Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Microsoft Pays University $250K To Use Office 365

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the use-our-product-please dept.

Cloud 219

BogenDorpher writes "Microsoft has offered to give the University of Nebraska $250,000 dollars to make the switch from IBM Lotus Notes to Office 365, which they say offers newer technology, greater flexibility, and operational savings. Microsoft did this in hopes that the University would not make the transition over to Google Apps."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I already use Google Apps! (1)

cvtan (752695) | more than 3 years ago | (#36674458)

Pay me $500,000!

Re:I already use Google Apps! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36674676)

Pay me $500,000!

To help you cure youre Open Sores?

Re:I already use Google Apps! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36675798)

No, he wants to go from one type of closed sores to another. What? You didn't see that equally irrelevant pun coming from a mile away?

Want Failure? To the cloud! (0)

sethstorm (512897) | more than 3 years ago | (#36674470)

It wasn't good enough sell to the university, so they paid them outright to use Office in the cloud?

Re:Want Failure? To the cloud! (1)

MindStalker (22827) | more than 3 years ago | (#36674528)

Think of it as a marketing tool. If it is good students who have used it for 4 years will go on to promote it in business, at which time they will be laughed at, (or not).

Re:Want Failure? To the cloud! (5, Informative)

Ferzerp (83619) | more than 3 years ago | (#36674552)

No. RTFA. They discounted conversion services by $250k. The school is still paying for the product. This is commonplace in the industry.

"Sure, we want to swap from x to your product y, but it will cost us too much to transition"

"How can we help out so that we get a revenue stream from your subscription/maintenance (that still makes us money in the long run)?"

Who needs accuracy (though the linked story had the same inaccurate headline)?

Now there's an "innovative" way to calculate ROI (1)

Monchanger (637670) | more than 3 years ago | (#36674660)

I suppose we'll soon enough see an endless stream of magazine ads including a "testimonial", about how Nebraska U. "saved" hundreds of thousands of dollars by "choosing" Office over IBM's product.

Re:Now there's an "innovative" way to calculate RO (2)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | more than 3 years ago | (#36674822)

Considering that they are going to pay 1/2 the yearly licensing fee, umm... yes, we will and it's true.

Re:Now there's an "innovative" way to calculate RO (1)

Barlo_Mung_42 (411228) | more than 3 years ago | (#36675090)

Hey now! no need to go dragging your "facts" into this.

Re:Now there's an "innovative" way to calculate RO (1)

Ferzerp (83619) | more than 3 years ago | (#36675250)

I have, on multiple occasions seen licensing fees negotiated down to 1/3-1/2 initial asking price on more than just Microsoft products. It is no crime.

Re:Want Failure? To the cloud! (1)

jschmitz (607083) | more than 3 years ago | (#36675236)

Microsoft is fast on its way to becoming irrelevant - Their office suite was actually their best product ..sadly for them it won't matter for much longer

Re:Want Failure? To the cloud! (1)

eedwardsjr (1327857) | more than 3 years ago | (#36675550)

You have probably never used Lotus Notes.

Re:Want Failure? To the cloud! (2)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 3 years ago | (#36675518)

No.

They gave them a 250k discount on the fees the University was going to pay to move the data from one system to the next, and deal with conversions and such.

Microsoft basically said 'Look, if you switch, we'll help you with the conversion for FREE!'. I'm not sure about MS's policies, at this company, we 'waive the setup fee' all the time, which is just a different name for the same thing. The setup fee for us is to deal with the issues of getting them converted from their old system to ours.

We never expect to collect it. Its a flag by the sales people, if a sales person collects the setup fee, watch out, thats the salesman flagging the account as obnoxious fucks that are going to be so difficult to deal with, we're going to have to charge them a setup fee to account for the amount of time we'll be wasting on them above and beyond what we would normally do for a new customer.

To our sales people, its simply a feature. 'You know what, I want you guys as a customer, I'll wave the setup fee ... I'll have to get approval, but for you guys, I don't think it'll be a problem' ... of course, all our sales people are told up front not to collect a setup fee unless you expect a problem or there is something specific thats going to require more work. If its something specific, they are instructed to bill it as something other than the plain Jane setup fee, such as document conversion or something like that ... but most of the time, we just don't charge a setup fee. We'll loose some money up front, but if they stay with us more than a couple years, its well worth the up front loss to reel them in.

Why not openoffice? (-1, Flamebait)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 3 years ago | (#36674476)

Is there a reason they couldn't transition to openoffice instead?

Other than the fact they are in Nebraska, where the term "open" is probably immediately associated with homosexuality, of course?

Re:Why not openoffice? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36674520)

Because OpenOffice prints, looks, and runs like ass.

Re:Why not openoffice? (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 3 years ago | (#36674724)

That's what your mom said about your dad, but with no money for dentures, who else was she gonna get in the sack?

Re:Why not openoffice? (-1)

cgeys (2240696) | more than 3 years ago | (#36674524)

I use OpenOffice almost daily, but for very simple stuff. The truth is, it still lacks many features that Office offers. It also still doesn't seem to open or save Office files correctly, which is really needed if you want to exchange files with other people. The GUI also feels kind of sluggish and outdated, but that probably comes from Java.

Re:Why not openoffice? (2)

PCM2 (4486) | more than 3 years ago | (#36674608)

I use OpenOffice almost daily, but for very simple stuff. The truth is, it still lacks many features that Office offers.

So does Lotus Notes, which is the suite referenced here. I think this was really mostly about trying to get the university to transition from Domino to SharePoint.

Re:Why not openoffice? (1)

Sinthet (2081954) | more than 3 years ago | (#36674756)

I've never had a problem opening/editing/saving Microsoft formats with OpenOffice (Though, technically I use LibreOffice now). However, Office 2007 and up handles .odt files very well. I never bother to do a conversion anymore, and just let MS Office handle it if I need to use the files on a Windows computer that isn't running OpenOffice. My papers tend to be limited to Academic stuff, reports, essays, and occasionally some mathematics-related stuff. So maybe I've never run into trouble because I don't use some of the fancy features, but that being said, I fit the bill as a typical student user, and don't really see a major hindrance or lack of features with Libre/Open Office.

Re:Why not openoffice? (1)

Dishevel (1105119) | more than 3 years ago | (#36675248)

It also still doesn't seem to open or save Office files correctly, which is really needed if you want to exchange files with other people.

Funny thing is that Microsoft Office has problems saving and opening in different versions of Microsoft Office as well.
Their product is so convoluted that the guys who wrote the last version cant get the current version to save to the old version perfectly.
How is another company going to do it.

Re:Why not openoffice? (1)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 3 years ago | (#36675574)

Yep, it does ... of course when you compare/contrast those problems to the ones OO.org has, its a fucking retarded contrast, but technically you are correct ... regardless of how incorrect you are from a practical perspective.

Re:Why not openoffice? (1)

Shimdaddy (898354) | more than 3 years ago | (#36674594)

OpenOffice is good, but it's not a full replacement for modern versions of Office. If all you're doing is authoring memos and papers (by yourself) it will suffice, though. What's with the random dig at Nebraska, though? The state has plenty of social conservatives and plenty of liberals (see: Omaha) -- there's no reason to slam a pretty respectable university over your stereotype.

Re:Why not openoffice? (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#36675080)

Business ran just fine without the latest features.

MS Office is over priced bloated piece of software that does everything it can to tie you to it.

It's an easily exploitable security risk, and it force a company to behave how their software works, not the software to behave how there company works.

And of course this office 365 is a constant expense. Her we use office,. nit its office 2003. So while we paid for a license one time, we have used it for 8 years. 8 years at the current charge rate for Office 365 is out of the question.
\

Re:Why not openoffice? (1)

X.25 (255792) | more than 3 years ago | (#36675360)

OpenOffice is good, but it's not a full replacement for modern versions of Office. If all you're doing is authoring memos and papers (by yourself) it will suffice, though. What's with the random dig at Nebraska, though? The state has plenty of social conservatives and plenty of liberals (see: Omaha) -- there's no reason to slam a pretty respectable university over your stereotype.

Yeah, because people were not writing documents or using computers before Microsoft Office was created.

Jesus, new generations are retarded...

Re:Why not openoffice? (1)

Dcnjoe60 (682885) | more than 3 years ago | (#36675738)

OpenOffice is good, but it's not a full replacement for modern versions of Office. If all you're doing is authoring memos and papers (by yourself) it will suffice, though.

