Microsoft Open Value Subscription is none of the above

Back in June of 2006 I wrote a post about Microsoft's attempts to insidiously subvert and usurp the open-source community. In that post, I opined that Microsoft was using clever marketing to make nice with the open-source community with the launch of a developer site called Codeplex.

This week Microsoft launched a 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 it "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.

Here's how the Open Value Subscription is explained on Microsoft Senior Manager Eric Ligman's blog:

The Microsoft Open Value Subscription Program provides a way for SMB customers to "subscribe" to the Microsoft software they want to utilize in their businesses in a "lease-like" fashion. This option provides the up-front cost-saving benefits of a lease-type model (no, it's not an actual lease) where they can pay to use the software for a set period of time with the flexibility to increase or decrease in size as their business size does year over year. At the end of the initial term, clients have the options to continue the subscription, buy out the subscription to own the licenses, or to end the subscription. In addition, your clients may be eligible to receive significant savings and price benefits at the time they enter into a Microsoft Open Value Subscription Agreement if they own current versions or one version prior to current versions of Microsoft software already!

So if I read this right:

• There is nothing open about the code or the contract as you have to use the software for a set period of time.
• The value isn't really there, as there is no cost-benefit.
• It's not really a subscription as "lease-like" means it's a perpetual license--you just absorb the cost over time instead of upfront.
• If you already bought all the Microsoft software, you might get a discount if you buy this muck too.

Confused? Seems other people were as well. Eric provides some more information in this post, which confused me even more. Maybe if I were a part of the monopoly I would understand better.

All of the Open License Programs Microsoft offers are through-Partner licensing models, meaning that customers acquire their software licenses from a Microsoft Reseller, who in turn, acquires the licensing from a Microsoft Volume Licensing Distributor. With the introduction of Open Value Subscription here in the U.S., this model will remain the same. Customers will acquire their Microsoft Open Value Subscription Agreements through a Microsoft reseller and the Microsoft resellers will acquire the Open Value Subscription Agreements for their clients from a Microsoft Volume Licensing Distributor. As noted in my original post, every single reseller out there will be able to sell the Open Value Subscription Licensing option to their clients upon launch in March, if they choose to. Just like the other Open License Programs, resellers do not need to obtain any special authorization to sell these licenses to their clients. So as you can see, all Open Value Subscription License Agreements will be transacted through Microsoft resellers, just like Open Business and Open Value Agreements are today.

Program misnomer aside, I can't for the life of me figure out why anyone would want to do business with Microsoft. For that matter, when I read things like this, I can't believe that anyone can do business with Microsoft.

[heads-up]

Because, Open Value Subscription sounds much better than Open Wallet Extraction.

[BoJanky]

Of all the juvenile drivel... It's a subscription, just like my yahoo music, because it has zero value after you stop paying. Value is dubious, but it likely has a lower upfront cost. Open because, I guess, it can be modified during the course of its use.

It's not something I would buy, and I doubt many will. But open source doesn't have a universal trademark on the word open, and no source is involved. I hardly think people will confuse the two.

[Kismet666]

Dave, you're assertion that 'open' should always refer to open source software is absurd. Why do you even care what Microsoft calls its licensing programs and how they work? This posts demonstrates that you haven't a clue how software licensing works at Microsoft, and probably no where else. They have an entire nomenclature specific to the subject in which terms such as 'open value' have a specific meaning that has nothing to do with 'open source.' I don't claim to understand their licensing, its complex and to me a rather dull subject. You should go back to discussing subjects that you actually know something about, you've fallen through the ice with this post.

[daverosenberg]

Open usually means that you can in or out of something. This is just a bunch of mud.

[objectivecolor]

There has never been any attempt at promoting this as an "open source" program...

Since Microsoft doesn't sell Open Value License programs to end users, you would typically have to deal with a distributor or reseller to find answers to your questions. Since that is clearly stated in the blog, I don't know why you didn't look there for answers, instead of jumping off the deep end on an anti-Microsoft tirade. You don't have to like the program, but when you post such a poorly considered, poorly researched attack, you risk weakening any valid complaints you or others might have.

[pseudomaniac]

If you ever actually read the disclosure on Microsoft software - you never own it, you're just allowed to use it.

These programs that they do are actually very nice. You spend a minimal amount of money to get basically everything they offer in the way of software and support for it. You spend the money each year - but in turn, get access to the latest and greatest software.

This is invaluable to the IT support industry - everything Microsoft makes in the palm of your hands for testing, media for reinstallation of damaged software, and for encouraging upgrades.

It's an Open Value - as the software library keeps growing. Don't confuse for the ridiculously useless open-source elitist community, that seem to have alot of great ideas that never come to fruiton.

[jotter507]

I think "leverage" was a stale buzzwordby about 1999.

[remccart]

There really should be a disclaimer at the top of this article stating:
WRITTEN BY THE CEO OF A COMPANY THAT PROFITS FROM INTEGRATING NON-MICROSOFT SOLUTIONS.

If this were Wikipedia there would be "citation needed" all over this editorial. There is no value in any Microsoft software? Pretty bold to call the most adopted software in the world worthless....

[daverosenberg]

You should probably note that it does say I am CEO of integration company. Note that we integrate Microsoft software but focus on Java.

[joedon999]

This is one of the most juvenile and ignorant rants I've seen in an otherwise mainstream site.

Since you dont seem to have any knowledge or experience of what it is that you're trying to write an article about, let me try to clarify a few things.

"There is nothing open about the code or the contract as you have to use the software for a set period of time."

