Why are Microsoft Customers Scared of Criticising Microsoft? 46
gsfprez asks: "This article documents the stories of three Microsoft customers (organizations that voluntarily buy Microsoft products) who are clearly unhappy with the product offerings of Microsoft - but are simultaneously petrified of this fact being made public. My question to the crowd is not regarding the subject matter of the article: rather, I want to know what is it that could scare a company away from telling a product vendor that they are unhappy and merely *considering* not buying their next product? Fear of reprisal (in the form of a software audit) is simple extortion...no? More ethereally - do we actually live in a world where MS not only 'demands' you buy their new products, but appears to have people pissing their pants at the thought of doing otherwise?"
It's simple (Score:5, Interesting)
Microsoft is a big company that is known to play its business a bit dirty from time to time. When you criticise them too much, they might just try their next trick on you. Since they are bigger and have more money, you can be sure you won't like this.
Why not cuss out your CEO when you're laid off? (Score:5, Insightful)
E-Week is a magazine for CIOs and IT administrators. If you get your name printed disparaging any of your suppliers, you can be sure that your sales rep and tech support rep aren't going to smiling and saying 'wow, what a great and effective way to deliver feedback to me.'
There is a LARGE Difference... (Score:4, Insightful)
So why is it that I don't see an example of either coming form Microsoft customers? Many people have already made a good point: that working thru your rep would be the first step, but what happens when said rep isn't working for you, or isn't serving you as well as could be because of company mandated policies?
Please do not discount this question because there seems to be an obvious answer when you look at the extremes. Everyone with a clue can figure that bit out. It's legitimate criticism that concerns me. Microsoft is deserving of a lot of it, yet aside from places like Slashdot (and other, more extreme sites), it's rarely given.
Why are Microsoft Customers Scared?! (Score:4, Funny)
I wonder... (Score:4, Interesting)
Anyway, what would they have to fear if they were using OSS ? The law is on their side...
Yeah right, Even an "OSS enterprise" (see, american humor
Re:I wonder... (Score:5, Insightful)
The law maybe is, but how does the Microsoft know if you use free software or pirated MS software? What I'm affraid is this:
*Knock, knock!*
-- Who's there?
-- Microsoft action rangers! Let me see your license!
-- Get lost, I don't use your shitty software!
-- You have to let us in and let us check out all of your computers to prove that!
Anyone has any experience with them? Because I sure don't want to let them near my computers at all.
Re:I wonder... (Score:2, Interesting)
Think about it : if they can do that, what would stop me from doing the same thing at redmond ?
-- hello, i'm a shareware developper , I'm here to check all your computers to see if you're using some of my software. Please let me in, Mr Gates !
Re:I wonder... (Score:4, Informative)
There are no forced audits without a judge signing a warrant and law enforcement officers along to serve that warrant.
Re:I wonder... (Score:1)
This only works if you actually have a "volume license" or any MS license. If I'm using OSS and the BSA shows up at my door (perhaps I had a license, it expired and I didn't renew it) I am under absolutely no obligation to speak to them, let alone allow them into my business/premises.
If they persist then I call the police and if they're there when the police show up make a citizens arrest (get a few employees to be witnesses). I guarantee they won't be back. Especially after you prove to the Judge when hearing at the harassment and public nussance hearing you arrested them for that you are not violating any "licensing" agreement because don't have a license and don't need one.
Remember, you can only get caught in the M$ snare if you agree to play their game -- buy M$ software and sign a license. Remember, by agreeing to any license agreement, providing it doesn't break criminal or constitutional law, you often agree to give up certain rights in order to enter into a contract. If you don't have any M$ software than it's a mute point. Oh, and as for OEM boxes with pre-installed windows -- ask to have them blank, no installed OS. If they refuse find someone that will.
Re:I wonder... (Score:2)
At that point, I've been informed that the procedure is that the cops will tell everybody to stand up and away from all computers and you can't get any computer work done until the cops (using their private agents, the BSA) finish searching the premises for evidence listed in the warrant.
Hostile gets you a warranted, confrontational, and worst of all slow audit. Then again, there's always the lawsuit for harassment...
Re:I wonder... (Score:1)
Re:I wonder... (Score:2)
- Use only open-source software
- Rat yourself out to the BSA or CAAST as a pirate
- Refuse them entry
- Let them get a warrant
- The find nothing
- Sue
- Profit!
Sorry it's more than 3 steps.Re:I wonder... (Score:1)
And what when they finally have the warrant? I suppose that they would suspect that I refused to voluntarily do an audit to have some time to hide or remove the illegal software I have. Will I have to give them root password to every computer so they could search it and check out if my /usr/lib/libqt.so.2.3.1
is not really a hidden Word?
