Disaster Recovery - Hosted Server
-
@Breffni-Potter said:
@scottalanmiller I think you've just described another reason why I'd dislike CALS for Azure or other MS hosted services.
Imagine if they decided "Hey, you now need CALS for every 365 user, pay up"
Actually, you do need them for that. Office 365 is specifically licensed in that way.
-
@scottalanmiller Huh?, Never needed to buy 365 cals, we buy licenses per user.
Could you explain?
-
And it is more than just the theoretical. If you use Office 365 you pay a per user CAL via the per user monthly licensing fee that is basically nothing but a CAL.
But then, if you use DirSync or AD Integration with Office 365 you need traditional Windows Server CALs on top of the Office 365 "CAL"!
-
@Breffni-Potter said:
@scottalanmiller Huh?, Never needed to buy 365 cals, we buy licenses per user.
Could you explain?
How do you define a CAL differently than that? What is a CAL except for a per user license?
-
@scottalanmiller ...Right, you are just being awkward
Server 2012, you buy one product and you need to buy multiple products called CALS as a separate purchase depending on user/device number.
@scottalanmiller said:
How do you define a CAL differently than that? What is a CAL except for a per user license?
Because the 365 license is not just an access license for one product/service, it pays for multiple services on 365 as a single billable item, I don't need to buy 50 E3 licenses, then buy 50 E3-cals as a separate purchase, that would be crazy for MS but that's what I'm saying.
Does that make sense?
-
@Breffni-Potter said:
@scottalanmiller ...Right, you are just being awkward
Server 2012, you buy one product and you need to buy multiple products called CALS as a separate purchase depending on user/device number.
@scottalanmiller said:
How do you define a CAL differently than that? What is a CAL except for a per user license?
Because the 365 license is not just an access license for one product/service, it pays for multiple services on 365 as a single billable item, I don't need to buy 50 E3 licenses, then buy 50 E3-cals as a separate purchase, that would be crazy for MS but that's what I'm saying.
Does that make sense?
Sort of. But I see it the opposite. When I buy MS Server I see it only as capacity since I can't use it. It is the CALs that let me have the different services on it. I buy one CAL for access to AD, another one for access to RDS, etc. I see Office 365 identically, except that the "server" piece is free. I still need to buy a CAL and a different CAL based on the services that I want. If I was E3 I need the "Premium CAL" or if I just need email the "Standard CAL" and if I want Visio I have to add on a "Visio CAL" etc. From that perspective, it seems identical to what we had before, just with Microsoft hosting a big, shared server that we don't have to license separately.
-
@scottalanmiller Sure, yet they are different products, with a different pricing structure and distribution method, MS never refer to 365 licenses or services as CALs, so why would we keep the terms the same when the products are very different.
@scottalanmiller said:
Azure is neither a loophole nor a financial windfall for large companies.
Actually instead of larger capital costs of CALS & licenses, you only pay for what you use/need in terms of capacity? Surely that's a big benefit to any organisation in terms of finance, different model.
-
@Breffni-Potter said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Azure is neither a loophole nor a financial windfall for large companies.
Actually instead of larger capital costs of CALS & licenses, you only pay for what you use/need in terms of capacity? Surely that's a big benefit to any organisation in terms of finance, different model.
But not a windfall. You don't simple spend $20 on Azure and get your millions and millions of dollars of traditional CAL costs to evaporate. That's what the one option implied - that Azure would eliminate the need for all CALs, not only when accessing Azure. That would be a huge windfall. Change nothing, spend nothing, no longer need CALs.
-
@Breffni-Potter said:
@scottalanmiller Sure, yet they are different products, with a different pricing structure and distribution method, MS never refer to 365 licenses or services as CALs, so why would we keep the terms the same when the products are very different.
They changed the name of Lync to Skype for Business to confuse people too, but it's the same product (literally, just a name change.)
It's because Office 365 really is a CAL. Sure, there is a different pricing structure, but there were always different structures with the same name of the result. It's closer to a CAL than to anything else, right? Why call it something else?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
It's closer to a CAL than to anything else, right? Why call it something else?
Because MS decided it is not a CAL, it's a per user license
-
@Breffni-Potter said:
Because MS decided it is not a CAL, it's a per user license
Hmmmmm.....
-
@Breffni-Potter said:
@scottalanmiller said:
It's closer to a CAL than to anything else, right? Why call it something else?
Because MS decided it is not a CAL, it's a per user license
isn't that what a CAL is?
-
@Dashrender said:
@Breffni-Potter said:
@scottalanmiller said:
It's closer to a CAL than to anything else, right? Why call it something else?
Because MS decided it is not a CAL, it's a per user license
isn't that what a CAL is?
That's what I thought
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@Breffni-Potter said:
@scottalanmiller said:
It's closer to a CAL than to anything else, right? Why call it something else?
Because MS decided it is not a CAL, it's a per user license
isn't that what a CAL is?
That's what I thought
LOL!
-
@Dashrender said:
@Breffni-Potter said:
@scottalanmiller said:
It's closer to a CAL than to anything else, right? Why call it something else?
Because MS decided it is not a CAL, it's a per user license
isn't that what a CAL is?
Agreed... I'm not sure the difference between a CAL and a User license in this case. Both are giving you the ability to access services. With Windows Server you have to purchase that additional ability. However with Office365 you are getting the server part of it for free and are just getting the rights to access it.
-
This is totally not a case where I expected anyone to follow or agree with my odd logic. LOL. It totally made sense in my mind but I anticipated the "Scott's crazy here" response that I often get.
What sucks for me is I can't tell when I make complete sense or when everyone will think that I'm crazy.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
This is totally not a case where I expected anyone to follow or agree with my odd logic. LOL. It totally made sense in my mind but I anticipated the "Scott's crazy here" response that I often get.
What sucks for me is I can't tell when I make complete sense or when everyone will think that I'm crazy.
It makes sense to me... although I am no bastion of sanity. Just seems like Microsoft is doing their thing and making their licensing as confusing as possible to trap companies during an audit.
-
@coliver well I don't feel that it is that bad. Just being confusing for marketing reasons. Honestly, it's the kind of thing where it IS different enough that I can see why they did not want to call it CALs, but there ARE CALs inherently in what they are doing.
No audit worries, though, unless you are doing something crazy to steal the software. They have handy "lock out" features to make it obvious when you can't use something.
-
Well the alternative is I'm just crazy
I'll go back to my padded cell. -
@scottalanmiller said:
@coliver well I don't feel that it is that bad. Just being confusing for marketing reasons. Honestly, it's the kind of thing where it IS different enough that I can see why they did not want to call it CALs, but there ARE CALs inherently in what they are doing.
No audit worries, though, unless you are doing something crazy to steal the software. They have handy "lock out" features to make it obvious when you can't use something.
I've got my tin foil hat from @MattSpeller. Although Office365 is the safe way to do licensing from Microsoft in my opinion.
