Australia blows $51 million on MSFT Office it didn't need...

[LinuxMint-4]

One more reason for open source: Australia blows $51 million on Microsoft Office
Posted by Matt Asay Post a comment

http://www.cnet.com/8301-13505_1-9934549-16.html

Australia just got hit with $51 million in license fees for Microsoft Office on computers that didn't need the software.

Opposition Leader Martin Hamilton-Smith yesterday said the computer "blunder" saw thousands of Health Department computers loaded up with $675 versions of Microsoft Office software, which the computers did not use or need. Just 4000 of the 16,000 computers actually used the software, Mr Hamilton-Smith told Parliament.

Health Minister John Hill was quick to defend the decision and insisted that all of the licenses are in use (on "computers that monitored patients, analysed pathology data or kept patient records and staff records using specific software designed for those purposes" - bet they had a desperate need for PowerPoint . But the issue won't die down, and is a testament to the silly licensing gymnastics that proprietary vendors go through to squeeze money from customers.

This couldn't happen with open source. Even if a company overbought upfront, it cut could its losses at the end of the year by reducing its subscription count. Open source is a better way to do business. Even Down Under.

[dann]

It is understandable how this happens based upon the MS licensing plans. Thank goodness it was only $51 million, it could have been a lot more.

The MS licensing plan requires that all systems capable of running office be licensed. So even if those computers did not have the software installed, were running a different OS like Linux or BSD; they would still have to be counted. That is the way you opt in to that tier of licensing where each per license seat is significantly cheaper than it would be had you bought only a license for those computers you were going to use. Plus, it's a subscription so you get the benefit of constant updates and such.

So say they were going to run it on 5000 of 16,000 computers, this license may have brought the cost of office down to about $125 per system, where as the other licensing tier would be around $350 per system without upgrades. That is just ball parking it but you can see how given the former system they actually make out better for the same cost, but they have to license systems they will not run the software on.

No, also be aware that this type of license requires you to continue the license or remove the software. There used to be a buyout, but I thought they were phasing that out; so I am not sure.

Still, it is a big damn rip off in my opinion; but people are slaves to their habits.

[Tsuroerusu]

The MS licensing plan requires that all systems capable of running office be licensed. So even if those computers did not have the software installed, were running a different OS like Linux or BSD; they would still have to be counted. That is the way you opt in to that tier of licensing where each per license seat is significantly cheaper than it would be had you bought only a license for those computers you were going to use. Plus, it's a subscription so you get the benefit of constant updates and such.

I swear licensing like that ought to be outlawed!

I'm sure the EU would agree!