New licensing rule has a hidden cost

generic

p.willemse6 wrote:

Nice point here. the users are licensed for NAV via a concurrent mechanism, so they are allowed to use the data. MS told me that if there are enough licenses to cover all internal users, you would never have to buy DCO's. You're correct that for accessing webservices etc. you formally need named users. However, these users are already present and licensed in NAV.... Don't think we'll get through this one

I need source document that states this.
Anyways if the company matttrax company has more than 155 users, he is hosed.

matttrax

Yeah, the whole policy is ridiculous. It's like our company is a small business, and Microsoft thinks that no small business would ever integrate with anything until now.

I'd love to hear what a company like GameStop thinks about this. Can't remember where I read it, but I thought I saw that they had something like 3000 users, obviously not all concurrent. Only $600,000 to integrate with one other product. I know that's like a worst case example, but still.

It's not even so much that our company can't afford to pay the cost for 150 named users, it's just the principle of it that gets me. Usually I'm a big supporter of Microsoft and I love NAV and all the possibilities with it, but this has made me lose a lot of faith.

I'll probably call Microsoft tomorrow and come back more bitter than I already am

generic

My guess the MS guy probably doesn't know it and will get back to you. :roll:

matttrax

Straight from the NAV sales support line:

"If a user is already allowed to access the data through the NAV client they do not have to have an additional license to access that data through an external application."

It's not spelled out in the licensing anywhere, so I'm still a little worried. But it's a start. It makes sense in the "of course that's how it should be way".

generic

So if a company has 200 employees, and has 100 NAV concurrent licenses. They don't need to purchase additional 100 DCO licenses?

matttrax

Yeah, not to expose the obvious flaw in the logic, but you can put all 200 users in the login table for NAV. Since they're concurrent it doesn't matter.

So depending on your definition of access, even if those users don't have a NAV client installed on their machine, they do have access. They can then access the data through any client they want, SQL / BI / Custom .NET / whatever and not legally have to buy a DCO license. Until they go to a fully named user model I can't see how this won't be an issue for them.

To me it's like the honor system (which let's face it never works). If your user has access to NAV, they have access to whatever applications use NAV (as long as you meet the licensing terms of those other applications). If you have a user who doesn't use the NAV client and does need access to the data, then pay $200 for them. It's cheaper than a normal user and not an outrageous condition. I'm all for legal use of software so as long as licensing makes sense I will make sure my company does its best to abide by those terms.

Like I said, it makes sense from the "That's how it should be" perspective, but there's no way to enforce it while still on a concurrent user model.

p.willemse6

matttrax wrote:

Yeah, not to expose the obvious flaw in the logic, but you can put all 200 users in the login table for NAV. Since they're concurrent it doesn't matter.

So depending on your definition of access, even if those users don't have a NAV client installed on their machine, they do have access. They can then access the data through any client they want, SQL / BI / Custom .NET / whatever and not legally have to buy a DCO license. Until they go to a fully named user model I can't see how this won't be an issue for them.

To me it's like the honor system (which let's face it never works). If your user has access to NAV, they have access to whatever applications use NAV (as long as you meet the licensing terms of those other applications). If you have a user who doesn't use the NAV client and does need access to the data, then pay $200 for them. It's cheaper than a normal user and not an outrageous condition. I'm all for legal use of software so as long as licensing makes sense I will make sure my company does its best to abide by those terms.

Like I said, it makes sense from the "That's how it should be" perspective, but there's no way to enforce it while still on a concurrent user model.

point still is: how do you measure the concurrency. Who can assure the 100 cover the 200?

matttrax

I got a "second opinion." We're both a customer and a partner but we manage our licenses through another partner. So my original post was from us as a partner directly from Microsoft.

As a customer asking what our partner thought about it, they said that you should access the external applications through the ribbon on the RTC. That way they are accessing it "through NAV". Just an extra step, but if the user is supposed to spend their time in their role center anyway it's not too bad.

Anyway, they said they would try to find out more at Convergence, which sadly I'm not going to this year. Hopefully that will clarify some things.

generic

Any update from convergence?

Miklos_Hollender

I see it this way. It would be very easy to write a new client in .NET that consumes and displayes Page web services from NAV2009, and distribute it to 1000 users at no cost. (I think later on I'll try to write a general Excel client for Pages. I think that would be awesome.) Therefore, it's logical they charge money for the using of the services.

It's the same logic as why they charge for tables and other objects: otherwise you could just renumber all standard objects NAV and use them for free.

I don't think they can possibly charge for the reading of your own data through SQL. Maybe it is in the case now in the literal text of the licence, maybe not, but if yes, but surely that must be a mistake to be corrected later on.

generic

Miklos Hollender wrote:

I don't think they can possibly charge for the reading of your own data through SQL. Maybe it is in the case now in the literal text of the licence, maybe not, but if yes, but surely that must be a mistake to be corrected later on.

