April 5, 2008 at 4:53 pm
Comments posted to this topic are about the item The Cost of Support
April 6, 2008 at 10:19 pm
I'm about ready to unsubscribe from your newsletter due to all the whining (especially about SP3). I subscribed to read interesting things about SQL Server, not hear you stump for something day after day. Once in a while...fine. It's your editorial I guess, but just thought I'd give you some feedback of what I don't like about it.
Regarding charging for Service Packs...that sounds like a horrible idea. For instance, Microsoft now only offers XP updates to those with XP SP2. If they were charging for SP's, then they probably wouldn't be able to do that. Also, unless SP's never include new security fixes, then Microsoft would essentially be charging to fix critical security issues, which I know many people would hate. No, I think SP's will remain free.
April 7, 2008 at 4:35 am
Microsoft will have a hard time initially to change from the by-incident support to yearly subscription support.
Then again there were some interesting rumours about a subscription based Operating System after Vista. Essentially you pay monthly for the bits you choose to use.
I can see this working for SQL Server in about 5 years (aka after SQL Server 2008 as I don't think MS has the right infrastructure for this now). If they announce this model now a few companies will jump ship from MS SQL. The rest will just put it forward into their budget.
The main thing is what happens if my (hypothetically) subscription runs out? Will my SQL server come down in a grinding halt stopping my production system? Will I be able to run my production system happily ever after installation and just get my service packs from my buddy who has a smaller production system and a subscription?
To be fair there are products like Sage Line 500 out there that will just grind to a halt if the yearly fee isn't paid. So this would be a fair way to do it. But this is accounting software, not a database. And in the database world there is not so much as a yearly fee to be paid or my system comes crashing down if not. Then again, if Microsoft starts that model, IBM will follow. Oracle would be happy to follow to generate revenues even if they initially will refuse it and blame Microsoft for leading bad practice.
To make this work Microsoft would have to put the installation of a service pack based on the SQL subscription and this could possibly again be circumvented by a person with known skills to manipulate files. To make it really secure the check would have to be bedded deep into the Operating System which again has repercussions on not only SQL Server but Windows Server software.
On a five year time scale it would be possible to implement such a model. But it is a major impact that most companies want to have tested rigorously.
Most companies will be happy with a subscription model if they receive benefits from it like a yearly update / upgrade / patch. Unfortunately Microsoft didn't gather many laurels for their latest scheme in this regard. "Be safe to know it doesn't cost anything to upgrade your software within this time of subscription." They just "forgot" to release some major software for the customers to benefit from the subscription.
If the subscription for one year and the cost of the product will be the same as it is now (other than pay for the software PLUS the subscription) I can see a subscription model working for Microsoft.
But it would be better for Microsoft to first put out some service packs on their own cost, establish a track record of delivered solutions that benefit not only fringes of the database users and then change to a subscription model. This way there is goodwill in the community.
If a subscription model comes in now it would look more like a racketeering model and this would be bad for Microsoft's already existing legal woes.
April 7, 2008 at 6:49 am
The idea of charging for service packs is absurd with the current model of software deployment. That model being - get it out the door on time with little regard to making it right the first time. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a MS basher but I'm tired of receiving incomplete and/or buggy software, and paying for it.
If I spent money (smaller initial amount) on a new piece of software that was sound out of the box (not needing patches or updates), I would consider paying for service packs. At that point, the service pack could be considered a version update rather than correcting errors that existed in the original release.
Anyone remember when 2005 was released? There were several items that did not make it to RTM that had to be added with SP1. It would have been unacceptable to charge for this service pack since it added promised functionality to an incomplete product.
April 7, 2008 at 7:32 am
Jim, if on the other hand Microsoft wouldn't have promised the features from SP1 in RTM, would you have signed up to a subscription or would you have been happy to pay for the software again?
April 7, 2008 at 7:49 am
My initial thought is no, I would still not have paid for a subscription. Microsoft has set a precedent of releasing software that should have stayed in development longer, working out the bugs and making sure everything was included as promised. Vista is another prime example.
If Microsoft would make a great effort to change the precedent they have set, I would be more willing to consider a subscription. Perhaps the subscription would be in leu of having to pay for a new version. I might even consider paying a little extra for a support incident or two each year. Of course, though, if they actually got it right out of the box, we wouldn't need the support.
April 7, 2008 at 8:21 am
Calling it support to fix things that should have worked in the first place is just plain wrong. Bugs aren't support, they aren't undocumented features and they shouldn't be there if they did reasonable testing. Worse yet is to even consider charging for fixing them. In my world of custom software development we try to deliver bug free but fix any that do surface under the orignal agreement. If the client changes their environment to something we didn't agree to, then they pay for support to get it to work. I'll pay for new versions/features but I expect them to work as advertized and be fixed for free if they don't.
Regards,
Greg Young
April 7, 2008 at 8:47 am
My apologies if this appears to be whining. I'd prefer to think of it as stumping 😛
Support and bugs are both a problem and constant issue. I think it's important not only that we think about it and propose solutions, but also complain and try to force Microsoft to change. It's a big issue in my mind. Disagree if you want, and please let everyone know why.
I'm may not have presented the idea well, but it's more that I think that bugs are a fact of life. SQL Server, Vista, even Word, and similar products (Oracle, etc.) are incredibly complex pieces of software. They are orders of magnitude beyond what most of us build. So I can understand that there are always going to be bugs. I also see that the state of software and corporations that sell shrink wrap is that they'll always push things out before they're ready.
So, is the half-*ssed delivery of software built into the price? SQL Server is cheaper than Oracle and DB2.
My thought was that instead of $1800 an instance (Std), maybe it should be cheaper, $1500, and then $150 a year for a subscription that would get you patches, xx support calls, etc. Or would you like to see it at $1200 for the instance, then $300 a Service Pack? Maybe that would get the patch team motivated to produce better quality.
I know it's easy to throw stones, and I'd like to bring attention to the issue along with solutions. I also think I need to motivate some of you to complain or take action to get Microsoft to change. It's only with a lot of people making their voices heard that we can change things.
Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply