Microsoft Fails Long Term Open Licensing Customers with Office for iPad O365 Requirement
Posted by Philip Elder on 21 May 2014 06:04 PM
We received an inquiry from one of our clients about obtaining Office for their iPad. Obviously the paid version is required in order to edit Office documents.
We fired an e-mail off to our licensing contact at Synnex Canada and received the following:
The clear-cut answer is that Microsoft has seemingly set up a requirement for Open License customers to double pay.
How is that?
Well, in the case of our clients they have been on Open Value Agreements for quite a few cycles in some cases. When OVL hits the third renewal (years 7-9) the SA Only costs bring the overall cost of that license and SA close to the OEM costs.
For clients that have regular refresh rates of about 36 months for their equipment this makes sense on so many levels.
So, our clients have already purchased their Office Professional Plus or Office Standard licenses and are on SA Only for them.
To get Office for iPad for their devices there is no SKU to add to their existing agreement. They would have to purchase an Office 365 subscription either personally or for the organization in an O365 MidSize Business plan which on Open Value is $200/Year/User.
It looks like we’ve just been double billed.
IMNSHO this decision of Microsoft’s to force the Office 365 subscription for existing Open License clients is very poorly thought through.
This situation really begs the question as to whether Open License is a valued proposition going forward as Microsoft further segments products into the subscription side to force businesses that have already paid for their licenses to pay yet again … and again … and again.
Hopefully Microsoft will come up with something to remove the double billing.
Chef de partie in the SMBKitchen ASP Project
Read more »
Netflix to Pay Comcast to Shape in Their Favour
Posted by Philip Elder on 24 February 2014 11:00 AM
The following link is a Bing New Search:
We don’t shape. We’ve heard that statement time and time again from ISPs during the “discussions” around Net Neutrality on both sides of the border.
For those of us that work in technology supporting clients in various regions around the world the reality is quite different.
How many of us have been stuck where a client is unable to reach a resource via point-to-point because a hop in between the two sites happened to belong to a competing Internet infrastructure provider that just happened to be in the middle of a spat with the provider at both ends?
How many of us have experienced quality degradation in services we access on the Internet that reside outside our ISP’s borders and the ISP just happened to provide a similar _paid_ service?
Unfortunately for us the Internet and its infrastructure is not treated in the same way as our public road systems.
That means that the IPSs have the upper hand. They control what packets go where. They control how fast those packets get from point to point. And, it all remains hidden.
They can 401 their own service’s packets (the 401 is a high speed high-volume highway here in Canada) while they restrict packets destined for YouTube, Netflix, and others to 80KM/H or sideline them on a two lane low speed highway.
We here pay quite high prices for our “high speed” access. Our connections are shaped and have quotas assigned to them. We’ve grown accustomed to this practice however we still have fairly open access to most sites.
The Sad Direction We Are Going In
At some point our regulators need to have ISPs clarify their shaping policies like ingredients in food.
Or, our ISPs could offer “streaming” plans and the like that more than likely will be a lot more expensive but allow the end user to be free to view whatever content they choose with little to no shaping.
Whether either happens will be left to be seen. In the end we lose out.
ISPs have been crying for a piece of the pie for years, now they will get it and more as they hold keys to the kingdom.
Wikipedia: Traffic Shaping
Chef de partie in the SMBKitchen
Read more »