Windows 10 Versions announced
-
@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.
-
@Dashrender said:
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.
So make desktops easier by making servers harder?
-
@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?
What are the "premium features" in a desktop installation of Windows?
RemoteFX? Nah, that's a server thing.
Mobile Device Management? That is a server-side component with a small client on the end-user device.
Hyper-V? That could go either way.
Direct Access? Definitely a server thing.
Office 201x? That's a separate software package.
MS-SQL Server? That is a separate server service to be licensed separately from the Windows Server.Has to be one or the other, right?
More often than not, yes. And in this situation, I think probably. I figure there are some ways to price a structure such as this without the company losing money, while also keeping the pricing structured well enough for both customers and businesses to benefit.
It would take a bit of thinking and tinkering, but I think it could be done.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@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.
Yup. Group Policy is quite useful even with out a Domain.. But then if you use a Linux/Samba PDC emulator, then you'd really get away with not paying for the features you use. I get having a Home edition and a Enterprise/Pro but I think the Enterprise & Pro should be merged and be made the price of Pro. However, I don't see that happening some companies/IT guys just like Saying they run Windows Enterprise even if it costs a lot more for features they haven't even touched. But, hey if they want to waste money it works well for Microsoft.
-
-
@dafyre said:
@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?
What are the "premium features" in a desktop installation of Windows?
RemoteFX? Nah, that's a server thing.
Mobile Device Management? That is a server-side component with a small client on the end-user device.
Hyper-V? That could go either way.
Direct Access? Definitely a server thing.
Office 201x? That's a separate software package.
MS-SQL Server? That is a separate server service to be licensed separately from the Windows Server.Direct Access Client is a Desktop thing (so it's both)
Group Policy, That's a Desktop thing. The only thing really server side about it is a file share which has policies in it. -
-
@dafyre said:
More often than not, yes. And in this situation, I think probably. I figure there are some ways to price a structure such as this without the company losing money, while also keeping the pricing structured well enough for both customers and businesses to benefit.
It would take a bit of thinking and tinkering, but I think it could be done.
It would probably make it all even more complicated. I guarantee MS has done their research here. They have grouped features together in logical and simple ways. If you start combining things like people often suggest (collapsed levels, moving pricing to other places, etc.) you start disconnecting pricing from the features and people start having big incentive to get the features cheap and never pay OR people who need basic things find that the costs have doubled.
If you are going to license this stuff, it is going to be complicated because there are so many pieces. You need people paying for the features, not just parts of them, or it will all fall apart.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
If you are going to license this stuff, it is going to be complicated because there are so many pieces. You need people paying for the features, not just parts of them, or it will all fall apart.
I will have to concede that point to you, because as you said, it is working for Microsoft... Guess they are adhering to the if it ain't broke don't fix it policy, lol.
<must not make comments about updates... must not make comments about updates>
-
@dafyre said:
I will have to concede that point to you, because as you said, it is working for Microsoft... Guess they are adhering to the if it ain't broke don't break it policy
FTFY.
Playing with licensing could mean going out of business almost overnight. That's very dangerous stuff to try to tweak. A major change means major risk. And honestly, after decades of messing with it and thinking about it, their model is actually really clean, simple and mostly obvious for a large software vendor with a large array of interrelated products that are used in nearly every combination possible that isn't open source.
