you the right to run Pro, you already have that right from the OEM license.
If you buy SA for that machine and don't use Enterprise edition, then you're basically only gaining future upgrade rights (moving from 7 to 8 or 8.1 for example).
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
Please don't add more/change CALs.
Agreed. Keep the CALS the same, just raise the price.
-
@Dashrender buying the volume license does as well. Not just the OEM. Has nothing to do with SA. Downgrade rights are seperste from SA.
-
The Education one is a bit interesting. I wonder if that's to allow them to give special pricing to educational institutions.
-
@handsofqwerty said:
The Education one is a bit interesting. I wonder if that's to allow them to give special pricing to educational institutions.
Likely. The way that do with education and libraries anyway wouldn't be surprise if it was free or a couple of bucks.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
@handsofqwerty said:
The Education one is a bit interesting. I wonder if that's to allow them to give special pricing to educational institutions.
Likely. The way that do with education and libraries anyway wouldn't be surprise if it was free or a couple of bucks.
That's kind of what I was thinking.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
@handsofqwerty said:
The Education one is a bit interesting. I wonder if that's to allow them to give special pricing to educational institutions.
Likely. The way that do with education and libraries anyway wouldn't be surprise if it was free or a couple of bucks.
So schools can get the educational version which is basically the Enterprise version but at a discounted rate, you think?
-
@Dashrender said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
@handsofqwerty said:
The Education one is a bit interesting. I wonder if that's to allow them to give special pricing to educational institutions.
Likely. The way that do with education and libraries anyway wouldn't be surprise if it was free or a couple of bucks.
So schools can get the educational version which is basically the Enterprise version but at a discounted rate, you think?
That doesn't make sense to me. They could just discount for education like they always have to do that more easily if that was the goal.
-
@scottalanmiller Since when does Microsoft do things that make sense?
-
Most of the time, actually. I'm not sure why everyone thinks that they are going to do crazy, irrational things all the time. What licensing insanity is everyone thinking of that is prompting this? Sure, their products are expensive and sometimes difficult to license, but other than it taking work "for you" to track and it making them money none of it seems irrational.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
@handsofqwerty said:
The Education one is a bit interesting. I wonder if that's to allow them to give special pricing to educational institutions.
Likely. The way that do with education and libraries anyway wouldn't be surprise if it was free or a couple of bucks.
So schools can get the educational version which is basically the Enterprise version but at a discounted rate, you think?
That doesn't make sense to me. They could just discount for education like they always have to do that more easily if that was the goal.
Easier to make sure license are used where they should be.same reason many software companies already put that is academic version in the title bar.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Most of the time, actually. I'm not sure why everyone thinks that they are going to do crazy, irrational things all the time. What licensing insanity is everyone thinking of that is prompting this? Sure, their products are expensive and sometimes difficult to license, but other than it taking work "for you" to track and it making them money none of it seems irrational.
I don't think they do crazy or irrational things all of the time... But Why should there be 3 versions of windows for DEKSTOP PCs? I like what Apple did... The "server os" is nothing but the desktop os with individual server functions sold as cheap addons... but I digress.
If your products are difficult to license then you are doing it wrong (for the customers), even if it is making you money.
-
@dafyre said:
I like what Apple did... The "server os" is nothing.
FTFY.
Apple Server is completely worthless. It does nothing. There is a reason that it is basically free. Microsoft produces a ton of stuff that is only available in their server product. Apple does nothing like that.
-
@dafyre said:
If your products are difficult to license then you are doing it wrong (for the customers), even if it is making you money.
That's an odd statement. I'd say if you find the products difficult to license it is more likely that the customers are the ones making the mistake. It is the customers who control the market, not Microsoft. If licensing was enough of a problem for customers in general, they would vote otherwise with their pocketbooks. But as it is, Microsoft customers have voted strongly, through spending, for the complicated license model.
-
@dafyre said:
I don't think they do crazy or irrational things all of the time... But Why should there be 3 versions of windows for DEKSTOP PCs?
Why not? Customers seem to prefer it. Sell them what they like is a good way to do business. If customers cared, MS would do something else.
Linux doesn't do this, their desktops are more powerful, more stable, cost less and have no licensing issues at all.... yet people don't flock to them. Clearly the licensing isn't that big of a deal.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@dafyre said:
If your products are difficult to license then you are doing it wrong (for the customers), even if it is making you money.
That's an odd statement. I'd say if you find the products difficult to license it is more likely that the customers are the ones making the mistake. It is the customers who control the market, not Microsoft. If licensing was enough of a problem for customers in general, they would vote otherwise with their pocketbooks. But as it is, Microsoft customers have voted strongly, through spending, for the complicated license model.
I'll disagree with you here. I think MS just turns a mostly blind eye to the SMB market and because the SMB is more familiar with MS products they end up using them in incorrectly licensed ways.
Large corporations have teams of people who look after their agreements and licensing requirements to make sure they stay compliant.
-
@scottalanmiller Eh. I've worked with the Apple Server a few times for setting up a few things for some clients . It is actually nice to work on (quite different, yes). But instead of having to buy a Windows Server for DNS and DHCP or spin up a Linux VM which would do the same things... (they already had bought the Apple Server piece), it was easy enough to install DHCP and DNS on an existing Mac and go.
It's definitely not what I wanted to do (personally, I would have used a Linux box for DHCP ad DNS, but that's a different story), but it did work, and it was easy, and we didn't have to fuss about with how many CALs do we need for this and that.
My point with that was that it would be feasible (if you asked me) to change to a CAL (subscription... ugh) based licensing system and still make money. If you need the server bits, pay for a server CAL. If you are only going to use the desktop bits, then you just pay for the desktop CAL. Users with Desktop CALs are licensed to access the servers.... and I don't mean 6 different versions of user-CALs either.
