New licensing rule has a hidden cost

p.willemse6

It should be like you say: when you use NAV logic via for example webservices, you should buy the DCO. Accessing SQL directly: not. I think that that is the way it is by the way: all the DCO legislation is about accessing the service tier, there is no speaking of direct access to data.

bbrown

The DCO provides a set of services for use with MS Office. You only need to license it if you are using its features. If I write my own access methods I don't need to license. As I had said, you license applications not data. If User A create an *.mdb file using MS Access and give it to User B. User B opens the file with MS Excel. User B does not need a MS Access license.

p.willemse6

bbrown, it does not provide a set of services. That was the original intention, the sharepoint functionality as well as the functionality in office this license model was ment for, has not been deliverered. It is purely a license model, not functionality. The license model is valid when you access the service tier of NAV 2009, from whatever technical solution....

bbrown

I would agree with you. The DCO does not provide services itself. It gives you access to the services provided by the service tier. If I am accessing the service tier, from whatever method, then I must be licensed. That's because I'm using the functionality of the service tier (application). What I am referring to is accessing the database directly, without the service tier. I don't need a NAV license in that situation.

p.willemse6

absolutely correct...

generic

p.willemse6 wrote:

Sorry, again you are wrong. Anyone acccessing or modifying data from which ever source, has to pay. Either via BRL, or via DCO. The only exception is SQL reporting services, as you already bought SQL licenses when you fired up NAV...

could you point me to this exception? And which document has this info?

p.willemse6

No, sorry, that is just logic thinking. SQL REporting services does not work via the service tier, thus you don't need DCO's...

generic

*New FAQ: How do I know if a user has “access” to Microsoft Dynamics NAV
and needs to be licensed, for example via DCO?
If a user has a connection of any sort to the Microsoft Dynamics NAV business logic or data, either
directly in the application or the database or indirectly via a server (or any other setup), then he ha
access and must be licensed for use of Microsoft Dynamics NAV. Examples of this can be scenario
enabling: inputting of data (e.g. from employees or customers), puling or automatic publishing of
reports, displaying product info or availability, EDI connections, web shops, etc. Licensing options are
DCO for internal users, DCO for external users that can be named and External Connector when there
are either many external users or the external users cannot be named.

As you can see there is no exception. And it has nothing to do with business logic. ANY CONNECTION TO LOGIC OR DATA.

If you are moving from NAV to AX or any other ERP, the person exporting the data needs LICENSE.
I think this whole licensing data thing STUPID. There is nothing complex about it.

bbrown

cancel

p.willemse6

I experienced that the licensing team is always open for feedback, and is very approachable. Let 's keep it constructive, and approach the right people to adress this...

generic

p.willemse6 wrote:

I experienced that the licensing team is always open for feedback, and is very approachable. Let 's keep it constructive, and approach the right people to adress this...

I hope so. I just get sometimes carried away.

jlandeen

Yeah lets hope they can tolerate some feedback as I think heavily restricting users/customers via a DCO may force people away from integrating things with Navision -> which can lead to data silos -> can lead to inefficient processes, data duplication, etc. -> which can reduce the effectiveness of a centralized ERP application.

themave

generic wrote:

I was thinking that with MS buying NAV, things will get cheaper, and the move to SQL will remove things like buying table etc. But from what I see small companies that make up majority of the clients it will be very expensive to implement and support NAV. If NAV is moving into bigger clients, then they have to also meet the requirements. Such as solve performance issues with the system. Things I run into on every other implementation. Performance, Multi language, Cost.

Sorry I almost chocked when I read this, since the day microsoft bought Navision, it has only increased. every item has increased, from maintenance, to granules. Each upgrade has removed features and added cost. that is just from an end users prespective, been using Navision since 1999 version 2.0

Tronholm

Our company serve hotels with our NAV Add-On solution. Our customers (hotels) need their web booking engine connected to NAV. With present licensing costs (requiering External Connector + Processor license SQL Server) this is simply impossible to sell to them, so we'll probably see these customers chosing solutions from other vendors.
Really bad business for us and for Microsoft.
In this case, I think the "licensing team" are not aware of potential losses. Crazy.

generic

themave wrote:

generic wrote:

I was thinking that with MS buying NAV, things will get cheaper, and the move to SQL will remove things like buying table etc. But from what I see small companies that make up majority of the clients it will be very expensive to implement and support NAV. If NAV is moving into bigger clients, then they have to also meet the requirements. Such as solve performance issues with the system. Things I run into on every other implementation. Performance, Multi language, Cost.

