Windows 10 Versions announced
-
@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.
-
@dafyre said:
@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).
We used it once and lost the customer because we didn't stop them from trying it. Even Apple Engineering who were stuck trying to support it said it was effectively abandoned and core features were no longer working. It was jut "broken" and Apple didn't care. No support, no fixes, no future. That it is called "server" is purely a technicality. It offers nothing that isn't just a free install and it only runs on desktops. There is nothing in there worth a dollar.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@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.
Arguably, I see your point there. I just think that not enough of us care to make Microsoft bat an eye. At least they appear to listen when enough people scream.
-
@dafyre but, you can use open source software that does the exact same thing as mac server. It does very little. And even then they have no rack servers anymore making it bad option for anything but quite small offices.
-
Ms licensing isn't that hard if you ask me.
-
@dafyre said:
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.
That's reverse justification - we did this because we already decided to do this, so the fact that we backed ourselves into a corner we've rationalized the bad decision in this manner. It doesn't make it a good choice or worth anything. Yes, you can use it and if you start from the assumption that you've already committed to it.... it makes it feel easy to rationalize.
But honestly, even if I had a full Apple Server (if they even made such a thing) I'd still spin up a Linux VM on it based on the Apple Server track record.
-
@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.
I agree, I'm confused why they need this licensing level? it's not like they are getting a bunch of machines that don't have OEM windows on it already. I suppose the major difference is that the Educational version will upgrade from Home or Pro, not just Pro.
-
@dafyre said:
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.
As much money? Come up with a model that simplifies things and see if that theory will hold up. Honestly, I think the system is pretty simple as it is considering the use cases that it covers. CALs don't make sense in a lot of cases because they are tied to different things than what desktop licenses are tied to.
-
@dafyre said:
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.
So are you planning to just give everyone (or more people) the premium features and lose money? Or do you plan on raising the pricing for nearly everyone even though they don't use the features? Has to be one or the other, right?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
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.
That is a whole other issue because the businesses that write the software for other businesses to use largely use Windows... and most SMBs are entrenched in WIndows because it appears to be easier to use than Linux / Mac.
-
@dafyre said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@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.
Arguably, I see your point there. I just think that not enough of us care to make Microsoft bat an eye. At least they appear to listen when enough people scream.
Exactly. Every product has someone that dislikes it. My point is that the market is telling Microsoft that it is clearly doing something very right.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
@dafyre but, you can use open source software that does the exact same thing as mac server. It does very little. And even then they have no rack servers anymore making it bad option for anything but quite small offices.
That's all Mac does, in fact. They just repackage old, unsupported versions of common software.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
Ms licensing isn't that hard if you ask me.
Some of it gets hard, once MS refuses to answer questions you know that it isn't straightforward. But the bulk of it is pretty easy. Buy the product that you want, apply appropriate CALs. Yeah, there is stuff to know, but none of it is weird or complicated really. And when you look at it closely, it all makes a lot of sense when you consider the different business models that it has to support.
-
@Dashrender said:
@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.
I agree, I'm confused why they need this licensing level? it's not like they are getting a bunch of machines that don't have OEM windows on it already. I suppose the major difference is that the Educational version will upgrade from Home or Pro, not just Pro.
That's why it is not likely a pricing tier but is likely a different product with different features.
-
@Dashrender said:
I suppose the major difference is that the Educational version will upgrade from Home or Pro, not just Pro.
That's the last thing that I would expect. I'd be truly shocked if that were the case.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@dafyre said:
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.
So are you planning to just give everyone (or more people) the premium features and lose money? Or do you plan on raising the pricing for nearly everyone even though they don't use the features? Has to be one or the other, right?
My thinking was that all windows would be the same price - the GPO features for example are only worth while if you have an AD. So when you connect to the AD you make the Server CAL more expensive to make the the loss on the PRO license.
But they should really have another Server CAL that keeps the current pricing for things like printers and other devices that will use minor services like DNS and DHCP, otherwise you're really raising the cost.
-
@dafyre said:
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.
If that increased prices of CALs then less people (mainly SMBs) would be buying windows server as the buy in cost would be more. Also since when did CALs relate to using the desktop OS that makes no sense. CALs are for clients accessing servers only.
If you mean feature based pricing they've been experinmenting with that already. That's what the "add features to windows" is for in the control panel. but I think it just does Media Center or full version changes right now.
-
@Dashrender said:
My thinking was that all windows would be the same price - the GPO features for example are only worth while if you have an AD. So when you connect to the AD you make the Server CAL more expensive to make the the loss on the PRO license.
But I can get that stuff without AD. So that doesn't work. You are assuming that if you shift the pricing around that IT won't change how they deploy. The really will. You raise the cost of the server and lower the cost of GPO on the client and lots of things change. Big things. The cost of running SQL Server goes up, that's unrelated. The cost of Exchange goes up. The value of running Samba goes up. You are changing the fundamentals of Windows purchasing decisions.