Define mistake. Do you mean becoming too greedy is a mistake?
Or the people who come up with the idea didn't realize the consequences that it is ridiculous and will cost existing customer a lot of money, it will hurt new sales, and it will hurt solution centers from doing integrations?

ajhvdb

I'm little bit lost:
Is this external/DCO only for 6.0 (2009) users? or for 2.X thru 6.0 clients?

a_paul

TODAY i came to know that the web services are yet to be launched in INDIA.

please comment.

generic

a_paul wrote:

TODAY i came to know that the web services are yet to be launched in INDIA.

please comment.

and how is that related to this thread?

generic

ajhvdb wrote:

I'm little bit lost:
Is this external/DCO only for 6.0 (2009) users? or for 2.X thru 6.0 clients?

I believe it's 2009

bbrown

generic wrote:

ajhvdb wrote:

I'm little bit lost:
Is this external/DCO only for 6.0 (2009) users? or for 2.X thru 6.0 clients?

I believe it's 2009

That's the 2009 client. It applies even if only doing a technical upgrade.

generic

Any updates after convergence?

ssingla

Miklos Hollender wrote:

It's the same logic as why they charge for tables and other objects: otherwise you could just renumber all standard objects NAV and use them for free.

Is the object policy same with other MS Dynamics products :?:
I beleive in AX you can create n number of tables/reports etc. without paying extra.

matttrax

From Convergence...basically no one understands still :shock:

Summary of what I've been told by various sources:

Microsoft told me that if the user had access to NAV they could also access it through any other client (just like Employee Portal I believe)
Microsoft told our partner that we had to use the NAV client and click a button in the RTC to the other client in order to not buy a DCO
Microsoft told someone at JetReports (who then told our partner) that you had to buy a DCO no matter what

So as I think I've been told all three possible options for the new licensing, I can 100% say that no one knows for sure.

generic

It's a sad state when greedy morons are in charge.

themave

matttrax wrote:

From Convergence...basically no one understands still :shock:

Summary of what I've been told by various sources:

Microsoft told me that if the user had access to NAV they could also access it through any other client (just like Employee Portal I believe)
Microsoft told our partner that we had to use the NAV client and click a button in the RTC to the other client in order to not buy a DCO
Microsoft told someone at JetReports (who then told our partner) that you had to buy a DCO no matter what

So as I think I've been told all three possible options for the new licensing, I can 100% say that no one knows for sure.

I can say for sure, when you have a software audit, it will come out to be you need a license for any access any where by anyone, any way possible.

matttrax

Part of me wonders...we did a license update about a month ago and had 2009 added to it, even though we hadn't requested it. If NAV 2009 is in your license file, and CustomerSource says your version is NAV 2009, but you're actually running 3.7...what licensing terms do you fall under?

Just thought about it this morning.

generic

There is a online class being offered for new licensing.

DCO Awareness Days are here!!

Calling all NAV pre-sales!! The UK NAV team are running four MOSS/DCO awareness days to help our partners demonstrate the value of NAV 2009 and MOSS Enterprise. We have created a VPC specifically for this event and you will be given a VPC on an external hard drive as part of the day.

https://training.partner.microsoft.com/ ... earch.aspx

Anybody is attending? could see if they clarify this.

matttrax

haha...pay us $195 and we'll tell you how we think the licensing is supposed to work...awesome Better than nothing I suppose. I hope someone goes and can report back.

DenSter

Sounds to me like this class is useful for MSFT internally as well :-k

generic

DenSter wrote:

Sounds to me like this class is useful for MSFT internally as well :-k

There is something wrong with your license model if you have to teach a class on it.

abhaydalal8722

I have gone through the entire thread and it means only one thing. Stop Nav use AX......because if u have large number of users on Nav then u need to pay a large amount for each upgrade.


Microsoft has said that their main focus is AX and I feel this is the best way to say u either buy AX or pay as much to use Nav for a large number of users [-X

DenSter

abhaydalal8722 wrote:

Microsoft has said that their main focus is AX

No they have most certainly not said that.

generic

If you look at their action, they most certainly push AX as the ERP system for 1 tier companies.
They are building new features, functionality for AX. Just look at Chanel 9 videos.
NAV hasn't had any new features added. And if they do, it's only localizations. It's mostly been fixing or rewriting areas.

DenSter

Ah, a qualifier...

generic wrote:

for 1 tier companies.

Microsoft has put in place a clear strategy about which product to use for which market segment. NAV has always been for small to medium size companies, one localization only. NAV is the most profitable product in the Dynamics space, and MSFT would like to have that kind of return from AX as well. I don't think it is strange that they are putting lots of effort into AX, but they have never said that it is their main focus.

generic wrote:

NAV hasn't had any new features added

You don't think the 3 tier architecture, the RTC, web service capabilities, RDLC report layouts (to name but a few) are new features?