Sorry I almost chocked when I read this, since the day microsoft bought Navision, it has only increased. every item has increased, from maintenance, to granules. Each upgrade has removed features and added cost. that is just from an end users prespective, been using Navision since 1999 version 2.0

Main reason is to make GP as attractive as NAV. I was mainly referring to customization licensing.

The whole BRL licensing is a ripoff if you ask me. They increased per user license and give you useless granules that you may never use.

generic

Tronholm wrote:

Our company serve hotels with our NAV Add-On solution. Our customers (hotels) need their web booking engine connected to NAV. With present licensing costs (requiering External Connector + Processor license SQL Server) this is simply impossible to sell to them, so we'll probably see these customers chosing solutions from other vendors.
Really bad business for us and for Microsoft.
In this case, I think the "licensing team" are not aware of potential losses. Crazy.

The "licensing team" need to take their head out of their you know what.

They've spent 2 years working on this 2009, and now they want to Milk it out more of existing clients.

Sadly nothing will change because since NAV is still growing, they can't see the lost sales.

jlandeen

Not only does this licensing model jeopordize sales (and possibly upset existing customers) it also forces clients to shy away from integrating other internal applications with Navision.

I firmly believe that well integrated systems in an organization allow users to focus more on their tasks and less on mindless updating of data and help to reduce errors across the organization as a whole. This additional cost burden may force customers to NOT integrate with Navision which once again gets us back to Islands of Data and Navision/Finance data & users all off on their own

What Microsoft is thinking...I don't have the foggiest.

generic

Ms is following the embrace and extend policy as usual.

themave

jlandeen wrote:

......I firmly believe that well integrated systems in an organization allow users to focus more on their tasks and less on mindless updating of data and help to reduce errors across the organization as a whole. This additional cost burden may force customers to NOT integrate with Navision which once again gets us back to Islands of Data and Navision/Finance data & users all off on their own

What Microsoft is thinking...I don't have the foggiest.

what you need to think is this integration worth it to the organization to pay the additional license fee. You say it would allow "users to focus more on their tasks and less on mindless updating of data and help to reduce errors across the organization as a whole." is that worth something to the organization, My bet is Microsoft thinks it is, and that is why they are charging the license fee. I guess we will see if it worth it to enough organizations or not.

generic

themave wrote:

jlandeen wrote:

......I firmly believe that well integrated systems in an organization allow users to focus more on their tasks and less on mindless updating of data and help to reduce errors across the organization as a whole. This additional cost burden may force customers to NOT integrate with Navision which once again gets us back to Islands of Data and Navision/Finance data & users all off on their own

What Microsoft is thinking...I don't have the foggiest.

what you need to think is this integration worth it to the organization to pay the additional license fee. You say it would allow "users to focus more on their tasks and less on mindless updating of data and help to reduce errors across the organization as a whole." is that worth something to the organization, My bet is Microsoft thinks it is, and that is why they are charging the license fee. I guess we will see if it worth it to enough organizations or not.

It is only will be worth hiring one monkey to do this.
Most customers do this to save money, and if MS is asking for money, they will find another solution.

themave

generic wrote:

themave wrote:

jlandeen wrote:

......I firmly believe that well integrated systems in an organization allow users to focus more on their tasks and less on mindless updating of data and help to reduce errors across the organization as a whole. This additional cost burden may force customers to NOT integrate with Navision which once again gets us back to Islands of Data and Navision/Finance data & users all off on their own

What Microsoft is thinking...I don't have the foggiest.

what you need to think is this integration worth it to the organization to pay the additional license fee. You say it would allow "users to focus more on their tasks and less on mindless updating of data and help to reduce errors across the organization as a whole." is that worth something to the organization, My bet is Microsoft thinks it is, and that is why they are charging the license fee. I guess we will see if it worth it to enough organizations or not.

