Miro Consulting's Blog

Third-party Oracle support: To be or not to be

ScottR — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 12:00:55 +0000

Even after the 2008 shutdown of TomorrowNow and the growing dissatisfaction of third-party support firms, we are often asked by company executives about seemingly attractive third-party alternatives for Oracle support. While we understand that this is being driven by the need to reduce IT support costs, there are some distinct advantages and disadvantages.

Companies such as the well-known Rimini Street and newcomer Spinnaker are creating opportunities for themselves with inexpensive claims of cutting third-party support costs in half. Third-party support cannot adequately fill the gaps left by the discontinuance of Oracle software updates and license support. It can, however, function in an important augmentative role to Oracle support. Several firms provide this support with various offerings, including long-term engagements for hosting, outsourced database administration, and performance tuning as well as one-time or short-term events such as migrations, upgrades and temporary or emergency staff augmentation. The costs associated with this additional support should be carefully assessed with regard to each organization’s unique requirements. Some firms primarily support Oracle Database, while others focus on Oracle Applications such as PeopleSoft, JD Edwards and Siebel.

Oracle offers software update and license support (SULS), which is mandatory for the first year, but clients can elect to discontinue SULS in subsequent years. However, we usually recommend against this for several reasons:

The status of the software is effectively frozen. No further updates will be provided by Oracle, nor is the Client entitled to any, including those required for regulatory compliance, security or other critical events.

License compliance must be maintained - an important consideration for subsequent hardware upgrades or environment expansions.

Extended support offerings are no longer available to the Client.

The Client will no longer have access to MetaLink and other forums through which to acquire Oracle technical assistance.

Any advantages in changes in program bundling are no longer available.

Resuming Oracle support can be expensive, incurring reinstatement fees of up to 150% of the maintenance fees.

3 Licensing Models for Oracle Applications

ScottR — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 12:00:44 +0000

I keep getting request for information on one particular blog entry….I’m reblogging it here.

Oracle offers 3 licensing models for its installed applications to fit the unique needs of each organization: component pricing, custom applications suite pricing and enterprise pricing. Having different licensing models allow organizations to select the best combination for their operations. Not all products are available within each of the pricing models due to the Terms, Conditions and application features.

Oracle’s component pricing model is an a la carte pricing model that caters to customers with a limited number of users. This pricing model offers two basic licensing options - usage versus user-based licensing metrics.

Oracle’s customer applications suite (CAS) pricing model allows organizations to create custom bundles across all Oracle product lines including Siebel, PeopleSoft and JD Edwards to suit their users’ needs. CAS licensing is for customers standardizing on Oracle. Custom Suite User licenses are strictly defined as an individual authorized to use the application programs - whether (s)he is actually using them or not. There are a number of minimums and restrictions on CAS licensing.

Oracle’s enterprise applications pricing model assumes that Oracle is the standard enterprise software throughout the organization. The EA license model allows companies to license Oracle products for their entire organization without having to worry about keeping track of user licenses. This is, by far, the most costly option and the one with the most variants in its licensing metrics (there are 5 different pricing models with minimums requirements and restrictions on the EA licensing). The common metric is the minimum prerequisite of US$1 million in annual revenues.

The objective of these licensing models is to create a flexible enterprise software solution around an organization’s business, but licensing is rarely cut and dry.

Microsoft licensing hack

ScottR — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 12:00:09 +0000

It looks like there is a technical loophole that allows you to upgrade illegally. When Microsoft finally released Windows 7, there has been a lot of grumbling over Microsoft’s lack of direction on the upgrade process in the last few weeks from Microsoft Windows 7 testers.

Microsoft does not allow an upgrade from the pre-release version of Windows 7 - e.g. Windows 7 Beta or Windows 7 Release Candidate - to Windows 7 RTM. In fact, when you try, you’ll be blocked from the upgrade. As you’d expect, people are hacking the Windows 7 upgrade and circumventing the upgrade issue. A number of bloggers out there have been spreading the word.

While Microsoft was unclear in its upgrading directions, it is clear that the Windows 7 Upgrade Install Hack is illegal. If you are getting around the EULA (End User License Agreement) by artificially upgrading to Windows 7 from the pre-release version, you’ve violated Microsoft’s intellectually property and have pirated the company’s software. With every MS install or download (including the test versions), you’re always asked to agree (or not) with the terms of the EULA. Lastly, if you purchase an Upgrade license for Windows 7, it very clearly states in the EULA - “To use upgrade software, you must first be licensed for the software that is eligible for the upgrade.”

Please remember that no OEM Microsoft Windows licenses can legally be transferred from one PC to another. We keep warning companies of the dangers of doing this.