Is showing that a given computer runs Debian enough to prove
I don't have Word, since Microsoft software doesn't run under Linux?
But what about dual booting?
Would they search my hard drives for Windows partitions
because I could remove Windows from my lilo.conf for the audit?
And what about Wine?
Also, do they trust my systems? I could have some rootkit installed
so they should use their own software to be sure what's on my hard
drives.
And when they use their own software how do I know they won't
change anything on my systems, like install a backdoor to
check out later if I don't have any illegal software,
because I'm a suspect?
Et cetera, et cetera, ad nonsensum... It looks to me that I can be in deep shit when they only suspect me of using their software. Is it one of those situations where they have total control and infinite power to destroy me, but I should not worry, because they are usually nice guys?
Re:I wonder... (Score:2)
Not running Windows doesn't get you out of a jam because not all of the BSA's members develop only Windows software. If you had a pirated version of Rational's development suite for Unix, you can bet that you'd have trouble from the BSA as well.
Big misunderstanding (Score:5, Interesting)
I think the submitter of this article is reading too much into it. I've done some interviews with the mass media on a few subjects-- most recently on last month's brief but entertaining controversy about Microsoft's fake testimonial ads-- and it's very common for people like myself to agree to speak to reporters on background, or to say things that are not for attribution. "On background" and "not for attribution" have very specific meanings to reporters. If you tell a reporter that what you're about to say is not for attribution, that means the reporter can write about what you say, or even quote you, but mustn't identify you in any way. That's obviously what happened here.
So... why? Well, the first possible reason that springs to mind is that the people being interviewed didn't have the authority to speak officially for their company, even though they were being asked about company reactions to the Microsoft announcement. Rather than having every statement run through corporate public relations, the reporter simply agreed that the interviews would be "not for attribution." That way the reporter gets his quotes, and the interviewee doesn't have to cover his ass.
In other words, just because the author of the story used the phrase "requested anonymity," don't jump to the conclusion that this is some Deep Throat situation, some big cloak-and-dagger thing. It's not even unusual.
There's basically nothing interesting going on here.
Re:Big misunderstanding (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Big misunderstanding (Score:1)
This seems like a perfectly reasonable design choice since there is no way to achieve any real security on a Win9x box (it operates with no separation between user and kernel mode privileges). So Microsoft was between a rock and a hard place in this decision. I think they actually took a decision for security instead of compatability which is what everyone has been asking them to do for a while.
They have to balance 2 things. Increased sales of newer OS to be able to run the new Office 11 or loss of sales to alternate OS or unwillingness to upgrade. I would think that anyone who wants to upgrade to Office 11 probably also wants the horsepower to run it well and would be upgrading OS as well.
Anyone wanting to run Win9x as OS really doesn't care for security or compatability anyway so wouldn't want the Office 11 suite installed either.
Re:Big misunderstanding (Score:1)
Not user 'security'?? (Score:2)
This means that those OSs also alow microsoft to keep a better tag on who's using how many copies of their software. They should now be able to track use by system ID -- comparing system activations to application activations. If you have a wrong pattern of activations or use too many copies, they just send a bill (or a lawyer named bill).
Also: by refusing to work for win9[58], they also lock out wine, don't they?
Conspiracy Theory of the Day... (Score:3, Interesting)
Hmmmm....Isn't that the service pack that introduced the "you agree to let us do pretty much whatever the heck we want to your computer" clause in the EULA?
Is MS planning to "leverage" the still-existing popularity of their Office software to push upgrades to "controlled" versions of their OS?
Re:Same reason democrats are afraid of republicans (Score:2, Insightful)
"In America the powerful always abuse their power" and of course the powerful in Europe, Asia, South America, Australia, Africa, and the Rest of North America are paragons of virtue and NEVER abuse their position.
Democrats afraid of Republicans? HELLO - we just had an election here, and I don't think there's any more powerful way of saying "I disagree" than trying to take their job away.
Fascists? "when Al Capone ran everything"? For Chrissake!
Slashdot (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Slashdot (Score:3, Insightful)
Look at any discussion regarding kernal updates, gcc, kde vx gnome, Xandros vs Mandrake vs Debian and you will find many conflicting opinions.
When somebody mindlessly bashes Linux it gets modded down, unfortunately mindless attacks on MS somehow get modded up.
It's not just MS they're afraid of... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:It's not just MS they're afraid of... (Score:2, Informative)
It's the PHBs, too. Microsoft FUD has so completely blown over the non-technical that anyone espousing an anti-MS thought....
...is FIRED. I've been excommunicated from two jobs in the last year by pointy-haired High Priests -- er, ah, I mean MCSE's -- because I dared to challenge the FUD -- er, ah, I mean the One True Religion -- of Micro$oft.
