14 DAY TRIAL // Software giant Microsoft has often been criticized for selling its products at huge prices and there's no doubt that, for some, buying applications or devices built by the Redmond-based company is nearly impossible if they do not have hefty budgets specifically created for such acquisitions.
If you're wondering, Office Professional 2013, a productivity suite that's specifically aimed at small businesses, has a price tag of $400 (290 euro) and that's only for one computer. Sure, there's always the option of buying Office 365, which supports installation on multiple computers, but if you're looking for the traditional package that does not require an Internet connection, you'll have to spend $4,000 (2,900 euros) for 10 computers or $40,000 (29,000 euros) for 100 computers.
As far as hardware is concerned, let's take the Surface Pro 2 as an example. The device, which comes with 512 GB of storage space, a full HD 10.6-inch screen, and 8 GB of RAM, can be yours for $1,799 (1,310 euros). Even though it's clearly a very powerful device, just imagine that you're going to need nearly $200,000 (150,000 euros) to buy 100 such tablets for your employees.
As you can see, there is no doubt that Microsoft's products do not come cheap. But consumers and companies are still buying software and hardware designed by the Redmond-based tech giant not only because they have no option, but because they're effective and really help them get things done. And according to a UK government official, because they're actually more affordable than open source alternatives.
That might sound a little bit surprising at first, given the fact that open source software is available at absolutely no charge, but here's what UK government CIO Jon Creese said in a statement recently:
“We use Microsoft [for our desktops]. Each time we've looked at open source for desktop and costed it out, Microsoft has proved cheaper.
“Microsoft has been flexible and helpful in the way we apply their products to improve the operation of our frontline services, and this helps to de-risk ongoing cost. The point is that the true cost is in the total cost of ownership and exploitation, not just the licence cost. So I don't have a dogma about open source over Microsoft, but proprietary solutions – from Microsoft, SAP to Oracle and others – need to justify themselves and to work doubly hard to have flexible business models to help us further our aims.”
Up to one point, Creese is right. And let's take the two most obvious choices to see whether there's indeed some truth behind these words.
First of all, Windows. The new Windows 8.1 comes in various editions, but the most expensive is the Pro package that has a price tag of $199.99 (150 euros). Obviously, this is a fairly costly product, given the fact that you need to pay 200 bucks for a single license, which means that in case you have 100 computers in your organization, a $20,000 (15,000 euros) budget is mandatory to run Windows on all of them.
Second, Ubuntu. As you know, Ubuntu comes at no charge and can be installed on as many computers as you want without paying a dime for it. That's clearly the thing that attracts the most people, but there's still a catch. If you're planning to deploy Ubuntu on all 100 machines in your organization, you'll also need support, just in case something goes wrong and you don't have the necessary know-how to deal with it.
While the Linux community is clearly growing bigger and has the answer to almost every question, IT administrators do not have the necessary time to search the forums to find a way to repair an issue. There are two options: either hire a professional that knows how to do it, or purchase support from Canonical or other companies that offer such services. In both cases, some investments need to be made.
Pricing for Ubuntu support from Canonical or other third-party varies from a couple of dollars to one thousand, depending on the version you run and the number of computers in your organization. Still, the costs could be much bigger than what you'd pay for a Windows license that also comes with free support for Microsoft or, in case professional support is needed, at fairly low fees.
Then, there's the training that's absolutely necessary when making the switch from Windows to Linux. In some large companies, employees need to be assisted as they discover the new operating system, not to mention that, in some cases, performing a number of tasks that were common on Windows is a bit more difficult. This means that you have to invest not only money to make sure that your employees know how to use Linux, but also time. Again, time means money, and for some weeks productivity could drop.
Windows, on the other hand, is the operating system that everyone knows how to work with and no additional training is required. The same thing can be said about other apps running on Windows, which clearly leads to a fair advantage for Microsoft's products just because they're more commonly used and popular.
Sure, Windows became a victim of its own success, so additional security apps might also be needed to make sure that your data is perfectly fine, but even if you invest more capital in buying anti-virus solutions, you could still save some money.
Licensing prices aren't the only ones making a difference. Although Windows might seem to be the more expensive product at first, support and training is also an issue that needs to be dealt with, so post-acquisition investments could be quite a serious setback.
To be clear, I'm not saying that Windows is better than Linux, or vice versa, but before blasting the man for telling the world that Microsoft software is cheaper than open source, just spend a minute thinking about what he's saying. I've heard some Linux users claiming that he's paid by Microsoft for trashing Linux, but the man might have a point.
Editor's note: this is an opinion article and is by no means supposed to put one product or another in a good light. The story is based on the statements belonging to UK government CIO Jon Creese.