A few weeks back, when we innocuously
asked
for some feedback on the Microsoft Partner Program, we had no idea that
we were taking a can opener to a
container
full of worms. But now that the can is
most
definitely open, the worms are spilling out and we're hearing more and more
about administrative problems (among other hassles) involving the Partner Program.
And now this week, Barbara Darrow, legendary channel journalist who, as it
happens, hired your editor to his first real job as journalist years ago, reports
for RCPmag.com that due to a glitch in a Microsoft payment system, partners
have been getting underpaid for sales of customer relationship management
applications. Microsoft folks say they've fixed the problem, but it's another
in a long string of glitches, gaffes and goof-ups that seem to plague the MSPP
right now.
Now, we'll say it here again, as we always do, that Microsoft is generally
very good to its partners, and many of the problems we've heard about, while
obviously frustrating for those involved, haven't sounded like the end of the
world. Still, partners rely on Microsoft for their livelihoods, and vice versa.
It would behoove Microsoft, then, one would think, to keep the Partner Program
running like a fairly well-oiled machine. We're sure that Microsoft has that
goal, but clearly there are some glitches in the system right now -- and we're
not sure why.
Maybe Microsoft's Partner Program has finally become too big (the latest total
number of Microsoft partners, according to Redmond, is 400,000). Or maybe the
many shakeups in partner program leadership -- there's another coming, as the
first link in this entry explains -- have led to a bit of confusion. Maybe,
too, most of the problems -- especially the administrative hang-ups -- lie with
temporary workers who don't work for Microsoft at all, as we've heard suggested
here and there.
Whatever the cause, though, we've heard so many complaints now that we're actually
looking much deeper into this situation for a story in RCP magazine. So, if
you have a gripe with the partner program, please share it -- and, if you're
willing to talk about it in the magazine, please let me know. We're especially
interested in hearing about administrative snafus and the like, but if you've
got a rant, go for it. You know where to reach me: [email protected].
And with that, let's move into one more e-mail about the MSPP, this one less
about administrative stuff and more about procurement of products -- but interesting
nonetheless:
"For years now, I have run a one-man operation. For the most part,
I have not experienced the level of frustrations that others have regarding
being a Registered partner or an Action Pack subscriber. I do, however, have
a concern over our ability to adequately compete with larger organizations.
I realize that our niche is to provide value-added services atop our expertise.
What I would really like to see is an ability to provide Microsoft products,
purchased from national vendors, which can compete with what's available in
the retail chains. I constantly find myself making purchases online, from
retail, rather than from national vendors, because saving our customers money
makes sense. Many times I have raised this issue with whatever Microsoft rep
was calling me this week, or what rep was in town for a TS2 event. I would
prefer to be able to take advantage of my role as a Microsoft Partner, or
any reseller program I am involved in, as opposed to being forced to seek
the lesser expensive alternatives available."
Daniel, that's a legitimate concern, and you're probably not the only partner
who feels that way. Anybody else want to chime in? Drop me a line at [email protected].
And thanks to Daniel and everybody who has taken time to write.
FYI, there will be a special edition of RCPU on July 2 -- special because it'll
be out on a Monday, and we don't usually do that. So don't be surprised to see
it hit your inbox.
Posted by Lee Pender on 06/29/2007 at 1:20 PM0 comments
Apparently the big Linux distributor
talked
to Microsoft about a patent deal before Novell did -- and might still be
in negotiations. Bagging Red Hat would be huge for Microsoft's Linux protection
racket, which has seen some high-profile refusals of its overtures of late --
including one (we all thought)
from
Red Hat itself.
Posted by Lee Pender on 06/29/2007 at 1:20 PM0 comments
In a move that surely has
this
guy snooping around a bit more than usual, French defense experts have told
their government officials to
stop
using BlackBerrys, lest those dastardly American spies steal state secrets
from servers in North America. Never mind that the biggest state secret in France
is probably a soufflé recipe.
Oh, we're just kidding. France was your editor's home for almost five years
and was a wonderful place to live. And the soufflés were tremendous.
In the words of mes amis français, "Bon week-end."
We'll be back for more next week.
Posted by Lee Pender on 06/22/2007 at 1:20 PM0 comments
So, ho hum, big yawn, Microsoft
signed
another Linux patent deal, this one with electronics maker LG. Redmond's
neighborhood racket
continues
apace, with Microsoft
bullying
Linux vendors into patent agreements. That's the way we see it.
With all that RCPU has written about this topic (and there are too many links
to drop them all in here), there's one thing we'd like to make perfectly clear:
We're fans of interoperability, which has become a forgotten aspect of these
Linux deals but was the central issue when
the Novell story first broke. We're not fans of legal battles, patent bullying
or operating system zealots of any stripe.