Believe me, the folks in the article have ample reason to fear speaking out. The PHB's only need to "make an example of" a few people like me to make everyone else fall into line.
Not scared of M$, scared of public (Score:4, Interesting)
Would you be happy knowing that your health insurance, stocks, etc were done on a system that your insurance company, stock broker, etc didn't feel comfortable with?
Unfortunately, migrating from M$ to a *nix platform is not easy -- it takes time to migrate your services and data. So many companies are stuck in the M$ rut.
Microsoft users typically attack each other. (Score:3, Insightful)
It seems reasonable to post links to an article that shows that Microsoft customers could possibly have serious need to criticize the company, even in cases where the software works: Windows XP Shows the Direction Microsoft is Going. [hevanet.com]. If Spanish is your native language: Windows XP muestra la dirección que Microsoft está tomando. [hevanet.com]
Those who criticize Microsoft face a lack of sympathy from people who are not well informed, which is most people. Typically, Microsoft users attack each other, rather than examine the issues. My research shows that this is a phenomenon that is common. Human societies do not deal well with an abuser that tries many, many small abuses, and gives up any one abuse if the opposition is too strong.
Some history: Microsoft has made huge positive contribution to the world by creating an operating system that the world could adopt as a standard for small computers. Earlier there were more than 200 versions of Unix, each with small incompatibilities with the others. Versions of earlier Unix operating systems also were too powerful to run on affordable small computers. The Unix system would boot for the first time and expect that it would be attached to a network of typically hundreds or thousands of other computers. The manuals assumed that the reader was a professional Unix administrator.
The alternative to Microsoft operating systems was the OS known as CP/M. Those who designed CP/M-based personal computers used more than 68 diskette formats, making it impossible to interchange data between different systems by diskette, without using a conversion program. Digital Research, the company that made CP/M, sometimes provided manuals in which the original was printed using a dot-matrix printer with an old ribbon. To say that DR was insufficiently attentive to business is an understatement. It was crazy, and Microsoft delivered us from that craziness.
At the same time that Microsoft was making a huge positive contribution, it was making a negative one, also. The company has a history of the kind of abuse psychologists call "testing the limits".
Re:Microsoft users typically attack each other. (Score:1)
Huh? You mention Unix, you mention an OS I've never even heard of called CP/M, but you don't deign to mention Apple and the Mac? Talk about selective memory there. Next time you feel like putting up a confusing post that bounces around (from the psychology of users to the history of Microsoft and its competitors), please please at least try to cover all the bases. Otherwise, it just becomes hard to understand.
I'm not saying that I gave ALL the examples... (Score:2)
CP/M was the OS we used before IBM began to make PCs. It was used by many vendors, and was the only OS used by most businesses. For some reason the Apple 1 and Apple II were never very big on the corporate desktop.
I'm not saying that I gave ALL the examples of ridiculous refusal to interoperate.
Light bulb (Score:2, Funny)
Q: How many Microsoft Customers does it take to replace a light bulb?
A: None. They all were audited by Microsoft and forced to pay out of their noses for upgrades to Microsoft Light Bulb, so it has already been replaced.
Re:Light bulb (Score:3, Insightful)
A: None. They all bought into Licensing 6.0, and can't afford to buy new light bulbs until the next budget year. Maybe.
Re:Light bulb (Score:2)
A: None, Micro$oft likes keeping its' lu$er$ in the dark
Besides, the EULA they downloaded with the latest service pack gives Micro$haft the exclusive right to remotely control all their light bulbs.
Re:Light bulb (Score:1)
A: Three. One to replace it, one to hold the ladder, and one to ring M$, explain that the old one burned out, ask politely for a new activation key, and be told that your OEM license for Micro$oft Light 2003 is valid only for the particular bulb it was bought with, and you are required to buy a new license for your new bulb.
put up and shut up (Score:4, Interesting)
I'd venture to say that the majority of MS users have to use it, either for work or because that's what came on the PC when the shiny box was opened.
Most people are used to MS products, ranging from Word to PowerPoint to other programs that are business-specific but only run on Windows platforms. Because these people don't really have a say in what they run, they just use the stuff they're used to.
Similarly, businesses which run MS products on Windows boxes aren't going to suddenly switch to, say, Linux platforms just because. That would cost a lot of money in training all the employees. Also, some programs they used to use (I know of several small business-accounting programs and chemical drawing programs) are not available for non-Windows machines.
Costs run businesses. Habits run costs.
Anyone ever heard of.... (Score:1)
They sued some customers for giving bad (honest) reviews of their service. Not exactly the same, but hey, who wants to take on Microsoft in legal battles or fun audits [aaxnet.com]?