Microsoft 'Open Value Subscription' is None of the Above 202
daveofdoom writes "This week Microsoft launched an SMB program that contains the words 'open', 'value' and 'subscription', none of which are common to Microsoft products, culture, or marketing. Digging in a bit I found myself confused not only by what the program portends to be but why it would be called 'Open Value Subscription' unless they were hoping to leverage buzzwords and concepts related to open source and SaaS (software as a service). It's such lame and dishonest branding the marketing group should be ashamed."
Sure (Score:5, Insightful)
It's such lame and dishonest branding the marketing group should be ashamed.
I'm sure they will be ashamed all the way to the bank. Let's face it, Microsoft marketing does these things because they work, as proven by Microsoft's success.
And it;'s not even an actual lease (Score:3, Insightful)
That's so lame. If they actually leased the software, there'd be a potential tax advantage for the buyer. But no...
Marketers... (Score:5, Insightful)
and by ashamed.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously, what is a marketing department for, if not to bamboozle people into buying your product who otherwise would not do so?
From the people who brought you (Score:5, Insightful)
The Author Makes Assumptions... (Score:5, Insightful)
From what I read on the MSDN site, there is no reference to any type of development, but more of a partner services sale structure.
It appears Dave Rosenberg is forcing a nefarious connection to support a column he wrote back in the summer of 2006.
Open doesn't mean Open Source (Score:4, Insightful)
It doesn't pretend to be open source, it doesn't mention open source anywhere in the press release. It's a licensing model for resellers.
Re:Sure (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not much different from the litany of automakers proclaiming long and loud about how they're suddenly committed to the Environment, yet behind the scenes will whine and complain (and lobby their asses off) when the the US gov't says it's going to bump gas mileage standards by some embarrassingly small increment at some future point in time.
It's all about the facade until you sign the receipt and call the product yours. Then you get to find that vast gulf between the sweet whispers of marketing promise, and the eardrum-splitting howls of post-purchase reality.
Microsoft just managed to adapt that particular sense of acumen to an otherwise somewhat objective world (technology, that is). Since the computer industry is not really too awful bound by that truth-in-advertising laws that, say, real estate and food would be (at least in the US), the folks at MSFT really don't have to care. Really - what're you gonna do, install Linux in protest? (at least that's the current attitude that I've seen some of the MSFT sales flacks carry).
Not as bad as it seems, but not for everyone. (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, sometimes leasing things works out more favorably than owning in accounting.
This type of licensing makes no sense for personal use or small quantities of licenses, but on a large scale, there are potential benefits for customers over paying the full price up front.
Re:Define "Open" (Score:2, Insightful)
So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
If every lame and dishonest practice of marketing groups were to be published on
This isn't news for nerds. This isn't stuff that matters. Total nitwits are paid to come up with this crap, imho it doesn't deserve any additional coverage.
Re:Open doesn't mean Open Source (Score:2, Insightful)
Just putting Open in the title associates it with such good things as OSS, open business practices, etc.
It makes you think that they are being honest and, well, 'Open'. Or that it is Open to all.
Open is a very hot word right now. Value has always been a hot word, and in some specific situations Subscription can be a hot word. Open is the big buzzword in here, and it is there to associate their product with things like Open Source products, which are very hot right now.
It's a common, sneaky, and boarderline dishonest (you can usually find something that could technically be called 'open' in any product). It's there to fool you, like any buzzword.
The key here is that in any sense that makes any difference, it's not 'Open', there's no new 'Value', and it's not really a 'Subscription' service.
In otherwords, it's 100% pure marketing BS to rip people off.
Re:Open doesn't mean Open Source (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Sure (Score:2, Insightful)
Being an expert on marketing (I've seen some adverts and watched a Bill Hicks DVD) I'd say that marketers are the new lawyers.
Re:SMB? Please define! (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree with your points and the lack of defining what SMB means had me perplexed as well. I usually associate SMB with the Samba project (server message block). The problem is that the submitter and the author of the original article are both techno-dweebs. They therefore assume that everyone is clairvoyant, knows everything that they know and are capable of reading their minds. In a perfect world, Slashdot would've rejected the submission for failing to clarify what "SMB" means.
Re:Define "Open" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sure (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Define "Open" (Score:3, Insightful)
Lame Summary. (Score:3, Insightful)
According to some of my own research, in which I went to the following websites:
http://blogs.msdn.com/mssmallbiz/archive/2008/01/01/6933535.aspx [msdn.com]
http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/programs/open/openvalue.mspx [microsoft.com] (note, this site is confusing.)
http://www.sellsoft.ie/microsoft_osl.html [sellsoft.ie] (much better description, but third party site)
I found out that the whole Open Value Subscription program is essentially a third option for those seeking to purchase site licenses for Microsoft Software. This option would allow you to run Microsoft software for a three year period, after which you have three options:
1) Discontinue use of the software
2) Renew the subscription for three more years
3) Purchase the license outright (a.k.a. buy the right to run the software on a permanent basis on your computers.)
At first glance, this looks all fine to me. However, the only thing I'm worried about is what conditions might come with the license... will Microsoft attempt to force organizations to upgrade in order to renew their subscriptions? (This would be a great way to force businesses to switch to Office 2007/Vista...)