Microsoft slaps 13 per cent increase on mobile enterprise levy Microsoft has bumped up the levy it charges mobile users to connect to Windows servers. The price of Microsoft’s user client access license (CALs) needed for its enterprise suite has gone up by 13 per cent. The new price for the Enterprise CAL suite is $135 per on Software Assurance for a year for those qualifying for …
Don't they realise that they are pricing themselves out of the market? Many Enterprises are reigning back on expenditure. There are alternatives to many of their products now. the $135 per device/year MS Tax will make a lot of companies think again. Yes, many will negociate a deal but some won't have the muscle and... well you know the rest.
Die MS, die. The world would be a better place without out what you have become.
"the $135 per device/year MS Tax will make a lot of companies think again. "
It probably would, yes, which will be why the device CALs remain $104 a year and USER CALS are the thing they've increased it by. When you have 50 users each using 4-5 devices, that starts looking pretty attractive.
Microsoft need to drastically simplify their licensing models. For one of the worlds largest software providers their licence management is a shambles. Basically it's a trust game but with the threat of Price Water House coopers hanging around your neck who will fist you for non-conformance and tru-up.
I await the day when device licensing is scrapped once and for all. But I also await the day when user pricing sky rockets once more (off the back of some dodgy reason like $ fluctuations and to ensure price consistency across all markets), along with Office 365 and Azure price increases once they capture enough market share and can hold you over the barrel and continue the fistings.
"Don't they realise that they are pricing themselves out of the market? Many Enterprises are reigning back on expenditure."
Microsoft is usually the lowest TCO option. And say for Windows Phone which now has a ~ 28% enterprise sales market share in the UK - the devices and MDM software are priced far lower than the competition.
"There are alternatives to many of their products now."
Always have been, however, they mostly suck in comparison.
"the $135 per device/year MS Tax will make a lot of companies think again."
It's still cheaper than most of the competition.
Microsoft is adept at applying the "Boiling Frog" pricing model. The notch it up slowly enough that the customers complain and whine but like they keep coming back, as it doesn't hurt more than changing the whole infrastructure.
I have pretty much zero sympathy for MS customers when prices increases. They bought every piece of their infrastructure and trusted it to one vendor, using locked down protocols and file structures. What did they think would happen to the price?
Ironically so many companies are now in this place, that it makes it harder for any companies to do the right thing.
This is a typical course of action for businesses in the "milking" stage, as opposed to the "growth" stage where volume makes up for reduced unit margins or one is willing to sacrifice the today's profits in the hope of making a large portion of a market hostage and thus recover profit in the next stage.
And this is exactly what is happening here: as MS loses market share (selling less units) their only way of keeping the revenue constant (or slightly increasing it) is to raise their margins (more profit per unit sold)
> as MS loses market share
That may not be the case. It could just be that there aren't enough new customers to create the ever growing revenue which the stock market seems to think is possible. When everyone already has a license, it's a bit hard to sell more units.
Hence the rental model, which is software upgrade purchasing which works even when you don't have something new. Why go to the bother of selling new stuff, when you can just take back the old and sell it again? It's good for customers too - now you can buy upgrades without the hassle of actually having to do upgrades.
Ah, the joys of monopoly.
"This is a typical course of action for businesses in the "milking" stage"
It's also typical of companies that haven't adjusted prices for inflation for three years... as in this case. This isn't really a story. The increase is pretty much equal to three years inflation, too.
>CALs let vendors price by actual use of a system - so can be a much more equitable approach than binary licensing charges...
Don't you already pay that when you pay for the server software, need a bigger one for more users, server OS costs more ... and when you purchase workstation OS licenses ? I call BS on your argument once again, Vogon ;-)
Ripoff Redmond!
Then you consider that they have hiked the server OS license costs up quite a bit, except when you are running W2003, worse, they have vdi licensing nightmare that even our Redmond rep does not understand (anon for obvious reasons)....
"Don't you already pay that when you pay for the server software, need a bigger one for more users, server OS costs more... and when you purchase workstation OS licenses ?"
Sometimes, but CALs lets you balance that by another usage measure. Windows desktops include a client CAL. Many of Microsoft's (and many other vendors) options let you choose a with or without CALs model - for instance you can choose to license SQL Server for a straight feature based price + CALs, or per CPU.
"Ripoff Redmond!"
You have obviously never dealt with Oracle licensing!
"You have obviously never dealt with Oracle licensing!"
I have, but if that's the best comparison that even you can pull it puts Microsoft licensing in true perspective - it comes second only to Oracle. At the bad end. Seriously, a company I once worked for employed somebody full time just dedicated to understanding MS licensing and advising customers. And when talking with others in the industry it seems this isn't uncommon. The complexity of licensing, particularly from the likes of MS, adds significantly to the TCO but is often conveniently overlooked by vendors.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
