And what criminal statute did they violate exactly, Mr. Deckler, Esq.? Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Greg Deckler Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 2:11 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: somewhat OT I think that the big piece that is being missed in all of this is Microsoft's licensing of Exchange for hosting companies versus businesses. What Microsoft did with its licensing is nothing short of criminal in my opinion. What Microsoft did was allow hosting providers to only may very minimal fees for POP/IMAP/HTTP mailbox licenses. They have never offered such a deal to businesses, for a business whether you access an Exchange mailbox via POP, IMAP, HTTP or MAPI (CDO) you have to pay full price for you Exchange CAL. Someone show me where this is just not a blatant rip-off. Microsoft was forced to do this because of the high level of competition in the hosted email environment from POP/IMAP/HTTP email software products. And this theorectically offered some significant advantages to outsourced Exchange because if the company only need full-featured Exchange mailboxes for a sub-set of their employees, they could save significant licensing dollars by having it hosted and only paying POP/IMAP/HTTP license dollars for mailboxes that did not require the full features of Exchange, but all of those mailboxes would exist on a single Exchange system. If they tried to do this in-house, they would have to pay full Exchange CAL's for all of their mailboxes, regardless of the method of access. Again, my opinion of this is that it is nothing short of criminal action on the part of Microsoft to gouge corporations. > There really is some attractive licensing for ASPs in E2K. It's not > perfect yet, but with a couple of moderate changes on Microsoft's part > an aggressive ASP could likely provide Exchange very competitively to > businesses of a variety of sizes. > > That being said, the track record for ASPs in general hasn't been all > that great as of late, but in many cases I'd attribute that to the > business model of the individual ASP rather than the ASP business > model as a whole. From the perspective of a potential customer, my > distinction may be irrelevant, but it's still true. > > There are some companies which can and do run Exchange quite > efficiently and reliably in house. Course, I suspect there might be > others where this isn't the case and ASPs can have greater resonance > on a number of levels beside price. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 6:29 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > > I'd disagree with your second comment - but I'm also not really > > going to argue the point, considering where you work. The fact > > remains that just about every player in that space has gone out of > > business. Whether because the product wasn't ready, the market > > wasn't ready, or the business model didn't fit is irrelevant. I'm > > still not convinced that the hosted model for core applications > > makes sense. > > > > All this is after seeing proposals from some big ASPs for Siebel and > > PeopleSoft as well. Hands down, we could do it cheaper and better > > inhouse > > - > > in both a 500 person and 4000 person company. Which takes me back to my > > original point - core applications for medium to large enterprises aren't > > appropriate for outsourcing, but small companies are ripe for the taking > > in > > that space. The problem is that no one wants to deal with smaller > > companies > > because of the overhead in managing a larger number of smaller volume > > clients. > > > > However, there are a number of areas in which highly specialized > > knowledge is required to perform a specific function, and that > > knowledge is too expensive and too rare for most companies to hire. > > Those are the functions for which outsourcing makes sense. For > > instance, HIPAA[1] compliance in information systems. There are a > > relatively small number of people who understand the laws, and > > understand the technical requirements of those laws. Most of them > > are able to charge in the 5-6 figure range, PER WEEK, for consulting > > at this point. And there is a hard deadline for compliance. But I > > digress. In the end, it comes back to what is core IT functionality and > > what > > isn't. I've always contended that email is core functionality. File, > > Print, > > AV, Backup and Email. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE > > Sr. Systems Administrator > > Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity > > Atlanta, GA > > > > [1] A US law that institutes stringent requirements on the > > management of medical and insurance records. > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 4:44 PM > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > Subject: RE: somewhat OT > > > > > > > > > True. But many companies just think that they can install it [on a > > > workstation-class PC] and let it hum in the corner. Some of them > > > don't even suspect that there is Exchange-aware backup. > > > > > > Also with Exchange 2000, Microsoft made hosting licensing more > > > attractive than regular licensing. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 2:15 PM > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > Subject: RE: somewhat OT > > > > > > > > > Simple. Its not cost effective to outsourse at the levels they > > > target. They missed the boat from day one. > > > > > > There is a relative break even point for having your own "IT" > > > staff, generally in the 25-75 user range, depending on what your > > > company actually does. More than 100 or so, and you really need > > > someone. Once you've got > > > someone inhouse, they tend to have to be a jack-of-all-trades > > > type, and do a > > > lot of fumbling through. But the job gets done. > > > > > > Traditionally, an NT box with Exchange 5.5 Standard wasn't really > > > that expensive - you could probably do that for <$10k. Win2k with > > > E2k has raised the prices a bit, but not exhorbinantly such. With > > > leasing options, that > > > server could be a few hundred a month. > > > > > > Like any service provider, the good fruit is in the middle of the > > > tree, not the low hanging stuff. SO they tended to target 500 > > > person plus orgs. This > > > 600-ish person company has 8 sysadmins - we have enough time to manage > > > Exchange. Without it, maybe we'd have one less headcount, but > > > I'd bet that > > > the headcount loss isn't drastically different than the cost > > > of 600 users' > > > outsourced mail needs. > > > > > > Now, the other side of this equation is that email is a core > > > business need for most companies, and isn't that hard to at least > > > get running[1]. More > > > specialized things, like e-commerce and line of business apps > > > make more > > > sense in a managed environment. Email never did. > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > > Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE > > > Sr. Systems Administrator > > > Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity > > > Atlanta, GA > > > > > > [1] Running well is a different question, but running and running > > > well aren't the issue here. > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 12:25 PM > > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > > Subject: Re: somewhat OT > > > > > > > > > > > > You've hit the major players. The entire email hosting business > > > > has pretty much flopped and consolidated. Critical Path handed > > > > over its hosted corporate messaging services to HP. United > > > > Messaging was acquired by Agilera. Commtouch sold its hosted > > > > Exchange business to > > > TeleComputing. > > > > > > > > USA.NET and Mi8 are still hanging in there, for now. But this > > > > entire market space has just been decimated of late. I still > > > > think that the business case is there for outsourced messaging, > > > > but apparently not enough people have the same attitude that I > > > > do. > > > > > > > > Anyone else care to comment on why they think that this market > > > > space has flopped? One would think that in a time of economic > > > > hardship, companies > > > > would really be looking to outsource anything and everything > > > > they can in > > > > order to lower costs. If outsourced corporate messaging can't > > > > make it in > > > > today's economy, I have serious doubts that it will ever make > > > > it. But the > > > > question is why? Outsourced messaging holds the promise of > > > > lower costs, > > > > flexibility and the ability to focus on one's core business. > > > > In addition, > > > > many of the outsourced providers can put together systems > > > > that have a mix > > > > of high-end and low-end mailbox services that are all tied > > > > together as a > > > > single system. This means that companies can have Exchange > > > > mailboxes for > > > > those that need it and low-cost IMAP/POP mailboxes for > > > > everyone else and > > > > the outsourcer ties it all together to look like a single > > > > email system. So > > > > why did this market fail? > > > > > > > > > Who all is left in the Hosted E2K (asp-model) game?=20 > > > > > > > > > > USA.NET? > > > > > MI8?=20 > > > > > Critical Path? > > > > > > > > > > others?=20 > > > > > > > > > > j > > > > > Regards,=20 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > John Henley > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > > > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > > > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _________________________________________________________________ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _________________________________________________________________ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
