A Justification for Server CALs? 74
bourne.again asks: "I'm a bit confused about server client access licenses (CALs). I've looked at it from every angle I can think of, but I'm still stumped. I can't think of any justification for CALs other than greed. If you think about it, requiring CALs means that it is possible to buy a copy of a Windows server OS that can run on a server, but can't actually server anything because it has no CALs. That's a bit ridiculous. The same goes for per-cpu licenses. Shouldn't it just be per machine? An extra CPU doesn't allow you the full capabilities of a second machine. It's still just one server/workstation. Can somebody enlighten me on this, please? Why should we pay for server software, and pay per client too?"
because that is how they choose to sell it (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:because that is how they choose to sell it (Score:1)
Re:because that is how they choose to sell it (Score:2)
Re:because that is how they choose to sell it (Score:1)
for MS you have to pay to get good server tech support per incedent so that's not and excuse.
For Linux you don't have the faults to start with (Score:2)
For wo
Re:For Linux you don't have the faults to start wi (Score:2)
Re:For Linux you don't have the faults to start wi (Score:1)
Re:because that is how they choose to sell it (Score:2)
Cars and SUVs cost what people are willing to pay. Period. That's the only justification for the price. If you think the price of a vehicle is stronly correlated with the labor and materials that went into making it, then I have a bridge you might be interested in...
Both of you are half right (Score:1)
Re:because that is how they choose to sell it (Score:2)
How come the Rolls-Royce dealers are not cooperating with your economic theory?
By the way, if you're willing to sell your bridge for less that the cost of the parts and labour, I know several people who will happily take it off your hands.
Re:because that is how they choose to sell it (Score:2)
i wouldnt make cars for a measley 2k profit...
Re:because that is how they choose to sell it (Score:1)
Perhaps you are a small business with twenty people and you want to buy and use some enterprise server software. A mailserver or something. Perhaps the pricing is $20 per user per year. The small business would then be paying $400/yr for their license.
Perhaps there is also a huge corporation with 50,000 users. Before applying any discounts or bulk accounting credits here, that would be $600,000/yr.
Seems fair to me. The other option would be to charge both companies the same price, which
Re:because that is how they choose to sell it (Score:2)
Re:because that is how they choose to sell it (Score:2)
The big company doesn't have to pay an inflated fee to subsidize; they can choose to not pay any fee and do without.
Jesus, I don't even like microsoft. I also have no idea why people choose to subsidize..
42 (Score:1)
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy illustrates neatly the problem of not understanding the question.
Re:because that is how they choose to sell it (Score:1)
You have to make money to continue to develop and support that software that you're selling and you can't do that if you sell it for $500 a pop across the board. The more people you have that use it, the more valuable it is to you and the more you pay to continue support and development of the product.
Re:because that is how they choose to sell it (Score:2)
You should do... (Score:1)
Re:You should do... (Score:2)
No. I remember 20 years ago when a Mac Plus with a second floppy drive and a dot-matrix printer cost like $5,000 though.
I think you could buy a 20 mb hard drive for about $2,500. Maybe that's what you were thinking of.
Re:You should do... (Score:1)
$5000 for a 5MB full-height Winchester drive (Score:2)
Fairness? (Score:1)
Re:Fairness? (Score:1)
It's better than Novel was... (Score:1)
Are you sure about that? (Score:2)
With Netware, if you had n servers and m clients, then your cost was proportial to n * m.
Since when did you have to purchase both an NDS license and a NetWare [or SuSE] server license?
Novell servers have been essentially free since 4.x [circa 1995]. In fact, way before the era of pf/ipfw/ipchains/iptables and whatnot, you could get a really nice low-level switch/router/packet filter/firewall/etc simply by installing a NetWare server and then removing NDS from it.
As I recall, the way M$FT killed Novel
A balance... (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft (since you use the term CAL) has given most products the option of either being per processor (a decent compromise in "bang for your buck" at the high end) or per server with CALs (a decent compromise at the low end, while scaling the revenue with usage). Frankly, I don't find it odd at all, unless you want to contrast it with free software.