What's with the random dig at Nebraska, though? The state has plenty of social conservatives and plenty of liberals (see: Omaha) -- there's no reason to slam a pretty respectable university over your stereotype.

Then again, outside of law offices, most of what MS Office is used for is memos and papers, particularly on a college campus. I don't really see allowing multiple edits on a term paper as a useful thing. Most universities actually frown on such an activity.

As for slamming Nebraska, any of the remaining Big 12 conference members would probably question using "Nebraska" and "respectable university" in the same sentence, but leaving the Big 12 was all about money and evidently so is choosing Microsoft's new offerings. But I'm sure the Corn Huskers got the best solution Microsoft's money could buy.

Re:Why not openoffice? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36674824)

Because OpenOffice is terrible, maybe?

It's a mess :( (1)

rsilvergun (571051) | more than 3 years ago | (#36674966)

Sorry, I want to like Openoffice, but I just watched it eat my daughter's 20 page novella with a know bug in the auto-recovery that's existed since 2.0 and has an easy work around (disable auto-recovery). BTW, once the auto-recovery bug gets going just about anything you open gets wasted. It's a nasty, critical bug. On thing about commercial software, they can't tolerate these bugs because they get sued class action style.

Part of me wants to give them the benefit of the doubt on this, but the mean spirited part wants the devs at oo.org to pull their heads out of their posteriors on stuff like this. I can't help but wonder, if they knew it was a problem why the heck they didn't disable it in the first place. I understand it's hard to fix, but for Pete's sake, disable it.

Re:It's a mess :( (2)

micheas (231635) | more than 3 years ago | (#36675436)

And how many court filings have been missed because Microsoft Word ate the pleading?

And how many times has Microsoft been sued for it?

Software that makes sure to not lose your work like lyx is very rare.

Re:It's a mess :( (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#36675620)

What bug? Can you link to the bug report? I'm curious how I managed to avoid that.

" they can't tolerate these bugs because they get sued class action style."
HAHAHAHAHahhahahah.. oh man, you crack me up. I have seen years of data go buy buy forever because of MS bugs in their office suite.

Re:Why not openoffice? (1)

sunderland56 (621843) | more than 3 years ago | (#36675064)

If OpenOffice paid them $250,000, I'm sure they would be glad to use that instead.

Heck, even the biggest Linux advocate would be silly to turn down that much cash.

Re:Why not openoffice? (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#36675328)

The 250k is not a payment, it's a discount. They'll still have to pay, just less.

Re:Why not openoffice? (1)

Dcnjoe60 (682885) | more than 3 years ago | (#36675754)

The 250k is not a payment, it's a discount. They'll still have to pay, just less.

Why when Microsoft does this with a university it is a discount, but when they do it in a foreign country it is called a bribe?

Re:Why not openoffice? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36675492)

Because openoffice doesn't do what they need. They currently use Notes for email and somewhat for collaboration although anyone who's actually used Notes knows it actually does many other things worse than it does email. They also have Office installed on employee and student lab computers, they are replacing that as well from the sounds of things.

I worked at the University when they made the move to Notes and was involved in the conversion / activation. It was absolutely horrifying, but honestly it was better than what was in place before, which was a hodge-podge of department specific servers and technologies. Several people actually ran their own mail servers or a student set something up for them, addresses were all over the map, and trouble shooting someone's issues was nightmarish. Yeah it was cool that I could get my email at my actual machine, but not so cool to manage.

Sounds like a good deal for the university. Cut your recurring costs in half, get 250K up front. Pair it with the fact they don't have to manage any hardware on site, and I'm sure it makes good financial sense. Now, not so cool for anyone who's job isn't necessary anymore, because some of that money saved is probably expected to come out of payroll.

I also think the 'cloud' concept works well for a university. Probably better than it does for a lot of businesses. Students are hopping from machine to machine more than your average person, having everything right there for you will be better than transporting it on an USB stick, using a third party cloud service or back in my day a floppy disk... Which don't handle the abuse of an average student well... (Worked at the helpdesk as a student-worker and had to tell uncountable students their file was unrecoverable, and maybe next time don't leave it on your dashboard when it's 100 degrees outside.)

Re:Why not openoffice? (1)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 3 years ago | (#36675552)

Yes, the primary reason is they have to communicate with people other than OO.org zealots and actually want it to all work.