Yes, we've criticized
the Free Software Foundation -- still a bit of a questionable
organization, everything considered -- for not being more open to interoperability
with Microsoft. And we do feel that interoperability with Windows will help
Linux gain credibility and greatly expand its presence in the enterprise. In
that sense, the FSF hurts itself with its fiercely anti-Microsoft rhetoric.
But we also feel as though Microsoft, while it has the right to enforce whatever
patents it feels Linux infringes upon, should put
up or shut up with the legal saber rattling and focus on making Windows
work better with Linux in IT environments rather than simply shaking down Linux
distributors and customers for their legal lunch money.
The initial promise of the Microsoft-Novell deal -- the notion that partners
and customers might be more readily able to sell and deploy Linux and Windows
together -- probably still exists, and it's that hope for greater interoperability
that we like about the Microsoft-Linux deals. But what we don't like is Microsoft's
mobster approach to patents, and the FSF's apparent rejection of the notion
of intellectual property and obstinate anti-Microsoft stance (from a technology
perspective, from what we can tell, and not just regarding patents).
Again, nobody wins with the situation we have now. The folks who will suffer
more than anyone else likely will be the partners who want to satisfy their
customers and IT administrators who want to maximize their technology investments
in two great platforms. Microsoft, FSF -- please find some spirit of "coopetition"
and spend your time improving your respective operating systems rather than
lining up lawyers for a courtroom death march. Everybody will be better off
in the long run.
Posted by Lee Pender on 06/08/2007 at 1:20 PM0 comments
Last week, in an entry on a
shakeup
in the Microsoft Partner Program, we asked you to submit your thoughts on
the program -- what it's doing (or not doing) for you, and what you'd like to
see from it. And submit them you did.
Now, we know that Microsoft has lots and lots of partners -- the company now
says 400,000 -- and we're sure that many of them are happy to be working with
Redmond. But the responses we got reflect a few points of frustration that maybe
some of you who didn't write also share. Read and decide for yourself, and please
keep your thoughts coming to us. (And, in case you were wondering, yes, we do
sometimes share these sentiments with Redmond. So you're not just complaining
into a vacuum.)
Don starts us off, noting that not all Registered Members of the MSPP are necessarily
equal. Some, he says, are clearly more dedicated than others:
"I've already stated my opinion to Microsoft about the Registered
partner program that they have in place. I feel it's a slap in the face to
those of us who have worked really hard. Right now, Joe Blow who runs a welding
shop can sign up as a Registered partner, purchase the Action Packs and not
only have cheap software but get listed on the portal. Of course, I'm not
sure who would try and use Joe's welding and computer services, but it does
add to the chaos."
Don, we can relate to this. RCP is, after all, a Registered Member of
the Microsoft Partner Program. And, while we hope we're providing value to our
readers, we're certainly not selling and servicing Microsoft technology the
way you are, nor are we directly driving revenue for Microsoft. No, not all
Registered Members are on the same level in terms of importance to Microsoft,
but they are on the same level in the Partner Program. Maybe Microsoft needs
to look into that. Of course, the option to move up to Certified Member might
be worth considering, as well, although that's a very tough move for lots of
smaller shops.
Speaking of which, Gary, who runs a one-man shop, is sick and tired of Microsoft's
constant changes to its various programs and the complexity of Microsoft licensing:
"I am an OEM System Builder, a one-man shop that tries to count on
my vendors and suppliers for support. My biggest gripe with Microsoft is that
they change programs faster than I can keep up! Every time I turn around,
they have a new 'program' or 'initiative.' They have done this for years,
and I am tired of it. Same goes for their Web sites. I never have locked down
their licensing scheme, since about the time I understand it, they change
it. I just trust my distributors to keep me straight and have to play 20 questions
with them every time I do a licensing job. They have NO mercy on us. I think
they forget that we have to deal with more than just them. Have they heard
of the Intel Products Dealer Program, or the AMD System Builder program? Let's
not forget the Samsung Power Sellers Program, or the Mitsubishi/NEC reseller
program. And on and on. GIVE ME A BREAK!!!"
Gary, you deserve a break, and you're not alone in making this point. Microsoft
licensing, in particular, is complex. Whether the company can really do anything
about that, we don't know, but maybe some better guidance on the finer points
of licensing would be in order -- or, maybe, some consistency would be nice.
