Maybe we need to stop calling the "cloud".
This word has lofty visions of white fluffiness and rainbows. Tell it for what it is: other people's data centers under their control. Once your data is there, they control it.
Feeling pressured? A sense you’re being rushed into something you’re not sure about? Or, perhaps, you have a nagging feeling about that free gift you accepted. That sensation is your IT supplier pushing you into their cloud. Oracle and Microsoft, two of the biggest names in corporate IT, have been left standing by the success …
Lets just say that microsoft 365 in Asia is a pile of steaming crap.
after 3 months it is STILL loosing & failing to deliver emails, virtually every day something is 'down' or broken, impacted or some other bullshit excuse that seems never to make it onto the "reliability" figures.
Then they 'cleverly' make the support data unavailable (deleted), so you cannot do a long term comparison.
And we will not even go into the continual attempts to RAM 'godaddy' services down your throat.
And don't forget that if there is any dispute, your cloudy "partner" can make it all disappear at the drop of a hat. Sure you can fight them through the courts, but just how long will your business have the funds to do so if its IT systems have been turned off?
With on-site software, even if licensed (and not free-as-in-speech), the boot is on the other foot. If they dispute then they have to take you to court and prove it and until they do you still have a business.
Three little letters - g, p and l [other options avalable].
The way the greed levels seem to be increasing expotentially how long will it be before enough organisations get taken for a long financial ride and smell the ersatz coffee (BULLSHIT) and decide to bite the bullet and move to open source?
Sure, there's a cost, but for many are likely to find that it's far less than the right royal shafting they've been getting - both on price and quality.
There's got to be a credibility tipping point somewhere, and it almost seems the big boys are trying to bring it on.
It's not that the bazaar is going to take over the cathedral - more that the increasingly ornate, expensive and shaky cathedral is beginning to fall down of its own accord.
Is that you never, ever, under any circumstances will pay less to obtain the same. The golden tactic for licensing renewals is around "adding value" by bundling together products that were previously sold separately. Say you're using one product and think about upgrading it to the latest (or N-1 iteration if you're wise) update. Guess what, you can't any longer just buy the new version of the product, because now it comes bundled as part of some new fancy suite or service. Coincidentally, this new bundle has a higher price than the old, standalone product. But hey, you're getting all these new products in the bundle included and it is great value. Even the ones you're not even thinking of using. Result: you pay more for using the same.
But this is an extremely valuable deal for the vendor, because anything else you end up using as part of the bundle is something you'll pay for in the future.
And the best part: nothing stops the vendor "adding value" in the future again by... unbundling what was previously bundled "We listen to our customers and they told us that no one was willing to pay for this or that thing in the package that nobody was using so we decided to sell separately the components" Of course, by that time the bundle cost has been increased year on year to the point that the product everyone uses ends up being more expensive when unbundled than when it was originally sold alone. Result: you pay more for the same.
I'm sure everyone can come up with examples from all big SW companies.
"DeGroot recounts how one customer accepted Office 365 for 15,000 users under a three-year contract. After three years and following early, unsuccessful tests, the customer is only now talking about a wider pilot. He reckoned the company had probably already spent $5m and was about to sign away another $5m on Office 365."
More fool this customer for not trying before they bought. It would take maybe 10 minutes of effort to google Office 365 migration issues and fill them with enough trepidation to not just buy it and brazen it out. Trial it first, do some tests, work out the kinks and then sign up for me. Don't buy 15k seats up front, keep your existing office SKU's in your EA and either add a few 365 seats in (this doesn't need to be enterprise wide) or use an "Office Add On" SKU to give you 365 rights against your existing on premise estate which can be either used or not. If things don't work out and you decide you want to step back to in premise you can and then you drop the "Add On" license at the next opportunity.
The issue as I see it is that the sales people work incredibly hard to sell for their own interests a lot of the time, which in fairness to them in kinda their job. However it is increasilngly apparent that the people in charge of IT and procurement (mainly those in charge of IT though) simply don't do their due diligence and spent the time understanding what they are being offered.
Laziness is it's own reward, just not for the lazy themselves.
While I agree that sales drones are being incentivised to flog cloudy tat irrespective of whether you need it I would also point out that it is down to the buyer to do their due diligence and ensure they both understand what they are buying and the terms under which they are buying it, especially when it is a significant spend like an EA which you have to live with for at least 3 years.
Equally some of the assertions made in the article are just plain wrong and the author should go do his homework: -
"Big customers with a volume Enterprise Agreement may have Software Assurance. This program entitles you to receive the next version of a specific product for free if it’s delivered in the two- or three-year life cycle of your SA. In other words, check the small print: you might already qualify for Office 365."
WRONG. Just plain and simply not correct.
1. If you have an EA then there is no debate about whether you "may" have SA. SA is always rolled into an EA.
2. Office and Office 365 are considered two distinct products with their own SKU's. Having Office covered under your EA gives you no rights at all to "upgrade" to office 365 because it isn't considered an upgrade in the same way that having SA doesn't not allow you to "upgrade" from office standard to office pro. It is a different product edition not just a different version. In order to be able to use Office 365 against your on premise office estate covered under an EA you would need an "Office Add On" SKU included in your EA which entitles you to move some or all of your enterprise estate to 365 and move it back if you wish. However you must consciously choose to add this SKU and pay for the pleasure of it.
3. SA doesn't entitle you to anything for "free". You have paid for the right to upgrade (among other things) in buying SA or signing up to the EA.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022