You are not understanding the word open here. The 'open source' concept does not own copyright on the word open. The terms open and value as terms in Microsoft's licensing programs dates back over a decade. Just because you dont understand what the word means doenst mean it doesnt have meaning.

"The value isn't really there, as there is no cost-benefit."

You get a product for a fee. It's pretty straightforward. Dont you have bills to pay each month? This isnt complicated stuff.

"It's not really a subscription as "lease-like" means it's a perpetual license--you just absorb the cost over time instead of upfront."

I see you've never leased anything, because you've got all your concepts backwards. Lease means no perpetual ownership, pay for use then you give it back.

As to what it means in the context of this new licensing program, allow me to simply quote from the paragraph that you quoted but obviously didnt read:

"At the end of the initial term, clients have the options to continue the subscription, buy out the subscription to own the licenses, or to end the subscription."

So ... lets sum this. Under this program, you can do perpetual subscriptions (no ownership), you can buy the software and stop paying, or walk away. Again, this is pretty straightforward stuff.

"If you already bought all the Microsoft software, you might get a discount if you buy this muck too."

It's all the same muck. Most SMB's buy their MS software with their hardware. What this says is that if you already own a bunch of muck, when you start the subscription program, you get credit for some of what you already own.

Again, this isnt complicated stuff.

Then you try to comment on the partner questions, which are his two followup blog posts.

I'll try to make it easy for you. All of this is partner focused communications. In other words, its focused on companies who, for at least part of their business, resell Microsoft software for a profit.

The two followup articles are aimed at those companies, who expressed concerns that they may be disintermediated.

Are you a Microsoft partner that resells Microsoft software? If not, then these articles werent meant for you in the first place. You're just beating your head against a concrete wall trying to grok something you arent equipped to understand.

How about next time, you follow the great general principle of not opening your mouth, unless you have a clue what you're talking about.

You're obviously just ranting in an effort to drive ad traffic via controversy.

Sad.

[Papa Chango]

Want to try something fun?
Check out the comments and follow their originators profile.

Notice how the ones spouting Microsoft speak ALL have zero previous posts and the accounts were created the same day.. I think Jotter is the ONLY one who has been a member for more than a day.

Im not claiming astro-turfing (wait, yes I am) but it is either an amazing coincidence or Dave has the ability to get 90% of his respondents to sign up that same day for the sake of replying to this hohum article in which case he should renegotiate his deal with CNET.


PS: Zeke is right (lets hope he never reads this!), Dave, Matt and Ash have a monotone delivery but the no BS aspect of the podcast and topics make it worthwhile.

PS2: Can the Redmond turfers at least explain to us why they think that people wont be confused by Open License and Open Source License?
It seems to me they have a few things in common. Look again and count the letters.

True, Open means a lot of things. The French Open is one of those.
But I am NOT talking about open value but rather what Microsoft Senior Manager Eric Ligman's calls 'Open License Programs' in his blog.


Open License
Open Source License

... yeah, it must be me....

[jamlink]

WOW! What a lot of Microsoft defenders!..Do a little research before you attack.
The terms seem pretty complicated but as far as I can see you pay less upfront at first(maybe 40-60% of purchase price) for the first year then apparently the price goes up each year until the term ends(2-3 years) at which point you have paid maybe 2-3 times original cost price and you still dont own the product.

You then have to either buy (probably at a discount) or cease using the product.
Sounds like a bad deal to me.

Check this link for a Open value reseller (scroll down to see the openlicense icons and click those links):http://www.bestbuybusiness.com/bbfb/en/US/adirect/bestbuy?cmd=catEnhancedSearchResult&shopByBrand=N&mfrName=&filter=FT_2%2FF_14570+&breadCrumb=0%24603238%2F603267*%0C1%24FT_2%2FF_14570+&showAll2ndLink=false&filterGroup=-1&lineItemsChecked=&lineItemsQuantity=&OP=pagination&sortCriteria=sortByScore&prevSortCriteria=sortByScore&sortAscending=true&currPageNum=1&showImage=true&numberSelected=0&clearTopQueryTerm=false&startNewSearch=false&matchKeyword=true&matchKeywordDict=true&includeSuperseded=true&search=advanced&SubOp=

[jamlink]

Sorry I know that link is really long but I copied it from my browser tab..It's NOT and ad for best buy..just to illustrate the open license costs.

[jamlink]

Me again..It also seems like it's just a license (NO CD!)..so you would have to posess at least 1 CD from another source (like BUYING!).

[Dragonbear_2012]

"These programs that they do are actually very nice. You spend a minimal amount of money to get basically everything they offer in the way of software and support for it. You spend the money each year -- but in turn, get access to the latest and greatest software."

-- pseudomaniac

I'm sorry, but I nearly fell on the floor because I was laughing so hard.

I'd like to know exactly what fabulous, wonderful software you are using that Microsoft has its dirty little tentacles in.

My MS-ware tends to be a bit buggy until the service packs come out, and each new version steadily erodes my control over both my machine and my various projects. I also find the intrusiveness of the updater offensive and annoying.

Also, when I have a problem, it is usually a BEEEEG problem that requires moving up the Tech Support grid to the Cash-in-Advance services.

I only buy it because it is the corporate standard for my employment and the various network restrictions make it difficult to import or export non-MS files.

Pseudomaniac is apparently the target market for the Open Value Subscription, which sounds like it is designed for people who do not know exactly what they want and are unable or unwilling to learn how to perform their own system and network maintenance.

Remember, The Corporation does not love you and is not your Big Blue Friend.