It is only will be worth hiring one monkey to do this.
Most customers do this to save money, and if MS is asking for money, they will find another solution.

I agree, but that is what microsoft is in fact asking for, a portion of the cost saving. Reminds me of the housing bubble here in California. a few year back, we got a quote to do our landscaping, the quotes were all in the $30,000 - 40,000 range. For work I knew I could do myself in a matter of a few weekends and a lot of back breaking labor. The landscapers proposal included the estimated increase in value of the house, after the work was complete, they said the house would be worth 70K more, and they gave documents so I could get a home equity loan to pay for it. their pitch was I would be making money by paying their fee. I can't believe how many people fell for it. I didn't, I did the work myself, cost around 5 thousand in materials.

so when you hear about the housing bubble, this was all part of it. greedy people all trying to get a peice of the pie. Microsoft is no different, they want a part of the cost savings you will see. in fact their maintenance fees are a way to keep getting a portion of the future costing saving out of you.

jlandeen

I think the biggest change that concerns me about this licensing model is that it places the ownership of the data that is contained within the Navision database goes from the Customer to Microsoft. I'm not sure that I really agree with users having to pay for other systems to access data that is in Navision. Should a client who already has to pay for the software, pay service fees to professionals to build/implement a solution pay further so that they can access the data that (in my humble opinon) is already theirs?

What about writing to Navision? Do all other systems that have to write/submit GL data to be processed require all their users to be licensed?

generic

and imagine if other systems you are intergrading with asks for same.
Next thing you know MS will copyright your data.

Trying to copy and paste this field? Sorry, the data is copyrighted, in order to copy, you need to buy this granule.

Even though you entered the data.
Just wait for that.

jlandeen

Eeeks...that doesn't sound right!

annoymouse

Just one thing, TALK TO MICROSOFT.

The business hates to see lost sales and can be VERY flexible on pricing if you can show them a disappering customer. It's the old product versions technique where you try to get every customer to pay the maximum they can be made to. The sidebar to the technique is big discounts or reinterpretation of the rules if there's a big customer or an end of year looming.

But remember Salesmen never lie :^o If they can get caught

bbrown

annoymouse wrote:

Just one thing, TALK TO MICROSOFT.

The business hates to see lost sales and can be VERY flexible on pricing if you can show them a disappering customer. It's the old product versions technique where you try to get every customer to pay the maximum they can be made to. The sidebar to the technique is big discounts or reinterpretation of the rules if there's a big customer or an end of year looming.

But remember Salesmen never lie :^o If they can get caught

It is not the salespeople that will be paying the fines when the violations are discovered.

matttrax

Apologies if this has already been posted somewhere.

Looks like they reduced the price of the external connector to $5,000 (I think it was $15,000). And if you buy before June 26th you get it for the price of the enhancement fee, $880.

https://mbs.microsoft.com/partnersource ... page=false

I know it doesn't begin to address the SQL licensing, but it's a start.

generic

It's good that they lowered the external connector price.

The issue is CDO. Paying 200 for 100 employees is 20 K.
There needs to be a limit what if you have 500 employees that don't use any part of ERP, but just submit time?
that's $100K in cost.

The limit on CDO should be at 10K for unlimited Employees.



For SQL, you can go with per Processor licensing and get the Standard Edition for $6000 dollars.

Nav doesn't use that much CPU. So you can get one socket with 4 cores CPU.

jlandeen

I completely agree that there needs to be a better way to licensing this then named users at $200 each. Going through Microsoft for special pricing on CDO licenses for each customer can be cumbersome and it can make it hard to generally plan and cost for integration projects.

The time entry example demonstrates the need for solutions that allow a large number of users to enter data in a very controlled way to a very finite area (i.e. Job Journal Line) area of Navision.

What if a client is using Navision as their master system for customer information - they have a home grown CRM application that pulls customer details (i.e. customer no. and phone no.) directly from Navision's SQL tables so there is no data duplication in this 2nd system. Does that mean that all users of this 2nd system have to be licensed. The way I read the FAQ - this sounds like an internal employee having indirect access to Navision data and therefore needs a DCO license. There's something about that doesn't seem right to me.

generic

Yes those users that use CRM will need to be licensed CDO, since they are accessing NAV Data.