4 ms·
Microsoft has put a lot of effort into structuring their licensing to maximize their profits. One of the techniques they've used is to make the licensing compl
by easp 15y ago
Microsoft has put a lot of effort into structuring their licensing to maximize their profits. One of the techniques they've used is to make the licensing complex enough that people over-pay to be on the safe side.
Sounds like you took the path of least resistance with Microsoft licensing, and may have paid significantly more for the privilege.
Maybe that was the right business decision for you, but its hardly a refutation of people who decide that open source licensing is a lot less hassle: No BizSpark application to fill-out, no fear of expensive licensing gotchas once they outgrow BizSpark.
- gm 15y agoHrrmmm... I take the path of least resistance on everything. Why take the path of increased resistance? As long as you do not betray the long-term goal, the path of least resistance is absolutely the one to take. Always. Keeping on-topic: To a Windows-experienced team, the path of least resistance is to stay on Windows, even with its baggage. Same can be said for every other platform: Ruby guys, stay with Ruby all things being equal, and so on. PHP guy tasked with building a high-performance socket server? The path of least resistance given the goal is probably to switch to another platform for this project. EDIT: About MS maximizing profit: By definition, that's what a business does. Which business does not maximize profits?
- pm90 15y agomaximizing profit from clever scheming is different from maximizing profit from innovating. maybe this is the cultural difference that was being talked about in the article
- easp 15y agoI won't bother arguing with the received dogma of neo-classic economics and accept your premise that: that businesses strive to maximize profits, and that they should do so. That wasn't my point. My point is that microsoft maximizes profits by making licensing so complicated that a significant percentage of their customer base over-pay for licensing rather than take the risk of being under-licensed. Since you took the path of least resistance, you may have overpaid for licensing. If your goal, as a business, is to maximize profits, well, then, you've worked against your long-term goal. It may be that the cost of overpaying microsoft for licenses was cheaper than the opportunity cost of figuring out how to pay less for licenses. Which brings me back to my main point, it is no disgrace, as an engineer, to decide that Microsoft licensing is a problem better avoided.