Sure OO can open a word doc ... sorta, and it can output a word doc ... sorta ... but for people who actually care about getting things done, the cost of Office is trivial in comparison to the headaches that go with using OO.org when you actually don't live in a bubble.

Re:Why not openoffice? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 3 years ago | (#36675660)

Yes, the primary reason is they have to communicate with people other than OO.org zealots and actually want it to all work.

Sure OO can open a word doc ... sorta, and it can output a word doc ... sorta ...

I love how people who haven't used recent versions of the software they are complaining about are clearly infinitely qualified to assess the quality of the current version.

Gracious Outrage (4, Funny)

improfane (855034) | more than 3 years ago | (#36674484)

At first I was outraged that Microsoft "discounted" (read: bribed) the uiversity to switch but then I realised that the students are probably grateful because

  Lotus Notes is a horrible horrible piece of software. Microsoft might be evil but Lotus Notes is the scourge. I would happily endure a Windows only hell over a life of Lotus Notes.

IBM probably did this to the university to begin with, no system administrator would use Lotus Notes willingly.

Not very gracious (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36674560)

$250k is cheap like a whore, the vice chancellor probably gets paid more than that in a year. I wouldn't get out of bed for less than $2.5m, unless that bed had Lotus Notes in it.

Re:Gracious Outrage (2)

Ferzerp (83619) | more than 3 years ago | (#36674602)

You were initially outraged because the university managed to negotiate some free services with their purchase?

Oh the travesty!

Re:Gracious Outrage (1)

improfane (855034) | more than 3 years ago | (#36674794)

Its anticompetitive. Intel did it once too.

Customers are supposed to buy products. They're not supposed to be paid not to use competing products.

If it was a discount then it's not the same thing. The summary sounds like the incentive was 250k of cash plus the product. That's not a discount. That's a bribe or anticompetitive behaviour.

Re:Gracious Outrage (1)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | more than 3 years ago | (#36674858)

The summary is a lie, and even if it wasn't there's nothing wrong with a cash incentive anyway unless you can prove they are dumping.

Re:Gracious Outrage (2)

Ferzerp (83619) | more than 3 years ago | (#36675170)

RTFA. The summary is an outright fabrication. (of course, so is the title of the article in question).

Re:Gracious Outrage (2)

idontgno (624372) | more than 3 years ago | (#36675530)

If I discount your purchase of my product because of competitive pricing by a market adversary, is that unethical? Because last time I looked, that's called "competitive pricing".... kinda like negotiating a better price at $BIGBOX_ELECTRONICS_STORE because you saw a deal at $ONLINE_ELECTRONICS_RETAILER. Which, btw, you can do, successfully, sometimes.

It was a discount. TFS is wrong, almost to the point of libel.

That said, since Microsoft took a quarter-million dollar hit in the "Expected Sales" column, and NU got to walk away from (ick) Lotus Notes... there are no losers. Except Lotus, but they can't fix that no matter what they do, short of complete self-destruction.

Re:Gracious Outrage (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#36675672)

"The summary sounds..."

Really? really? you are going by the summary? what, are you new here? the summaries of ALL articles are bad and inaccurate, the summaries on slashdot are often wrong and something nonsensical in the context of that they link to.

Half the times the stories they link to our sensational PoS in and of themselves.

I don't know about this story, but basing a post on slashdot fro a summary is often folly.

Re:Gracious Outrage (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36674984)

I'd rather pay for Free software than get non-Free software for free.

Re:Gracious Outrage (1)

TemperedAlchemist (2045966) | more than 3 years ago | (#36674766)

Well, it's out in the open, so I don't know if you could consider it quite a bribe. I say plaudits to Microsoft for not keeping it all in secret like everyone else does.

Re:Gracious Outrage (1)

cvtan (752695) | more than 3 years ago | (#36674802)

Agree Lotus Notes is horrible. We had to use it at Kodak. Never got used to it. Everything is a database. Really? Better than IBM PROFS though.

Re:Gracious Outrage (1)

Richard Steiner (1585) | more than 3 years ago | (#36675670)

I used PROFS/VM (and OV/VM) for a decade, and I've used Notes for almost seven years.

I preferred PROFS by a mile. It had space issues, sure, but at least it would send e-mail reliably and tell you when new messages were in your mailbox in a timely manner. Notes here is terrible ... there is sometimes a 10-15 minute delay between an internal mail being sent and being received, the "new mail" indicator triggers but I have to manually refresh to see the actual messages, etc.

