50 cents per user per month doesn’t make any sense: I think for MS it might be cheaper to give products for free than to process these payments
Note that that number (180000 is per year, not per month)
50 cents per user per month doesn’t make any sense: I think for MS it might be cheaper to give products for free than to process these payments
Note that that number (180000 is per year, not per month)
MangoCats@feddit.it 3 weeks ago
I’m guessing it’s a really small state with not much IT going on.
As for cheaper to give for free: ABSOLUTELY. But, with free then they don’t have their sales guys in there talking with them, they don’t have the state “acknowledging the debt” and the legitimacy of their right to charge for their software.
In the 1990s M$ let the world pirate DOS and Windows with wild abandon, they were just happy that people were using their stuff and not others’. After the world was good and hooked, shortly after we all survived Y2K, they started turning the screws - requiring license keys for full functionality, getting serious about demanding payment.
Bill Gates net worth was “only” $30B before they got serious about charging for their software, today I see it’s over $200B even after all of Melinda’s philanthropy.
exchange12rocks@lemm.ee 3 weeks ago
A small organization will have higher software license prices per user than a large one.
MangoCats@feddit.it 3 weeks ago
Also true, and at this kind of rate we can assume the state is doing most of its own IT self-support without a lot of M$ hand-holding.