In reality, you guys are probably tremendously out of compliance and don't realize it. If you're counting on the windows licenses you're getting from buying machines, you may not even by licensed for the version of Windows that you're using!
For instance, you buy a computer, reimage it with Enterprise or Pro...if it didn't have those to begin with, you're out of compliance. Also, do you guys not have any windows server infrastructure? If you do, there is probably a whole slew of client access licenses that you don't realize you need too! Basically pray that you don't get audited. On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 1:46 PM, Michael Niehaus < [email protected]> wrote: > Remember too that various products have Software Assurance – Windows > Server, System Center, Windows, etc. (And you can think of Office 365 > subscriptions as being similar.) > > > > Personally I think it would be silly to not have Software Assurance on > System Center Configuration Manager – without that, you don’t have any > rights to upgrades (which are very frequent these days), and you have to > effectively re-purchase it any time you want to move forward. > > > > Thanks, > > -Michael > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Marcum, John > *Sent:* Friday, February 19, 2016 8:45 AM > > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* RE: [mssms] RE: SCCM and SA Agreements > > > > 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* > * ------------------------------ * > > > > [image: H_Logo] > > > > *From:* [email protected] [ > mailto:[email protected] <[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] <[email protected]>] *On > Behalf Of *Burke, John > *Sent:* Thursday, February 18, 2016 6:05 PM > *To:* [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] <[email protected]>] *On > Behalf Of *Doug Barrett > *Sent:* February-18-16 1:01 PM > *To:* [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] <[email protected]>] *On > Behalf Of *Juelich, Adam > *Sent:* Thursday, February 18, 2016 10:48 AM > *To:* [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]> > 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]] *On Behalf Of *Burke, John > *Sent:* February-17-16 5:32 PM > *To:* [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 L > > > > 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] <[email protected]>] *On > Behalf Of *Burke, John > *Sent:* February-17-16 3:45 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* RE: [mssms] RE: SCCM and SA Agreements > > > > That is 150% the way management works here. > > > > *From:* [email protected] [ > mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] *On > Behalf Of *Jason Sandys > *Sent:* February-17-16 3:44 PM > *To:* [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] <[email protected]>] *On > Behalf Of *Marcum, John > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 17, 2016 1:34 PM > *To:* [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* > * ------------------------------ * > > > > [image: H_Logo] > > > > *From:* [email protected] [ > mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] *On > Behalf Of *Burke, John > > > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 17, 2016 1:26 PM > *To:* [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] <[email protected]>] *On > Behalf Of *Marcum, John > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 17, 2016 3:24 PM > *To:* [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* > * ------------------------------ * > > > > [image: H_Logo] > > > > *From:* [email protected] [ > mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] *On > Behalf Of *Juelich, Adam > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 17, 2016 11:29 AM > *To:* [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 > > > > On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Heaton, Joseph@Wildlife < > [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]] *On Behalf Of *Burke, John > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 17, 2016 9:10 AM > *To:* [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.* > > > > > > > > > > > >