Worst e-mail client I've ever used. I even liked the old "NITS" MAPPER interface to SperryLink better...

Re:Gracious Outrage (1)

mr_null (16516) | more than 3 years ago | (#36674918)

The only real surprise here is that UNL is ditching Notes; that it's moving to a Microsoft product is a given at this point. (If you know the University's relationship with MS)

So long as I can setup imap/pop to pull mail to another client, I really don't care what they transition to so long as I never have to open Notes ever again.

Re:Gracious Outrage (1)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 3 years ago | (#36675262)

You can, but exchange likes to mangle messages, for instance if you receive a plain text email exchange will create a very poor html copy of it too... This breaks things like encryption and signed mails.

Re:Gracious Outrage (1)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 3 years ago | (#36675580)

It's worth paying money to get rid of Lotus Notes. Getting money back for getting rid of Lotus Notes? That's like some kind of dream.

Re:Gracious Outrage (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 3 years ago | (#36675756)

Who gives a small rat's ass how grateful the students might be? The students are in college for no other purpose than to learn how to solve problems. So - dump all the worst problems that all the buggy fucking software in the world can create, sit back, and see how the students solve the problems.

Being spoonfed a "solution" that one particular corporation finds to be profitable is NOT an education.

It went a little something like this (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36674488)

University of Nebraska: "I don't care what the benefits are. You'd have to pay me to use Microsoft's Office 365."
Microsoft: [Takes out a checkbook.] "How much are we talking about?"

Or Perhaps ... (1)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 3 years ago | (#36674848)

which they say offers newer technology, greater flexibility, and operational savings.

Microsoft: "It offers newer technology, greater flexibility, and operational savings."
University of Nebraska: "No it doesn't! It costs $249,999.99 more than Lotus Notes."
Microsoft: *slides check across the table* "There you go."

Be aware, no VBA macros in Office 365 (2)

GPS Pilot (3683) | more than 3 years ago | (#36675092)

M$ is trying to get away with marketing unscriptable office apps once again (Office 365 doesn't support VBA macros).

What happened the last time they did this? Office 2008 for Mac dropped support for VBA macros. Customers complained mightily, and now it's back in Office 2011 for Mac.

There's only so much one can do with unscriptable office apps. M$'s new "ribbon interface" is hardly a breakthrough. Things only get interesting when users have access to automation and an easy-to-use programming language like VBA.

Re:Be aware, no VBA macros in Office 365 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36675206)

There are other languages and bindings besides VBA. They are getting rid of VBA because it blows donkeys for quarters. Any modern language (on the windows platform) has an ActiveX binding somewhere to get the job done. I'm sure (though not an expert) that there's a way to access that on Mac.

Re:Be aware, no VBA macros in Office 365 (1)

GPS Pilot (3683) | more than 3 years ago | (#36675656)

Duh... of course average users can, and will, easily use the ActiveX bindings of non-VBA languages to create cross-platform ways to automate repetitive tasks in their M$ Office apps. That's exactly what I had in mind. Thanks for setting me straight, AC.

Re:Be aware, no VBA macros in Office 365 (1)

Bigbutt (65939) | more than 3 years ago | (#36675636)

Microsoftie Bob: Hmmm, how can we get folks to migrate off of the next version of Office quicker?
Microsoftie Bill: I know! We'll disable VBA Macros. Folks will complain and we'll have more time to work on the code.
Microsoftie Bob: Yea, it worked for Vista!

[John]

Office 365 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36674490)

The software practically sells itself!

Steve Ballmer.. (1)

kvvbassboy (2010962) | more than 3 years ago | (#36674492)

needs to go. What's with all this anti-competitive bullshit coming from Microsoft. They actually used to be a very good technology company until a couple of years back.

Re:Steve Ballmer.. (5, Insightful)

Elbereth (58257) | more than 3 years ago | (#36674562)

Ballmer offers incentives. Gates dictated. I'll take Ballmer over Gates any day, because you can at least turn down Ballmer's incentives. If you stood up to Gates, you were destroyed.

I would contrast Sculley and Jobs in a similar manner, though not nearly so strong.

Re:Steve Ballmer.. (1)

boristdog (133725) | more than 3 years ago | (#36674902)

Yeah, just like that stupid anti-competitive Apple has been doing with steep student discounts on their products since 1984!

