Microsoft's Licensing Response
|
Microsoft rapped Forrester Research in official comments that came to Microsoft Watch a couple days late and a few dollars short. |
Apparently that report about Software Assurance renewals hit a nerve at Microsoft. After rebuffing my Friday request for comment about renewals, Microsoft PR sent a heady, 331-word response that, in close reading, is a wonderful writ of misdirection. The statement, from Stacie Sloane, Microsoft's Worldwide Licensing and Pricing marketing and communications director, doesn't address a single point made by the Forrester report or my post about it.
Recap: A Forrester survey of IT procurement professionals revealed that 86 percent of businesses with 3,000 or more employees have Software Assurance contracts expiring this year. Only 11 percent of the same procurement professionals said that they would surely renew contracts. By contrast, 26 percent won't renew and another 31 percent are uncertain if they will renew.
Microsoft's response is a tactful way of saying we support reports we pay for; otherwise don't listen to the analysts:
"Analysts, like any other third party source have their assumptions and ideas about Microsoft's programs. While we value this perspective and the feedback they bring, we also recommend that customers rely on their Microsoft sales representative or local Microsoft Certified Partner for ongoing, direct and accurate information."
The insinuation is that only Microsoft licensing professionals give "accurate information."
While Forrester focused on Software Assurance, which is a separate contract for Open, Open Value and Select volume licensing agreements, Microsoft's response mainly was about Enterprise Agreement. Upgrade protection is built into Enterprise Agreement, which covers only a subset of Microsoft customers. For its part, Microsoft accused Forrester of looking "at a subset of our customers."
The statement asserts: "Microsoft's renewal rates are on target and in line with our expectations. An estimated 75 percent of our existing EA customers are renewing their Enterprise Agreements." The targets aren't stated. They actually could be lower than past renewal cycles. Microsoft didn't say. Additionally, Forrester's report focused on Software Assurance and not Enterprise Agreement. Based on surveys I did when working as an analyst, well more than half of Microsoft volume licensing customers aren't Enterprise Agreement subscribers.
Microsoft's statement then goes on to only discuss Software Assurance in context of additional benefits unrelated to software upgrade protection. The statement then touts 1.5 million MDOP (Microsoft Desktop Optimization Pack) licenses sold in the first six months. Oh? Forrester found that many customers already have upgrade rights to Office and Vista as part of their current Software Assurance contracts. Those upgrade rights are one reason many businesses either plan to skip this renewal cycle or are thinking about it. That 1.5 million figure is likely more reflective of existing contracts than any renewal intentions. It's a nice, big number that misdirects from the real Software Assurance renewal question.
I spoke with the analyst who wrote the report. Besides the surveyed IT procurement specialists, she spoke to 400 companies since the New Year about their licensing intentions. Additionally, Microsoft knew this report was comingand for some time. The company had early review of the report for fact-checking purposes. Why then did the official response come after the report's release and the weekend after my request for comment on Software Assurance renewals?
The report's veracity or inaccuracy will be shown as Microsoft reveals earnings over the next couple of quarters. Next week's fiscal 2007 fourth quarter and year-end results would be one indicator on Software Assurance renewals. If contract renewals decline, there will be impact on recurring, or on the balance sheet "unearned," revenue. Within two quarters, there should be little doubt whether Forrester got it right or not.
As for the official response, it's not much of one. Microsoft largely avoided Forrester's assertions.
While we're all waiting on next week's earnings report, how about we do an informal survey? There's no need to wait. Is your company planning to renew its Software Assurance contract? Our comment lines are open for your responses.
Related Posts:
- Software Assurance Storm Warning, Microsoft Watch, July 9, 2007
- Say It Ain't So, Microsoft Watch, July 6, 2007
- TechEd: Vista Logos, Server Tools, Microsoft Watch, June 5, 2007
- Volume Licensing: It's a Buyer's Market, Microsoft Watch, April 10, 2007
- Convergence=Integration, Microsoft Watch, March 12, 2007
- Software Reassurance, Microsoft Watch, February 19, 2007


Comments (11)
I am finding alot about 95%(675 different businesses) of my customers, upgrading to Vista and Office, and about 80% of them are using the Software Assurance.
Posted by JoeM | July 10, 2007 12:01 AM
i don't even sell them because i think they're a rip off.
Posted by gary | July 10, 2007 12:33 AM
Denial!
Posted by Sam Hiser | July 10, 2007 8:22 AM
The general consensus around my company is that SA has been a complete waste of money. We will not be renewing it.
Posted by Grant Swinger | July 10, 2007 9:37 AM
We dropped Desktop SA - Vista and Office came out before the expiry so we are entitled. We just upgraded to XP and there is no interest in another quick upgrade so XP for 3-ish years followed by Vista for a couple or 3 more (provided MS ever gets a version worth using ). With approx. 1000 desktops it is easily cheaper to just start fresh when/if the need arises. We kept the server SA primarily because of the CALs - the ROI is a bit more clear in this area.
And somewhere in there, we will start using Linux for thin clients.
That about sums up our current stand on the M$ bleed.
Posted by George Kapotto | July 10, 2007 9:41 AM
no comments
Posted by Tara Thapa | July 10, 2007 10:12 AM
Our's is a much smaller shop than those questioned in the survey (around 25 users). We only got SA on our SBS2003 server, and only so that we could get R2 upgrade for free. MS managed to squeeze that one out before our SA expired last November so I'm glad that worked out.
However we have not renewed SA in part because the next version of Exchange is 64-bit only and won't run on our current server hardware, which is already overkill for our needs. I will instead milk that HW and SBS for as long as I can and then reevaluate our needs at that time, whether it be getting the latest SBS OEM on new hardware, going to some hosted service or switching back to Linux.
I didn't bother with SA for XP or Office. We'll get whatever comes OEM on new PCs as we need to replace old ones.
Posted by Chris | July 10, 2007 4:45 PM
And by getting R2 for free, I suppose I mean "free" :)
Posted by Chris | July 10, 2007 4:46 PM
Nope. Not going to renew. Not cost effective in our small/midsize shop.
Posted by Rick Frecker | July 11, 2007 1:35 PM
Joe, why don't you post the whole 331-word response?
Posted by Ben | July 11, 2007 10:06 PM
However we have not renewed SA in part because the next version of Exchange is 64-bit only and won't run on our current server hardware, which is already overkill for our needs. I will instead milk that HW and SBS for as long as I can and then reevaluate our needs at that time, whether it be getting the latest SBS OEM on new hardware, going to some hosted service or switching back to Linux.
Posted by battery | November 27, 2008 10:20 PM