Kevin rounds out our comments today with one that reflects the complaints in
the first two e-mails:
"We have been dissatisfied with the Partner Program because Microsoft
has become more concerned about Microsoft than its partners. First, there
is the requirement for two MCSEs to be at the Certified level; we have only
one, and we will not partner with other partners to fulfill the requirement.
Our clients deserve the privacy of not having their problems outsourced to
every Tom, Dick and Bill in the partner registry. Most of our 'Certified'
competitors don't even have one real MCSE on staff. It gets worse when you
are dealing with other areas of expertise such as SQL or system builders.
We don't think much of the Certified or Gold programs.
"Then there is the problem with the solutions being all Microsoft,
all the time. To demonstrate the point, Microsoft changed one of the security
tools to require One Note [we're pretty sure that's an unfriendly reference
to OneCare --LP] to be installed on the clients. Be realistic; it's hard
enough to promote any real security solutions in a competitive situation.
It's quite another to be laughed out of the security infrastructure by your
competitors while trying to do so.
"Also, Microsoft has to put all their little rules and gotchas into the
mix. We were upset when Microsoft changed the rules for the Action Pack software.
Now, if you quit the Action Pack you will need to uninstall all the software.
Therefore, if we stop getting the Action Pack, shouldn't we just eliminate
the partnership altogether?
"Finally, we were upset when the Action Pack only included the Vista
upgrade. All this did was prove that the high-performance computers we built
last week would never meet customers' expectations. Therefore, we will not
be upgrading any XP computers to Vista. Microsoft actually did us a favor.
But we are still vehement about Registered partners being treated as second-class
citizens. When we do get the OEM version, how many Vista computers will we
have to build before we have one that meets our performance standards?
"In conclusion, Microsoft needs to understand that they have no real
knowledge of what partners have to do to make the deals with the end customers.
They should be more concerned about helping the smaller partners than helping
Microsoft."
So, there you go, Redmond. Again, we at RCPU are sure that a lot of partners
are happy with the Partner Program (few people ever write to say how happy they
are with something, after all). But these three smaller partners have raised
some legitimate concerns, and it's not the first time we've heard them. To everybody
who took the time to write, thank you. To Microsoft and the folks at the Partner
Program, we hope you're paying attention.
Have any other gripes about the Partner Program, or any compliments or kind
words? Send them all to me at [email protected].
We'll revisit this topic periodically.
Posted by Lee Pender on 06/08/2007 at 1:20 PM0 comments
We start today with an e-mail from Peter, who writes to us from Melbourne,
Australia, mate, in response to our recent query on whether partners are making
money off Vista. His news is not good:
"Vista might be booming in Redmond, but in our town it seems to be
a lead balloon. We do not know any other partners running it internally, and
none of our customers have the slightest interest in it whatsoever.
"One of our BI [business intelligence, natch --LP] customers,
a large bank, is just now upgrading from NT4 to Windows XP and is very seriously
looking at Linux. Personally, I am quite happy on XP SP2 and have no plans
to move until high-function machines are common.
"The bottom line is we are making nothing off Vista and, frankly,
getting nothing much from the Partner Program either."
Right, that's a good reminder -- we're still looking for your feedback on the
Microsoft Partner Program. We've had some very good comments so far, but we'd
love some more. We'll run the best in Friday's newsletter.
Back to Vista for now, though. Microsoft, perhaps sensing that the new operating
system isn't catching on as well as it had hoped, or perhaps just wanting to
look cutting-edge, has developed a try-before-you-buy program that gives potential
users a 30-day
trial of Vista using virtualization. The trial, which lets users test applications
on the new OS, is part of a little
package of sweeteners aimed at boosting Vista adoption.
We're hearing through RCPU and other channels that partners aren't yet making
much money from Vista sales. Granted, it's still a bit early in the sales cycle
for a new OS. For instance, lots of businesses are talking about looking at
Vista next year (maybe). Now, we want to know what Microsoft needs to do to
help its partners profit from Vista now. Or, is Vista just a dud that's destined
to never add to your bottom line? Share your thoughts at [email protected].
Posted by Lee Pender on 06/07/2007 at 1:20 PM3 comments
Break out the Skittles and Mountain Dew! Don your favorite ironic T-shirt!
Developers have some new toys from Microsoft, including an
Open
XML SDK and a
Visual
Studio Shell.
Posted by Lee Pender on 06/06/2007 at 1:20 PM0 comments
There have been quite a few of items of note thus far at TechEd, including:
Bob Muglia's keynote also got a couple of contrasting
views in the trade
press. Muglia is Microsoft's senior vice president for Windows Server.
Posted by Lee Pender on 06/05/2007 at 1:20 PM0 comments