Microsoft is getting a clue and going after their future market, just like Apple has always done.

Lotus Notes (1)

ISoldat53 (977164) | more than 3 years ago | (#36674542)

Lotus Notes still exists?

Re:Lotus Notes (1)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 3 years ago | (#36674596)

Yeah, really. What is this, 1998? Is Limp Bizkit still the coolest band in the universe?

Re:Lotus Notes (2)

crypticedge (1335931) | more than 3 years ago | (#36674706)

Limp Bizket was never cool.

Re:Lotus Notes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36674888)

I wish I hadn't run out of mod points; I'd mod your post informative. ;)

Re:Lotus Notes (1)

J Renard (2348248) | more than 3 years ago | (#36675288)

Neither was Lotus Notes.

Re:Lotus Notes (2)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 3 years ago | (#36675422)

Wish someone would have told me back in 1998 :(

gosh, why would they be getting RID OF Notes... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36674548)

...possibly because it so unbelievably bloated? or because they glued Lotus Symphony into it and made it even more bloated? I can't think of any other specific reasons because there are so many... ...

Did I mention that Lotus Notes is a bloated, fat, resource hog already? :D

just switched to android for free, would have paid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36674576)

how things 'change', years after they 'should', into what? unlessgangstered?

Cheap (1)

sproketboy (608031) | more than 3 years ago | (#36674586)

250k? That's all? It will probably cost the university 3 times that in support and upgrade costs. They probably should have run this by their math department....

Re:Cheap (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 3 years ago | (#36674652)

You should have probably run the article by your reading comprehension department too.

Re:Cheap (0)

sproketboy (608031) | more than 3 years ago | (#36674954)

You should make the world a better place and go fuck yourself.

Re:Cheap (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#36675690)

No, I'm pretty sure it would be a better place if people tried to actually understand what they are commenting on instead of just spouting off.

Lotus Notes is still around? (2)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#36674628)

I'm not being sarcastic there, I haven't seen anyone using that since the 90's. I kind of put it in my "assumed they phased it out years ago" file right next to Novell Groupwise (found out not long ago they still make that too).

Re:Lotus Notes is still around? (1)

methano (519830) | more than 3 years ago | (#36675216)

Duke Medical uses it.

For what it's worth.

Re:Lotus Notes is still around? (1)

LoudMusic (199347) | more than 3 years ago | (#36675322)

Lotus Domino (server) and Notes (client) are actually alive and well. This article is old, obviously, but you can see that Notes/Domino was slowly slipping until 2006 where it began to recover.

http://www.alanlepofsky.net/alepofsky/alanblog.nsf/dx/lotus-notesdomino-marketshare-is-growing [alanlepofsky.net]

These two pages show that the Notes/Domino combo is actually even closer to Exchange today than it was five years ago.

http://dominoorexchange.pbworks.com/w/page/18061910/FrontPage [pbworks.com]
http://dominoorexchange.pbworks.com/w/page/18061909/Fortune-Global-500-(2007) [pbworks.com]

I was a Domino admin for 9 years, from 1999 to 2008, versions 4.5 to 8.0 I believe, with a single server instance. I am now an Exchange admin and have been for about 3 years, versions 2003, 2007, and 2010.

The whole time I was a Domino admin I wanted to convert to Exchange. Now that I am an Exchange admin I wouldn't mind deploying Domino. They both have peculiar issues. Domino has really weird wording in their config documents, but Exchange/Outlook have a really hard time with virus/trojan/malware issues.

It's a toss up. I really don't think you can go wrong with either one, so long as you know what you're doing with the one you've chosen.

Re:Lotus Notes is still around? (1)

Yaddoshi (997885) | more than 3 years ago | (#36675470)

Eyes...twitching...

Does MS really see Google Apps as a threat? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36674642)

Has anyone in Redmond actually tried using GDocs? The built in functionality is on par with Office from a decade ago, and the portability of its files is on par with Works circa WFW 3.11.

GDocs made a big splash as the first free, cloud-based office suite, but it really is subpar in every conceivable fashion. Its portability with regard to spreadsheets is particular abhorrent. Export to Excel and you lose all linking between graphs/charts and the data which is supposed to be driving them.