Re:A balance... (Score:2)
Re:A balance... (Score:2)
I'm not saying that Microsoft has
That's Capitalism (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, the argument could be made that since Microsoft is a convicted monopoly [usdoj.gov] you don't really have a choice, but enforcing anti-trust law is part of captialism too.
Re:That's Capitalism (Score:3, Interesting)
He wants a Windows Server. He doesn't need a Windows Server. If he doesn't like the licensing terms, he can talk to Microsoft, or buy something else that will fulfill the actual business needs of his organization. For all I know, that might be ten thousand clerks with filing cabinets and pneumatic tubes sitting in his basement.
Or, maybe he can get by with a pony. Lord knows, I've always wanted a pony.
Re:That's Capitalism (Score:2)
If he wants a solution to his problem, the response can be wider, and it would make sense to ask for it in this forum.
Re:That's Capitalism (Score:1)
Re:That's Capitalism (Score:2)
Re:That's Capitalism (Score:2)
Re:That's Capitalism (Score:2)
He didn't necessarily say that he is buying a Windows server. He used a Windows server as an example. There are tons of people that have crappy licensing besides Microsoft. The main thing you have to ask yourself is do you really require their software, or can other, cheaper, software do just fine.
If you're looking to build a web server with a SQL back-end, can a LAMP setup give you what you need or do you need Windows/IIS/MSSQL? Do you need that SCO server, or can a FreeBSD box do it just as well? Th
There ISN'T a decent justification for CALs... (Score:1)
Thoughts on per-CPU licensing... (Score:3, Informative)
A more sensible licensing scheme might take into account actual computing power, networking capacity, etc. Of course, the pricing of replicatable goods is completely arbitrary. It has nothing to do with economics that deals with the distribution of scarce resources.
Re:Thoughts on per-CPU licensing... (Score:2)
Because you're a filthy software pirate. (Score:2)
Yes, I know. Don't even point out the horrid illogic in that concept. I also like how w2k AS would leak CALs forever if the client was reformatted, so you had to buy licences over and over. The only fix was to delete the stuck licences and forcing a re-activation of them with *ahem* third party software
I also loved how their fix for it in SPwhatever didn't actually fix the broken licences, it only
Attempt to be fair; pay proportional to usage (Score:4, Insightful)
Server CALs are just another tool in balancing software costs proportional to the usage (customer perceived value) and ability to pay.
It may be partly greed, but remember that most companies have to use their successes to recoup the costs of software that DIDN'T sell. Remember Infocom? Looking Glass Studios? Pricing is an art. CALs are a tool.
Re:Attempt to be fair; pay proportional to usage (Score:1, Funny)
Price Discrimination (Score:2)
Let me get this straight... (Score:3, Funny)
Margins are odd - not the licensing schemes (Score:2)
The thing I find really odd is that companies can make 80+% profit margins on intellectual property ("ideas") that are mostly 10-15 years old.
It's what the market will bear. (Score:3, Interesting)
One other thing that I've noticed is that the more specialized the software, the fewer copies that are sold. This software usually turns out to be more expensive and far more restrictive than more popular software. For example, at work I use a streaming video package that we spent $10k for. When you install it, you enter a license number, it contacts the company's server over the net and then activates the software. I have two problems with this.
Anyway, events like this make me really appreciate the "freedom" aspect of free software and open source software. I have little time to dick around with playing games like that with vendors. Not to mention that it leaves you completely at the mercy of the vendor.
So my point in all this is that eventually companies will learn that it's in their interest to start using software that respects flexibility rather than being node-locked, not allowing reinstalls, charging for extra CPUs & network connections, etc. But it won't make a difference until it starts affecting the bottom line of these companies.
Just because ... (Score:3, Insightful)
one of the major business benefits of OSS (Score:2)
Re:I just buy OS X Server. (Score:2)
Why pay? (Score:2)
You don't have to buy what you don't want. If you don't need Active Directory, or you feel up to trying another LDAP solution, y
Samba does Active Directory (Score:2)
I don't like SuSE, but it I had to admin Windows accounts, Novell SuSE doesn't sound so bad after all.