Big problems with licensing in the UK

ScottR — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 12:00:44 +0000

Businesses in the U.S. aren’t the only ones suffering, according to a new study, less than half of UK businesses believe their software is correctly licensed. An overwhelming 71% of those businesses admitted to having licensing problems in the past. A further look at the respondents showed that 26% were over-licensed, 12% were under-licensed and the remaining 13% were unaware. The study asked over 100 IT directors in the UK about their software licensing. The results are quite eye-opening and similar to the experiences we are having here in the U.S. So many organizations recognize the risk of non-compliance and the realities of increased spending for over or under licensing, yet they continue to put a software asset management (SAM) program to the wayside. Here are some more interesting findings from the survey:

37% have experienced over-expenditure by paying for more licensing than they use

29% have experienced downtime as a result of too few licenses

11% don’t monitor licensing at all and 31% don’t monitor licensing renewals

7% faced fines for under-licensing

Why you need SAM

ScottR — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 12:00:23 +0000

Software Asset Management is an important aspect of business operations, but some management teams are apprehensive about making a change either because they fear unexpected costs from implementation or the inability to understand that SAM will save them money over time.

The three main business drivers for SAM (for those of you who need some convincing) are:

Cost Control: Unless you know where and how your software assets are deployed, you cannot use them optimally. Software assets are called “assets” for a reason, because they cost money! Why make a significant investment in enterprise software if less than 60% is utilized properly? Enterprise software is an expensive line item, often in the millions.

Annual Planning: Poor planning can cost money all around, especially with software. Without proper tracking and understanding of software assets, you can’t properly plan for the year ahead. This often leads to over or under licensing, which can disrupt any IT budget in a big way mid-year!

Regulation: Whether it is SOX compliance or just plain vendor compliance, if you don’t know your assets inside and out what do you wanna bet you aren’t compliant? There is a big chance, vendors licensing terms are tricky - and cost big bucks if you are out of compliance! It can even lead to jail time..

You can’t control what you don’t know, I say this all the time. In order to save the most money and prevent unexpected costs - you need control. Software asset management is not a “nice to have” it’s a “need to have” for any organization or any size.

Have you seen us lately?

ScottR — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 12:00:01 +0000

We’ve been included in some great articles in the media lately. Not that the articles are great because we’re in them, but because the articles are worth the read (with or without our commentary). They are very helpful pieces about licensing, virtualization and of course audits that are a good read! Enjoy!

PC World - October 08, 2009
Does Microsoft Complicate Its Licensing on Purpose?

Federal Computer Week - September 21, 2009
5 traps that can spoil virtualization savings

PC World - September 18, 2009
License Audits: Preparing Now Can Ease the Pain

Ballmer admits flaws in MS licensing, no change in sight

ScottR — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 12:00:21 +0000

At a recent event in London, Steve Ballmer was asked about Microsoft’s complex licensing policies to which he acknowledged that yes, Microsoft licensing isn’t simple, never has been and probably never will be. So, is there a chance for changes in the near future? Nope, of course not! Ballmer even bolded stated that it just isn’t going to happen.

So, here’s our advice to combat this.

Start paying attention to the fine print. Look at your terms and conditions.

Be smart and don’t give any information away to Microsoft until you understand what you have and where you have gaps.

Review your business needs and align with your software solutions.

Ensure that there is an annual internal audit of all your software licensing.

Put in a good software asset management program – from creation of policies to procedures to an official procurement office.

Be proactive. Don’t wait until Microsoft’s growing licensing policies catch up to you. Remember, Microsoft and the ever present, ever watchful BSA is watching you.

Oracle OpenWorld 2009 Keynote: A lot about Sun

ScottR — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 12:00:43 +0000

I keep humming the lyrics Blister in the Sun while listening to Larry’s keynote.

And, if you’re interested in what we think will happen to licensing and pricing for Sun-Oracle offerings, read our previous post Sun-Oracle: Here’s how you could be affected?

Steve Ballmer video on retaining complex licensing

ScottR — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 12:00:26 +0000

Straight from the horse’s mouth……

Starting from scratch

ScottR — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 12:00:37 +0000

One of the most complicated aspects of negotiating a software licensing contract is when an organization has no precedent to follow. Perhaps they are purchasing volume licensing for the first time, or working with a new vendor, but when there is nothing to go by, the process is all that more complicated. To add to this, vendors have non-disclosure agreements, preventing customers from discussing pricing with others. Therefore, you won’t find out about pricing until you are actually seated at the table with the vendor - on the hot seat. Pricing benchmarks are important to the negotiation process, to make sure you are getting the best deal. In addition to price, if this is a first of any kind, you want to know that you are buying something that will fit your company today and 2 years from now.

Get help. Consultants negotiate contracts every day, they know what the vendor has to offer, what the discounts should be, how to work a contract to accommodate your company’s growth … I can keep going here! It’s not shameful to ask for help - it will save you money in the long run.