GDocs might be fine for grade schoolers who don't need much out of an office suite, but it's a joke for post-secondary education and beyond -- especially for students/professionals in STEM. I'd say a combination of OOo and Dropbox should be a bigger threat than GDocs.

Re:Does MS really see Google Apps as a threat? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36674814)

Has anyone in Redmond actually tried using GDocs? The built in functionality is on par with Office from a decade ago, and the portability of its files is on par with Works circa WFW 3.11.

You can win the functionality battle now - but Google isn't just some random startup with an array of shitty Office-alike products. If they get their acts together and put out something that's on par with 365, that lost sale will be one Microsoft will never get back because there'll be no need for the customer to switch. I think it's a smart way to close the deal, and frankly $250,000 is peanuts to Microsoft anyway. (Although to be fair, if you're a CTO and you're basing your purchasing decision on what a company could theoretically do, you should be shitcanned anyway.)

That all said, as a UNL student I think I'll stick to the non-cloud version of Office to get my papers done.

Re:Does MS really see Google Apps as a threat? (1)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 3 years ago | (#36675358)

GDocs may be inferior, but it's cheaper, and has a large company with a big marketing budget behind it. That's what MS is afraid of, because their business model has always been all about offering cheaper inferior products, marketing them heavily and getting the users locked in.

Also, people were getting their work done with office a decade ago, and the things they need to do haven't really changed.

Problems with export to excel are likely due to microsoft's proprietary formats, do the same problems occur if you export to openoffice?

The collaborative features of GDocs are great too, and nothing from MS or OOo comes close to them.
On the other hand tho, there should be an open set of APIs so that users of desktop software can interact with gdocs users and vice-versa, desktop apps may be more powerful but web based apps are far more convenient. That way a company can move to google and choose between using the web based or native apps depending on requirements and budget.

Lock them in for cheap (1)

wile_e8 (958263) | more than 3 years ago | (#36674650)

$250,000 is nothing compared to future revenue once they are locked in to Microsoft products

It's just more proof that... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36674654)

...UNL sucks and is an embarrassment to the Big Ten Conference.

nt (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 3 years ago | (#36674694)

Wouldn't this count as a bribe?

Re:nt (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 3 years ago | (#36674974)

No, it's not since they weren't paying them to use it. It was a completely commonplace discount given to a big customer. Universities negotiate such discounts all the fucking time. The summary and article are FUD.

Article is a lie. (5, Insightful)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | more than 3 years ago | (#36674730)

Unless my alarm company is also "paying me $300" by installing my monitoring equipment for free and 3 months of free service so I will then pay them a monthly, 2 year contract guaranteed amount of $30.

The University is paying for the service, but getting free services and a discount. Article makes it sound like Microsoft is paying them to use Office 365, which is untrue.

Re:Article is a lie. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36674846)

I went to University of Nebraska at Omaha, and work next to campus, and do some R&D with them. UNO changed from Lotus Notes to Gmail for the students 2-3 years ago. Pretty much everybody wants to move away from Lotus Notes, which is still the faculty system. My guess is that they aren't actually paying for the service, this is to protect the Microsoft site license. If they move to Google Apps, at some point in the future, they might stop paying the huge site license fees. My guess is that is how the economics of this breaks down. I have no idea what the amount is, but I'm guessing that $250K is likely less than the 10% of the yearly amount. Small potatoes if it keeps them paying that site license just one more year. Every year after that is just gravy.

Simple. (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 3 years ago | (#36674810)

$250k to compensate the college for trying out a new technology. I get the feeling that the university didn't really want to go to Google Apps anyways but used to as a bargaining chip with Microsoft. Organizations have done this before all the time. I don't know Boeing, Air Bus seem like a better deal. Or You know Ford we like those Chevy's for our fleet trucks. An educated consumer can really give those evil corporations a ride. (They just make all their money off of the stupid consumers)

sales manager face palm.... (1)

bodland (522967) | more than 3 years ago | (#36674866)

kickbacks are supposed to be UNDER the table....damn computer illiterate millennials...

Re:sales manager face palm.... (1)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | more than 3 years ago | (#36674980)

Ahh, if only a kickback was what you appear to think it is. A kickback would be if the person making the decision was personally paid $250k.

This is actually a discount or incentive, and part of doing business.

