A master debater as always. -- Espi
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 10:21 PM, Ken Schaefer <[email protected]> wrote: > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Susan Bradley > Sent: Wednesday, 23 July 2014 3:11 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [NTSysADM] I'm sure you've heard already... > > > You have an RFP, a contract. I have a eula I click through. I still > say you have more negotiating power. > > None the less, we still have to ask the same question before buying. You > can't get anything after you sign a contract > > > We print tax returns with potential identity theft information as well > > as potential sensitive business documents. For my firm, Kinkos is not > > even an option and honestly wouldn't even be considered in the analysis. > > > > We have one wifi printer for clients, we don't do wifi enabled printers > in the lan, so the wifi standard hasn't really come up. > > I think you're missing the point - it's not about Kinkos or WiFi - that's > was just an "illustrative example". Surely you do not need me to give you > hundreds of examples until you find one that fits your personal > circumstances? Either you agree or disagree with the wider point. How about > having a discussion about that? If you think I'm talking rubbish, then just > say so, and why, and I will stop wasting my breath. > > > > > On 7/22/2014 10:01 PM, Ken Schaefer wrote: > > There's nothing you've written below that indicates that your space is > any different to mine. We have to ask questions up-front as well - we don't > get to change things once a contract's been signed either. > > > > How you want to buy a service is something you need to decide before you > even go look at a EULA is my point. When you decide you need to produce > some printed material, is the first thing you do "read a EULA"? Or is it > decide whether to have a printer internally vs. using the local > Kinkos/print house? I'd say that the latter question is far more important > than worrying whether a printer supports your WiFi security standard. > > > > Cheers > > Ken > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Susan Bradley > > Sent: Wednesday, 23 July 2014 2:48 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [NTSysADM] I'm sure you've heard already... > > > > In small business we click yes to a eula. We don't get the ability to > set the requirements as the software vendors don't give us options so we > must ask the questions from the get go because we don't get the right to > change anything. We either buy or don't buy the software. > > > > It's just a different space is all. > > > > > > On 7/22/2014 8:07 PM, Ken Schaefer wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: [email protected] > >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Susan Bradley > >> Sent: Wednesday, 23 July 2014 12:49 PM > >> To: [email protected] > >> Subject: Re: [NTSysADM] I'm sure you've heard already... > >> > >>> I just called up my cable company to reconfigure my ever increasing > cable bill and renegotiated the costs. > >>> So the idea that cloud services has a defined cost structure I would > debate on. > >> I didn't say you couldn't negotiate, or that they don't have different > service offerings. > >> > >> But you don't to work out what you're paying for their buildings, their > network, their labour, their taxes, their advertising, their monitoring and > so on, and so on. > >> > >> You pay $x/month, and you get a set of defined services (e.g. for a > >> telco it might be 500 minutes,500 text messages, voicemail and 5GB of > >> data - I don't really know what cable providers provide) > >> > >>> As the vendors themselves stop developing premises based software - > >>> (and this is the key movement I see in the SMB space) - because it's > >>> cheaper for them (less support for us pesky desktops with lord knows > >>> how many versions of OS), easier for them to build the infrastructure > where they want it, and better for them as they can plan on the revenue > subscription model. As Rod said, it's the app model taking over. > >> No, it's not the "app model" - it's "services". There is nothing > particularly special about most IT - it's just services. Has the whole IT > Service Management bandwagon passed this list by? > >> > >> Your company buys marketing services, legal services, property > >> management services, utility services (gas, electricity, water), > >> cleaning services, recruitment services and any other number of > >> "services" today. Most of IT, except a continually evolving core that > >> provides business differentiation, will also be bought as services. > >> [1] > >> > >> It could be provided internally by an internal service provider (just > >> like some companies have internal legal departments, and internal > >> marketing departments), or it could be provided by an external service > >> provider (outsourcer or cloud) > >> > >>> Ask the hard questions of the vendors ... Ask who has the encryption > >>> keys, etc etc > >> Who has the encryption keys is a details thing. First you need to know > what service you want and how much it's worth to you and how you want to > buy it - this is your service architecture. Implementation details are > something you can work out in your detailed requirements phase. > >> > >> Working out /how/ you want to buy a service is much harder question > than who has encryption keys. > >> > >> Cheers > >> Ken > >> > >> [1] the whole network/systems/security admin jobs are disappearing > theme that crops up here every so often is related to this, IMHO. Those > types of roles aren't particularly necessary for a lot of in-house > environments any more. Instead, they'll be provided as part of a service > (again, by an internal SP, or external SP). There may be a few environments > (e.g. we have some payments apps, that $1bn+/day pass through) which need > dedicated infrastructure BAU people. > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
