3 ms·

I believe Microsoft's main argument is that CERN doesn't teach or award degrees. Last time this was posted I saw someone say it's also due to them making a litt

by dukwon 7y ago

I believe Microsoft's main argument is that CERN doesn't teach or award degrees. Last time this was posted I saw someone say it's also due to them making a little bit of money licensing stuff to industry [1], but universities do the same thing [2] so I don't think that's a strong argument. [1] https://kt.cern/ https://kt.cern/ [2] e.g. https://www.ox.ac.uk/research/innovation-and-partnership https://www.ox.ac.uk/research/innovation-and-partnership

mhneu 7y ago
You seem to be making an argument based on what Microsoft says. But of course, what Microsoft says is not the reason for its decision. Microsoft offers an academic discount because it thinks that getting students to use their products makes them more money as the students continue to use them later in life. Microsoft then SAYS they are offering that discount because students/degrees/training/teaching/whatever. What it SAYS doesn't matter. It's not the reason. Similarly, Microsoft wants CERN to pay because it thinks it can make more money in licensing fees from CERN than it can from getting people at CERN familiar with Microsoft products. (Microsoft may have gotten this wrong, if CERN pushes more non-Microsoft products into the spotlight; whether they are wrong or right isn't at issue, their reasoning is the issue.) Once deciding they can make more money if CERN pays, now Microsoft has to come up with some reasonable-sounding reason that keeps its existing academic and industry customers happy. So they came up with that reason. But don't think for a second the REAL reason has anything to do with anything but Microsoft's bottom line. Don't let them deceive you. This decision was made by executives at Microsoft by talking about profit.
- jjeaff 7y ago
  Seems short sided even from a bottom line perspective. For one, CERN is bound to employ plenty of experts that will familiarize themselves with the product and move on to other projects later and choose MSFT products. Additionally, CERN is such a high profile project that simply asking them to advertise the fact that they are "powered by Microsoft" would pay them more than any licensing fees. But maybe they thought they could charge 10x the fees AND still get all the benefits.
  - fock 7y ago
    I guess "powered by Microsoft" is not what was happening at CERN as nearly all data analysis is "powered by Linux" (there's a reason, Scientific Linux existed) and iirc the ecad-software KiCAD is the only production focused CAD-tool which is good and free (mostly sponsored by CERN too)
- dukwon 7y ago
  > You seem to be making an argument based on what Microsoft says Well, yeah, I'm repeating what I remember them saying. I'm definitely not making my own argument, nor am I particularly willing to speculate about any ulterior motives.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- wmf 7y ago
  Yep, the argument is academic since MS is also willing to increase prices on universities when they feel like it. I remember when they revoked per-seat pricing at the University of Texas 25 years ago.
pbhjpbhj 7y ago
Moreover, CERN have educational programmes, they teach. https://home.cern/about/what-we-do/our-educational-programmes https://home.cern/about/what-we-do/our-educational-programme... This, is a reason that this is a great move for the spread of OSS: >"The comprehensive range of training schemes and fellowships attracts many talented young scientists and engineers to the Laboratory. Many go on to find careers in industry, where their experience of working in a high-tech, multi-national environment is highly valued." (ibid) // I'd warrant that if people start their career at CERN using OSS they'll help to advocate for those tools as they move out into other industries. With MS's market share it's probably not significant for them, but it could be significant for whatever OSS tools are favoured at CERN.
godelski 7y ago
CERN, and every other government lab, are highly involved in the PhD process and awarding degrees. I'd go as far as saying they are an integral part. This is where grad students do their research to get those degrees. This is where grad students get a significant amount of their experience. They are also where funding comes from to do the research in the first place. Without labs like CERN there'd be a big change in how degrees are awarded. Labs are also much closer to academia than they are you industry. Their primary focus is research, which makes them a public interest. So if the distinction is "industry" or "academia" I don't know how someone would call labs "industry". I understand not calling them "academia" but that's definitely the classification if you restrict yourself to a binary choice.
C1sc0cat 7y ago
I used to work with some one who had done her Phd at Cern which seems to qualify.
- dukwon 7y ago
  Qualify for what? There isn't some sort of objective arbitrator who decides whether Microsoft offers a discount to particular organisations. It's really up to them. For the record, I also did my PhD at CERN, but they just provided facilities (offices, computers, accelerators, detectors etc) and not academic guidance/teaching/assessment: that was the job of my University.
  - C1sc0cat 7y ago
    Being an educational facility

