Microsoft basher? Or just common sense?
Sep. 4th, 2003 12:55 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
bktheirregularGot this in the in-box today, from the Technology newsletter of the New York Times. Relevant bit, concerning a response to criticism of the Microsoft corporate licensing plan (i.e. if you want upgrades in the future, pay us now, and maybe we'll give them to you if we finish the upgrade before your time runs out):
Reprinted without permission and not for profit, from "From the Desk of David Pogue" (link here)
Finally, I heard from Tim Macklin, a Microsoft field salesman, who rebutted the column point by point. Where I ridiculed Microsoft's new corporate licensing plan, where companies pay in advance for three years' worth of new Office versions, he wrote:
"The business relationship between me and The Times is a subscription. I subscribe to license your content for a specific period of time even though I don't know if I will like the journalism that gets delivered to my door every morning.
"Our agreement with corporate customers is the same arrangement. Companies get big discounts on our software if they agree to subscribe for an extended period. The insinuation that our customers are forced to do anything is misinformed and unfair. You shouldn't throw stones when you live in a glass house."
Ah, but the Microsoft-Times analogy isn't especially apt. Once you buy a Microsoft "subscription," Microsoft doesn't tell you how many new Office versions you'll get in those three years -- it could be zero. Microsoft doesn't tell you what kind of hardware or software upgrades you'll need to run it, either. (For example, I'll bet the companies who signed up for the three-year discount program didn't know in advance that to run the coming Office 2003, they'd have to upgrade all their machines to Windows XP or Windows 2000.)
A newspaper like The Times, on the other hand, promises a newspaper every day. You even know what sections will be in it. You're welcome to distribute your paper to anyone else in the family without having to pay for additional copies.
And each successive issue doesn't require you to buy a bigger pair of glasses.
Reprinted without permission and not for profit, from "From the Desk of David Pogue" (link here)
Finally, I heard from Tim Macklin, a Microsoft field salesman, who rebutted the column point by point. Where I ridiculed Microsoft's new corporate licensing plan, where companies pay in advance for three years' worth of new Office versions, he wrote:
"The business relationship between me and The Times is a subscription. I subscribe to license your content for a specific period of time even though I don't know if I will like the journalism that gets delivered to my door every morning.
"Our agreement with corporate customers is the same arrangement. Companies get big discounts on our software if they agree to subscribe for an extended period. The insinuation that our customers are forced to do anything is misinformed and unfair. You shouldn't throw stones when you live in a glass house."
Ah, but the Microsoft-Times analogy isn't especially apt. Once you buy a Microsoft "subscription," Microsoft doesn't tell you how many new Office versions you'll get in those three years -- it could be zero. Microsoft doesn't tell you what kind of hardware or software upgrades you'll need to run it, either. (For example, I'll bet the companies who signed up for the three-year discount program didn't know in advance that to run the coming Office 2003, they'd have to upgrade all their machines to Windows XP or Windows 2000.)
A newspaper like The Times, on the other hand, promises a newspaper every day. You even know what sections will be in it. You're welcome to distribute your paper to anyone else in the family without having to pay for additional copies.
And each successive issue doesn't require you to buy a bigger pair of glasses.