Software Biz: Licensing, Contracts, and Upgrades, Oh My

Software contracts continue to be obscure documents written by vendors using language and terms that all too often come back to haunt unwary customers.
(Page 1 of 2)

I just watched the Wizard of Oz with my kids, so forgive me if basic struggles of good versus evil are foremost on my mind these days. And long journeys through scary lands populated by evil beings out to harm the innocents of the world. And redemption, though it comes in the end by looking inward, instead of through the magic powers of some supposedly benevolent being.

All of this relates directly to an issue that is simmering somewhere between the back burner and the front living room of every enterprise software vendor, and in that list I include newbie SaaS vendors as well as oldbie on-premise vendors.

The problem is this: software licenses are expensive, even in the SaaS world, and getting more so all the time.

Meanwhile, contracts continue to be obscure documents written by vendors using language and terms that all too often come back to haunt unwary customers. And upgrades are all too often an opportunity to discover that the maintenance money a company has been pouring down the vendor’s balance sheet does not guarantee that the customer is actually entitled to the free upgrade they thought they had been paying for.

In other words, there’s a lot of disingenuousness in pricing and contracting these days, and a lot of futility in trusting that vendors care about giving their customers a fair deal. On the contrary, all too many contracts contain genuinely harmful clauses that are plain evil, in so far as they are put there as gotchas in the hope that the customer –vastly undergunned in the minutia of contract terms and conditions – won’t notice until it’s too late.

A recent example: an IBM customer wishing to switch from DB2 to another database – SQL Server – found that IBM had inserted a little gotcha into an overall mainframe contract that included huge penalties for early termination of the database side of the contract. What should have been a big cost-cutting move by the unsuspecting customer ended up costing them much more than had they just stayed with DB2 in the first place.

Enterprise Advisor Columns
Ten Things That Won't Change in 2008: The Pessimist's Report

Software as a Service and the End of the Systems Integrator

Recession-Proof Enterprise Software Market

Microhoo and the Rise of Google 2.0

FREE Tech Newsletters

Sure, you could argue that this is a case of caveat emptor, except that I can assure you the emptor in this case had no idea what that little sneaky clause really meant, and I can equally assure you that IBM knew exactly what it meant.

Another of my favorites involves a customer who bought product X (sorry, I’m under NDA here) with the promise that feature Y was firmly in the roadmap and would be available, for free, as part of the customer’s maintenance fee. Lo and behold, the vendor bought company Z, which specialized in feature Y, and the poor customer was told that the only way to get feature Y was by paying for a new license and going through a complex integration process. Another unhappy emptor.

There’s another version of the above story that also plays out all too often: a customer on maintenance discovers that the new feature they thought they were getting for free as part of that massive 22 percent maintenance fee has been declared a “net new” feature that isn’t covered by maintenance at all. Net new means new contract, new fees, and a newly disgruntled customer. Grrrr.


Page 1 of 2

 
1 2
Next Page



Tags: server, software, IBM, SaaS, Enterprise


0 Comments (click to add your comment)
Comment and Contribute

 


(Maximum characters: 1200). You have characters left.