by dukwon 7y ago

mhneu 7y ago

You seem to be making an argument based on what Microsoft says. But of course, what Microsoft says is not the reason for its decision. Microsoft offers an academic discount because it thinks that getting students to use their products makes them more money as the students continue to use them later in life. Microsoft then SAYS they are offering that discount because students/degrees/training/teaching/whatever. What it SAYS doesn't matter. It's not the reason. Similarly, Microsoft wants CERN to pay because it thinks it can make more money in licensing fees from CERN than it can from getting people at CERN familiar with Microsoft products. (Microsoft may have gotten this wrong, if CERN pushes more non-Microsoft products into the spotlight; whether they are wrong or right isn't at issue, their reasoning is the issue.) Once deciding they can make more money if CERN pays, now Microsoft has to come up with some reasonable-sounding reason that keeps its existing academic and industry customers happy. So they came up with that reason. But don't think for a second the REAL reason has anything to do with anything but Microsoft's bottom line. Don't let them deceive you. This decision was made by executives at Microsoft by talking about profit.

jjeaff 7y ago
Seems short sided even from a bottom line perspective. For one, CERN is bound to employ plenty of experts that will familiarize themselves with the product and move on to other projects later and choose MSFT products. Additionally, CERN is such a high profile project that simply asking them to advertise the fact that they are "powered by Microsoft" would pay them more than any licensing fees. But maybe they thought they could charge 10x the fees AND still get all the benefits.
- fock 7y ago
  I guess "powered by Microsoft" is not what was happening at CERN as nearly all data analysis is "powered by Linux" (there's a reason, Scientific Linux existed) and iirc the ecad-software KiCAD is the only production focused CAD-tool which is good and free (mostly sponsored by CERN too)
dukwon 7y ago
> You seem to be making an argument based on what Microsoft says Well, yeah, I'm repeating what I remember them saying. I'm definitely not making my own argument, nor am I particularly willing to speculate about any ulterior motives.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
wmf 7y ago
Yep, the argument is academic since MS is also willing to increase prices on universities when they feel like it. I remember when they revoked per-seat pricing at the University of Texas 25 years ago.

pbhjpbhj 7y ago

Moreover, CERN have educational programmes, they teach. https://home.cern/about/what-we-do/our-educational-programmes https://home.cern/about/what-we-do/our-educational-programme... This, is a reason that this is a great move for the spread of OSS: >"The comprehensive range of training schemes and fellowships attracts many talented young scientists and engineers to the Laboratory. Many go on to find careers in industry, where their experience of working in a high-tech, multi-national environment is highly valued." (ibid) // I'd warrant that if people start their career at CERN using OSS they'll help to advocate for those tools as they move out into other industries. With MS's market share it's probably not significant for them, but it could be significant for whatever OSS tools are favoured at CERN.

godelski 7y ago

CERN, and every other government lab, are highly involved in the PhD process and awarding degrees. I'd go as far as saying they are an integral part. This is where grad students do their research to get those degrees. This is where grad students get a significant amount of their experience. They are also where funding comes from to do the research in the first place. Without labs like CERN there'd be a big change in how degrees are awarded. Labs are also much closer to academia than they are you industry. Their primary focus is research, which makes them a public interest. So if the distinction is "industry" or "academia" I don't know how someone would call labs "industry". I understand not calling them "academia" but that's definitely the classification if you restrict yourself to a binary choice.

C1sc0cat 7y ago

I used to work with some one who had done her Phd at Cern which seems to qualify.

dukwon 7y ago
Qualify for what? There isn't some sort of objective arbitrator who decides whether Microsoft offers a discount to particular organisations. It's really up to them. For the record, I also did my PhD at CERN, but they just provided facilities (offices, computers, accelerators, detectors etc) and not academic guidance/teaching/assessment: that was the job of my University.
- C1sc0cat 7y ago
  Being an educational facility