Exactly! If it were a bad deal nobody would buy an EA. Almost every
organization over ~500 people has one. What does that tell you? Is everyone
else wrong and this guy who thinks he saved $35 million is a genius or is he
the one who is wrong?
Now, if you told me they dropped support because support from MS is INSANELY
expensive and they are using the outsourced company for that I’d agree that
they saved some money. However you can have an EA without support hours in it.
________________________________
John Marcum
MCITP, MCTS, MCSA
Desktop Architect
Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP
________________________________
[H_Logo]
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of Doug Barrett
Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 10:30 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [mssms] RE: SCCM and SA Agreements
Technically for just a Windows license, yes. But if you want to do anything
with it you’ll need CAL’s. And Office. And a Server OS. And others. I’ve
considered just buying outright instead of an EA to save cost (since upgrading
for the sake of upgrading sounds silly for something still supported for many
years) – but after doing the math, you technically save in the near term, but
then when you assume you need to upgrade in ~5 years, you get hit hard with
license fees that pretty much negate any savings you’ve had.
Microsoft has this figured out, so paying the Microsoft licensing fees via an
EA or otherwise is ever so slightly cheaper than buying outright if you ever
plan on upgrading. And as much as it hurts to cut the check every year, it’s
an operating cost we can budget and plan around, not a surprise capital expense.
From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Burke, John
Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2016 6:05 PM
To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: RE: [mssms] RE: SCCM and SA Agreements
Hmm so what you are saying is, that getting it for the nice 60 bucks is the
cheapest method? That sounds like what most companies would want… which would
then justify never going near EA again.
From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Doug Barrett
Sent: February-18-16 1:01 PM
To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: RE: [mssms] RE: SCCM and SA Agreements
You have to be careful with this though, in my experience EA’s assume you
bought a base Windows license with the PC; if you didn’t, Microsoft will sell
you an OEM license for well more than $60 to make the PC eligible for the EA
benefits and upgrades.
From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Juelich, Adam
Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2016 10:48 AM
To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [mssms] RE: SCCM and SA Agreements
Those licenses aren't 'free' because they come with the machine. You are
actually paying $60 per machine for that license and losing flexibility in the
long-term. Buy your machines with no OS on them and save some money and
leverage the correct licensing for your environment. What do you do when you
want to upgrade all of those machines to a different OS? Or do you gradually
phase it in and support multiple platforms? There are costs associated with
all of this.....
-----------------------------------------------
Adam Juelich
Pulaski Community School District<http://www.pulaskischools.org>
Client Management Specialist
920-822-6075
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 10:32 AM, Burke, John
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
I had it sort of explained to me now.
All of our hardware comes with a license for Windows. So basically we have a
mix of domains with various sccm. Then we have office on every pc and other
products we license individually.
We outsource MOST of our IT support (so we don’t have to train and care less
about innovation).
So at the end of the day – EA costs us money because we are basically getting
little out of it because of the above. That make sense?
From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
[mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>]
On Behalf Of Burke, John
Sent: February-17-16 5:32 PM
To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: RE: [mssms] RE: SCCM and SA Agreements
“I have all the details if you want them but basically xxx has avoided over
$35M in the past 6 years by buying out their Enterprise License Agreement. They
were paying close to $6M annually for maintenance.
xxxx avoided $1.7M annually and xxxx was close to $2M.”
It’s pretty hard to argue with that ☹
Maybe I’ll contact one of those companies below, but I’m sure management could
just say – we saved the money because we didn’t upgrade or take advantage of
most of the stuff in those agreements.
From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Burke, John
Sent: February-17-16 3:45 PM
To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: RE: [mssms] RE: SCCM and SA Agreements
That is 150% the way management works here.
From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jason Sandys
Sent: February-17-16 3:44 PM
To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: RE: [mssms] RE: SCCM and SA Agreements
Speaks “Management”, LOL.
IME, the key phrase is “long-term” savings. Many management types aren’t
concerned with the long-term, just the short-term so that they can get their
bonuses for this quarter. I’ve seen this happen multiple times.
J
From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Marcum, John
Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 1:34 PM
To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: RE: [mssms] RE: SCCM and SA Agreements
MS can send someone who speaks Management speak in to show them the numbers.
I’d guess that they are probably very badly out of compliance right now or they
would know that they are spending boat loads of money
________________________________
John Marcum
MCITP, MCTS, MCSA
Desktop Architect
Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP
________________________________
[H_Logo]
From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Burke, John
Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 1:26 PM
To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: RE: [mssms] RE: SCCM and SA Agreements
Powers that be don’t that and It’s not been articulated to them in a way they
would understand it.
I wouldn’t be able to explain it either myself why it would cost more in the
long run either. I’ve not see anything documented that would hint at that
either to even put the bug in their ear.
From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Marcum, John
Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 3:24 PM
To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: RE: [mssms] RE: SCCM and SA Agreements
+1
To take out an EA for 30,000 users would be LOTS of money. In the millions of
dollars…. To not have an EA and have 30,000 users is probably going to cost
triple that in the long run.
________________________________
John Marcum
MCITP, MCTS, MCSA
Desktop Architect
Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP
________________________________
[H_Logo]
From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Juelich, Adam
Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 11:29 AM
To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [mssms] RE: SCCM and SA Agreements
+1
What he said.
Over the past few years Microsoft has changed several things with licensing
that has usually made it more affordable for companies to have an EA with SA.
You may be able to get this license based on FTE (Full Time Employee
Equivalent) and save quite a bit of money.
I'd recommend working with a company that deals with licensing specifically to
help you get what you want at the best price. We work with SoftwareONE on
that.....
-----------------------------------------------
Adam Juelich
Pulaski Community School District<http://www.pulaskischools.org>
Client Management Specialist
920-822-6075<tel:920-822-6075>
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Heaton, Joseph@Wildlife
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
In my opinion, if you’re in a company of 30,000 clients, and you’re not in an
EA with SA, you’re just asking for trouble.
From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
[mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>]
On Behalf Of Burke, John
Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 9:10 AM
To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: [mssms] SCCM and SA Agreements
Hi folks,
I’m here as part of a smaller company that just got eaten up by a large company
that doesn’t have an SA with Microsoft thus, can’t upgrade to 2012 without
significant cost.
I’m wondering how many on this list don’t have enterprise agreements?
I’m also wondering why they are so against an SA because of cost. Are they
that expensive to get for say 30000 system/ users and isn’t it offset by the
tools you automatically get access to via MDOP and so on?
Any input would be appreciated. I’d love to be able to get back to point that
all the sub companies and domains could all get on the same Tech for imaging,
software deployment and so on.
________________________________
The Pulaski Community School District does not discriminate on the basis of any
characteristic protected under State or Federal law.
________________________________
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail is from a law firm and may be protected by
the attorney-client or work product privileges. If you have received this
message in error, please notify the sender by replying to this e-mail and then
delete it from your computer.
________________________________
The Pulaski Community School District does not discriminate on the basis of any
characteristic protected under State or Federal law.
