Future dynamics - which will get the most converts

themave · 2006-12-21

I was reading the Customer support guidelines that came out recently and was wondering about this :

Investment Protection (formerly Transformational Assurance): The ability for a customer to move to the future converged Microsoft Dynamics solution without having to repurchase the functionality they already license today. Details are available later in the document.
Transition Investment Credit: Customers can apply their Microsoft Dynamics Financial
Management and Supply Chain Management license investment toward a:
• Product Transition: Any other Microsoft Dynamics Financial and Supply Chain Management solution, e.g. Microsoft Dynamics AX to Microsoft Dynamics NAV.
• Edition Transition: Another edition of the same product (Standard to Professional, Business Essentials to Advanced Management).

It is basically giving current users of Microsoft products the ability to switch to other dynamics products. Is this so we can move to the new unified code base product, or do you think it will be used to move between products. If so, would there more likely be people moving from Nav, to something else, or do you think more would move to Nav. ?

Or maybe no one will move between products.

Marije_Brummel · 2006-12-21

I think the suggested move by Microsoft from AX to NAV would be an exelent choice.

Waldo · 2006-12-21

(Only smiley ... sorry)

Captain_DX4 · 2006-12-22

Mark Brummel wrote:

I think the suggested move by Microsoft from AX to NAV would be an exelent choice.

Not that you have an invested interest in this at all, noooooo! *lol*

themave · 2006-12-22

Captain DX4 wrote:

Mark Brummel wrote:

I think the suggested move by Microsoft from AX to NAV would be an exelent choice.

Not that you have an invested interest in this at all, noooooo! *lol*

Hey it was Microsoft that is suggeting it,

I wouldn't want to be an AX programmer write now. :roll:

Andreas_Gunawan · 2006-12-24

Moving AX to NAV means AX will no longer exist in the microsoft dynamics product parts. Although green projects in the 2008 -2010, seems there will no more separated products.
I think it is not good idea,it would be better for microsoft to improve the product (AX) so that applicable to specific industry with specific module that can cope with the problem inside the industry. for example, in NAV, there is quality measurement, meanwhile in AX there is only quarantine management, no quality measurement and able to cope with batch production system but can't work if there is co product or by product, to customize or modify is difficult and spend money a lot, so where the products will be used ? The training manual is not complete and seems useless with no standard.

Rgds,

davmac1 · 2006-12-24

One point to remember in this discussion. Microsoft's aim is to build this into a ten billion dollar a year business - this started when they bought Great Plains and Solomon. Since then they have added Navision and Axapta and built their own CRM, and are still well shy of their goal.
Without buying SAP, does anyone think Microsoft can reach this goal, and if so how.
In the new pricing model, they would have to add about about two million to three million new users per year and collect maintenance on most of the installed base to hit that level.
Navsion just passed one million licensed users lifetime worldwide.

Miklos_Hollender · 2006-12-26

I think AX is wonderfully sellable. On a sales demo one just sits in awe.

On the other hand, some time and two employers before we tried out AX 3.0 and were heavily disappointed how it works in practice. It simply looked it wants to be too smart. For example, inventory is managed via batches and a Location is just a dimension attached to the batch. It's not a "hardcoded" field. Looks like a great simplified design. But the problem is that dimensions are configurable on user level and there for one user Location can be Dim 2 and for another one Dim 4. So in order to show inventory you either use AX's built-in facilities that abstract away this problem or use direct SQL (which you can just embed into MorphX code) but basically both cased break down to a large number of JOINs which makes it as slow as it can get. Finally we concluded there is simply no way to be 100% sure to be able to tell inventory by locations in a reasonable amount of time. Probably there are some tricks we didn't know of, but finally we concluded that having to experiment for days and looking for complicated tricks to be able to do things that even NAV does by standard simply does not worth the effort. So we gave up. But it was 3.0 so maybe it improved after that.

Andreas_Gunawan · 2006-12-26

Miklos wrote:

think AX is wonderfully sellable. On a sales demo one just sits in awe.

