Click here to monitor SSC
SQLServerCentral is supported by Red Gate Software Ltd.
 
Log in  ::  Register  ::  Not logged in
 
 
 
        
Home       Members    Calendar    Who's On


Add to briefcase ««12

Better Licensing for SQL Server Expand / Collapse
Author
Message
Posted Monday, December 17, 2012 4:05 PM
SSCrazy

SSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazy

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, July 18, 2014 9:15 AM
Points: 2,889, Visits: 1,778
I'd say the pay for what you use process would work well allowing some synergy for cloud based costings.
The thought of being able to choose features rather than editions apeals. Quite a few people would like to have compression as an option without full-on enterprise edition


LinkedIn Profile
Newbie on www.simple-talk.com
Post #1397462
Posted Monday, December 17, 2012 8:28 PM


SSC-Insane

SSC-InsaneSSC-InsaneSSC-InsaneSSC-InsaneSSC-InsaneSSC-InsaneSSC-InsaneSSC-InsaneSSC-InsaneSSC-InsaneSSC-Insane

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 9:44 PM
Points: 21,187, Visits: 14,879
David.Poole (12/17/2012)
If you can't understand the licensing model then how can you be sure you are in compliance with it?

I've actually had two conversations with different Microsoft resellers who contradicted each other on licencing so if the resellers don't get it then how can anyone.

As with all legal documents the licences seem to be written to give the legal team a hard on rather than to communicate useful information to customers.


I have run into the same problem. It certainly doesn't make matters any easier. If the documents were published, then the whole thing would be a lot less confusing.




Jason AKA CirqueDeSQLeil
I have given a name to my pain...
MCM SQL Server


SQL RNNR

Posting Performance Based Questions - Gail Shaw
Posting Data Etiquette - Jeff Moden
Hidden RBAR - Jeff Moden
VLFs and the Tran Log - Kimberly Tripp
Post #1397521
Posted Tuesday, December 18, 2012 9:35 AM
Old Hand

Old HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld Hand

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, July 18, 2014 6:01 PM
Points: 351, Visits: 900
As I was first reading Steve's editorial I was thinking, "Sure that would be nice but they probably don't have the resources to throw at it. Nice-to-haves don't usually get priority even when you're the size of Microsoft." But the more I thought about it and read everyone's responses it dawned on me. Amazon must know since they now offer SQL server. MS must know in order to properly price Azure services. So it follows that it shouldn't be that hard to institute Steve's suggestions. Maybe changing the entire model is in order. Maybe it should be pay-per-feature. At least they need to consider something different in this space. It's been far too difficult for far too long and has only gotten more complex over time.
Post #1397883
Posted Wednesday, December 19, 2012 4:20 AM
Old Hand

Old HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld Hand

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 4:55 AM
Points: 323, Visits: 2,198
Scott D. Jacobson (12/18/2012)
... Maybe changing the entire model is in order. Maybe it should be pay-per-feature. At least they need to consider something different in this space. It's been far too difficult for far too long and has only gotten more complex over time.


While a pay per feature it seems a reasonable model for say an individual customer needing features X and Y, the world is more complex then that. It would be a disaster for standardization and code/solution exchange (which is already an issue). And it would be bad for multiple parties working on the same platform for the same customer as they all would need to be in synch database feature wise. It complicates matters in the developing process beyond what we have now.

For the same reasons I am strongly opposed to differentiating a product line (standard/enterprise/…) based on anything that you can programmatically do. Instead they could differentiate in matters of capacity or optional management/ security features, think for example of backup compression.

Right now, the standard editions of SQL Server are already severely handicapped compared to the enterprise editions. Things like table partitioning, compression, column store indexes or star join optimizations are not present in the standard editions. The huge gap in pricing between the standard and enterprise editions won’t for most customers justify the jump to that more expensive edition.

And as most people truly start to learn during their work, a whole generation of developers grows up never using these features or are even totally clueless about their existence. All Microsoft does with their licensing and product segmentation is handicap their product and in the market give competitors ample time to catch up.

It is strategically dumb…if only they were as paranoid as Google is for the emergence of new competitors! And in the end, only the paranoid will survive they say!
Post #1398291
« Prev Topic | Next Topic »

Add to briefcase ««12

Permissions Expand / Collapse