5 ms·

Relevant bit here: > Given your feedback, we have made the decision to roll back all planned changes related to internal use rights and competency timelines th

by Sujan 7y ago

Relevant bit here: > Given your feedback, we have made the decision to roll back all planned changes related to internal use rights and competency timelines that were announced earlier this month. This means you will experience no material changes this coming fiscal year, and you will not be subject to reduced IUR licenses or increased costs related to those licenses next July as previously announced.

jlgaddis 7y ago
> ... this coming fiscal year ... No mention of the next fiscal year, or the one after that. Microsoft already decided they want to push these changes through -- and they will. It might just take them a little longer than originally planned but Microsoft will continue to "extinguish" anyone or anything standing in their way. (I know this isn't a popular opinion with some of the developers here on HN -- who seem to think they are Microsoft's BFFs -- but some of us don't forget so quickly.)
- erk__ 7y ago
  Microsoft is a public company so they have to keep the investors and the board happy, and they are happy when there is more money flowing into the company.
  - techntoke 7y ago
    Yet they are so desperate to continue making money that they had to adopt Linux and containers to stay relevant.
    - jlgaddis 7y ago
      That wasn't desperation at all. Offering their customers exactly what they wanted so that they didn't go elsewhere to get it? That's just a smart business move.
    - manigandham 7y ago
      Staying relevant is good business.
  - redis_mlc 7y ago
    > is a public company so they have to keep the investors and the board happy No. The US courts have held that company managers have wide latitude in how they perform their duties. Managers don't have to do anything in particular, since you know, they were hired to manage the company. They do not have have to "maximize shareholder profit" as HN commenters always say. Having said that, the board or large shareholders (more than 5%, or a large group of shareholders) could influence mgmt. if they wanted to either via the board or the courts. But the onus is on them, not mgmt., to make that effort.
- Dayshine 7y ago
  They're withdrawing subsidies for resellers of their products. It's pretty hard to see how that is them extinguishing competition... Isn't subsiding by a major market power generally seen as an anticompetitive action?
  - galaxyLogic 7y ago
    I believe that businesses are allowed to give special deals to customers of their choice as long as they don't discriminate based on race color religion sexual preference, maybe age? It's really just a question if it is in MS interest to make sure their "partners" always use MS products instead of those of the competition. It's not a question of ethics. I think the term is "price differentiation". Some people get it cheaper.
  - jlgaddis 7y ago
    > They're withdrawing subsidies for resellers of their products. It's pretty hard to see how that is them extinguishing competition... Microsoft was going to yank internal use rights from the "partners". For many (most?) of them, this is the primary reason they remain partners. Without this benefit, lots of them will choose not to remain partners. Many companies will only work with Microsoft partners. Lots of them would work directly with Microsoft if that were an option (as some are speculating it will soon be). So there will be a lot less "partners" standing in between Microsoft and their customers. Then, at some point, Microsoft will start working directly with these customers, cutting out the middleman, sucking them into their subscription models (which will be expanding), have more insight into their operations, and will be better able to track (and enforce) licensing. To put it a simpler way, Microsoft is simply going to cut out the middleman -- the partners -- and take their customers -- and revenue -- away from them.
    - zubspace 7y ago
      There are many partners which are not simple resellers. Dev shops and integration businesses which do a lot of customer oriented work, which Microsoft itself could never reliably take over. Those partners profit from the MPN licenses by using them internally and on the other hand get in touch with new tech from Microsoft, which they could maybe use in one or another way. Losing them would be really bad for Microsoft, because they are at the forefront installing, integrating and extending the Microsoft stack into their customer base. Think of deals in the government or education sector. Microsoft should not put those businesses and resellers into the same basket. But they are right now and every change affects them both. Hard to get out of that program which has been running since decades...
- manigandham 7y ago
  Who exactly are they "extinguishing"?

by Sujan 7y ago

jlgaddis 7y ago

> ... this coming fiscal year ... No mention of the next fiscal year, or the one after that. Microsoft already decided they want to push these changes through -- and they will. It might just take them a little longer than originally planned but Microsoft will continue to "extinguish" anyone or anything standing in their way. (I know this isn't a popular opinion with some of the developers here on HN -- who seem to think they are Microsoft's BFFs -- but some of us don't forget so quickly.)

erk__ 7y ago
Microsoft is a public company so they have to keep the investors and the board happy, and they are happy when there is more money flowing into the company.
- techntoke 7y ago
  Yet they are so desperate to continue making money that they had to adopt Linux and containers to stay relevant.
  - jlgaddis 7y ago
    That wasn't desperation at all. Offering their customers exactly what they wanted so that they didn't go elsewhere to get it? That's just a smart business move.
  - manigandham 7y ago
    Staying relevant is good business.
- redis_mlc 7y ago
  > is a public company so they have to keep the investors and the board happy No. The US courts have held that company managers have wide latitude in how they perform their duties. Managers don't have to do anything in particular, since you know, they were hired to manage the company. They do not have have to "maximize shareholder profit" as HN commenters always say. Having said that, the board or large shareholders (more than 5%, or a large group of shareholders) could influence mgmt. if they wanted to either via the board or the courts. But the onus is on them, not mgmt., to make that effort.
Dayshine 7y ago
They're withdrawing subsidies for resellers of their products. It's pretty hard to see how that is them extinguishing competition... Isn't subsiding by a major market power generally seen as an anticompetitive action?
- galaxyLogic 7y ago
  I believe that businesses are allowed to give special deals to customers of their choice as long as they don't discriminate based on race color religion sexual preference, maybe age? It's really just a question if it is in MS interest to make sure their "partners" always use MS products instead of those of the competition. It's not a question of ethics. I think the term is "price differentiation". Some people get it cheaper.
- jlgaddis 7y ago
  > They're withdrawing subsidies for resellers of their products. It's pretty hard to see how that is them extinguishing competition... Microsoft was going to yank internal use rights from the "partners". For many (most?) of them, this is the primary reason they remain partners. Without this benefit, lots of them will choose not to remain partners. Many companies will only work with Microsoft partners. Lots of them would work directly with Microsoft if that were an option (as some are speculating it will soon be). So there will be a lot less "partners" standing in between Microsoft and their customers. Then, at some point, Microsoft will start working directly with these customers, cutting out the middleman, sucking them into their subscription models (which will be expanding), have more insight into their operations, and will be better able to track (and enforce) licensing. To put it a simpler way, Microsoft is simply going to cut out the middleman -- the partners -- and take their customers -- and revenue -- away from them.
  - zubspace 7y ago
    There are many partners which are not simple resellers. Dev shops and integration businesses which do a lot of customer oriented work, which Microsoft itself could never reliably take over. Those partners profit from the MPN licenses by using them internally and on the other hand get in touch with new tech from Microsoft, which they could maybe use in one or another way. Losing them would be really bad for Microsoft, because they are at the forefront installing, integrating and extending the Microsoft stack into their customer base. Think of deals in the government or education sector. Microsoft should not put those businesses and resellers into the same basket. But they are right now and every change affects them both. Hard to get out of that program which has been running since decades...
manigandham 7y ago
Who exactly are they "extinguishing"?