License costs are negligible (Score:1)
In other words, the cost doesn't actually have to be justified. It's obviously acceptable to the mar
Explaining CALs and per-CPU licenses (Score:3, Interesting)
The value you get from software is proportional to the number of your people using it.
In the case of software that runs on the client machine, if you have N users you are generally expected to pay for N licenses, so that the amount you pay is proportional to the value you get.
If I have a server-based web content management system, and have 10 people using it, I'm getting twice as much value from it as if I only had 5 people using it--just like if it was a client-based web editing system. Basically, whether the software resides on the server or the client is a mere technical detail that doesn't really affect the value obtained, and so shouldn't affect the pricing too much.
So CALs are a way to make server software pricing more like client software pricing--i.e. proportional to value obtained.
The bit you should be asking about isn't the CAL; it's the initial server software price. The logical reason for an initial per-server fee is to cover the expected distribution and support costs when you purchase the software and try to set up the server. Unfortunately, that lump sum basically makes it disproportionately expensive to set up a server for a small number of users. That's why there has been a trend towards offering cut-down SMB versions of server software with a lower up-front cost.
Per-CPU and per-MHz licensing is an attempt to shift the expense towards those who can apparently best afford it. Or to look at it from the other side, it's another way to try and make things relatively cheaper for entry-level/low end customers. Like income tax, in other words.
One thing you didn't bring up is the difference between workstation CALs and (concurrent) user CALs. Personally, I think workstation CALs are a bit of a rip-off, and licensing should always be based on users, whether the software is server-based or client-based. If I use 5 computers in various locations, I'm not getting 5x the value of a server-based CMS--there's only one of me, and the fact that I use 5 machines instead of carrying 1 laptop everywhere should (again) be a mere detail that doesn't affect the value obtained, and so shouldn't affect the price.
Disclaimer: Opinions mine, not IBMs.
Would you rather.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Does that seem like a better system to you? Well, probably if you're the guy using the 500 clients.
An important point to note about Microsoft Server CAL's, as long as each user (or device) has a CAL, you can add as many servers as you want (for the base cost of a server). So if you have one server and 20 CAL's, and you need to purchase a second server, you only need to pay the ~$600 for the Server software, all the clients are covered by CAL's already.
It just gives you more licensing options (Score:1)
CAL's allow you to license the software based on your number of computers rather than users. If you have 50 users who share 5 computers, then you only need to have 5 CALs. On the other hand, in development organizations 5 users can end up using 10 computers if users need to work on multiple computers. In this case the per user model would be less expensive.
I think you already understand the economics of per user licensing. It allows Microsoft to have different price points depending on the size of the orga
What's the alternative (Score:1)
What's the alternative to a CAL arrangement? The vendor could charge a flat rate per server or even per company, but that rate would be a lot higher than a per-seat license in order to keep the revenue the same. Should companies that only have five employees using an application pay as much as a company with 500?
Also, CALs actually make sense if the license fees include support. Generally speaking, more users results in more support calls.
Uh (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyway, it's not a bad setup - that way the large companies that use it for thousands of clients get to foot a lot more of the R&D and support costs than the small companies using it for 10 clients. I don't really see the problem here.
CAL Pricing (Score:1)
Re:CAL Pricing (Score:1)
scaleable pricing model (Score:2)
Economicly there's nothing wrong with it.. A larger company can afford to pay more for the same service that a smaller company can; you're just normally allowed to discrimiate pricing.
Another justification is that w/ client-installed software, you can charge per seat.. But w/ server software there is only ever one seat.. Imagin
it's simple: (Score:2)
The problem is to find some rule or measurement for "how much demand for my product does potential customer x have?", ideall
Why CAL's? It is what the market will bear. Quack. (Score:1)
Justification? (Score:2)
Well, that one's good enough for most money grubbing s/w companies. Why do you need more?