It's illogical you've said that...
I have explored the AX and I've seen it is only 4500 installation in this world. You turn and bend the actual fact. I've been an AX consultant but nothing is wonderful there, it seems unfinished software with weakness holes lying around..

I wish you rethink before write...,I also wish microsoft never let the product hit it back with customer's compliances...

Rgds,

Joseph_Abou_Nader · 2006-12-26

Well, there are 2 completely differenct point of views regarding Axapta. Let me add something I have learned from Axapta Consultants, and that Axapta is a more complicated version of Navision...as Axapta is usually implemented by huge sized companies and which are specialized in manufacturing and it requires huge implementation and customization efforts. Now, personally I have no real experience in Axapta but I think merging AX and NAV will bring out the best of both...

Alex_Chow · 2006-12-26

Are there anyone out there who thinks MSFT will come out with 2 "Green" products when its done.

There will be a Green Basic, and Green Professional. Basically one version that fits the higher tier customers, and one verison that will fit smaller customers.

Based on this theory, I hope they don't separate the version on important functionalities where you have to purchase the higher tier solution.

Joseph_Abou_Nader · 2006-12-28

deadlizard wrote:

Are there anyone out there who thinks MSFT will come out with 2 "Green" products when its done.
.

Cool Abb. for Microsoft...(MSFT)

Take Care

DenSter · 2006-12-28

MSFT is the abbreviation for Microsoft on the NYSE (New York Stock Exchange).

Look at how they positioned Vista, that's how I think they will do it with the 'one big' product, it'll be marketing mostly, and different editions of the same product.... There is no way that there can be one product to serve all ERP markets.

Joseph_Abou_Nader · 2006-12-28

DenSter wrote:

MSFT is the abbreviation for Microsoft on the NYSE (New York Stock Exchange).

Look at how they positioned Vista, that's how I think they will do it with the 'one big' product, it'll be marketing mostly, and different editions of the same product.... There is no way that there can be one product to serve all ERP markets.

Will they consider the concept of Add Ons as well. That is they will initiate a standard edition, then you can add other modules to it...??

DenSter · 2006-12-28

I don't know, I just said what I think will happen with the editions, I have no information (neither official nor informal) to support that. I would think (my opinion) that it will still be possible to add-on/plug-in to the product, I don't think it would be smart to undo the NAV model, all ISVs would go looking for another product to work with.

ara3n · 2006-12-28

I just hope the new dynamics system system, doesn't go the way of using DLL files for addons.
It's so annoying right now to update dll files on the client.
Ever since MS bought Navision, I see more and more dll file in the installation folder.

Alex_Chow · 2006-12-29

DenSter wrote:

MSFT is the abbreviation for Microsoft on the NYSE (New York Stock Exchange).

Actually, they'are listed under Nasdaq.

DenSter · 2006-12-30

deadlizard wrote:

DenSter wrote:

MSFT is the abbreviation for Microsoft on the NYSE (New York Stock Exchange).

Actually, they'are listed under Nasdaq.

Well that shows what kind of investor I am

I thought nasdaq was part of the NYSE, but apparently it is not.

Alex_Chow · 2006-12-30

DenSter wrote:

Well that shows what kind of investor I am I thought nasdaq was part of the NYSE, but apparently it is not.

The NYSE has usually 3 or less letters (IBM, HPQ, F, GM) as their stock symbol. The NASDAQ usually has 4 letters (MSFT, CSCO, AAPL).

Miklos_Hollender · 2007-01-05

I have explored the AX and I've seen it is only 4500 installation in this world.

That's good news, it means would-be clients are more intelligent than me

I was totally oooh and aaaah when I've seen a sales demo. On the other hand when we actually laid our hands on it, I was rather aaargh and grrrrr, but that usually happens after the sales if the solution center is not careful enough

Alex_Chow · 2007-01-05

Miklos Hollender wrote:

...but that usually happens after the sales if the solution center is not careful enough

Any software that requires companies to implementation follows the same rule.

Miklos_Hollender · 2007-01-09

Yes. Actually, "implementation" is a euphemism

Alex_Chow · 2007-01-09

:oops:

Future dynamics - which will get the most converts

Comments

Categories