Article miscategorizes the form of payment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36674924)

Microsoft did not write a check to the University for $250,000. Microsoft, like so many other companies do, probably offered $250,00 worth of credits to pay for consulting services from themselves or their Microsoft partners. This is a common practice, that both Google and IBM engage in. Even your local taxing authority offers tax rebates to bring in businesses.

Even MS marketing falls flat on its face now (0)

Ant P. (974313) | more than 3 years ago | (#36675046)

A product so bad, you couldn't even give it away for free to Lotus Notes victims!

Re:Even MS marketing falls flat on its face now (1)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | more than 3 years ago | (#36675114)

Odd, the school is paying $250k a year for it. Oh, never mind - you didn't read the article and are just trying to score cool points with other neckbeards. Carry on.

Did they actually pay? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36675184)

I know a common tactic used to talk about how much donors give is to point to really expensive software and say "they gave us 5000 licenses to a product that retails for $500! So they gave us $250,000!". I'm wondering if this is what Microsoft did, or if they agreed to actually donate 2500 hundred dollar bills to the school--the article didn't explain it at all.

The difference being, in my mind at least, that giving money sounds like a bribe, while giving software licenses in exchange for a contract just sounds like standard contract negotiation.

Which University of Nebraska? (1)

jojoba_oil (1071932) | more than 3 years ago | (#36675200)

University of Nebraska at Lincoln? University of Nebraska at Omaha? Or the whole University of Nebraska system? There're more than one University of Nebraska...

Re:Which University of Nebraska? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36675456)

The whole University of Nebraska system. Though the medical campus isn't using the "cloud" products because of HIPPA and wanting more control.

Indoctrinates maybe 250,000 users over 10 years (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36675260)

I always thought higher learning institutions should be payed to indoctrinate their users into using a particular vendors commercial product, which frustrated the shit out of me when my state government continually announced signing multi hundred million dollar contracts with Microsoft to install their operating systems and office applications throughout my state's high schools.
I always wondering what was running through the minds of the dipshits making these deals until one day I found out. Turns out my wife's, sister's, husband's sister was the main negotiator in the state government making these deals. I found this out while chatting to her at a restaurant after meeting her for the first time.
She was actually a very nice, intelligent lady, but it didn't take long to work out what the go was.
I could tell by the excitement in her eyes while she was describing the latest hundred million dollar deal (which I had previously ridiculed with my friends) how much pride and status she felt about it.
It all made sense. She would have felt about 100 million dollars more important announcing her Microsoft deal than what she would have announcing a move to use Linux and OpenOffice.
This also explained why my Dad used to miss out on tenders where he'd already implemented the solution by the time the tender was submitted. He wasn't charging enough! He would only charge tens of thousands of dollars while the winners would charge millions of dollars for something they'd deliver 12 months down the track (or usually never at all). There's no status in doing a deal in the tens of thousands!
Moral of the story...charge like a wounded bull if you're dealing with the government.

After which... (1)

broginator (1955750) | more than 3 years ago | (#36675314)

...Google countered with a bid of $271,828.18

Paid for by Android (1)

Kamiza Ikioi (893310) | more than 3 years ago | (#36675386)

They have money to burn [slashdot.org] now. Still, if I was them, I'd put the money into a campus party, then use Google Apps anyways, which is free for universities.

Adobe vs Quark (3, Informative)

LoudMusic (199347) | more than 3 years ago | (#36675532)

This sort of thing happens in education. Software producers know they need to plan for future users so they give it to the kids who they hope will buy it. Some coworkers of mine at an advertising agency said their professor called Quark (makers of QuarkXpress) asking for educational discounts for 30+ licenses and were told there was no discount. At the time the license cost was something like $1200 per seat. So they called Adobe and asked for educational discounts on InDesign, new at the time, and Adobe just gave them everything they wanted at no cost.

Worked in their favor too. When those kids hit the working world they only knew InDesign and their employers were forced to switch. We did. And never looked back.

"Then Adobe hit the market in 1999 with a program called InDesign (now used by Inc.). In 2003, Adobe launched its Creative Suite, which rolled in products such as Photoshop and Illustrator with InDesign. Quark couldn't come close. Its U.S. market share tumbled from 95 percent to just 25 percent ."

http://www.inc.com/magazine/20100401/can-quark-turn-the-corner.html [inc.com]

If you want to sell your product give it to the educators.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?