The next wave of software licensing
- 11 October, 2006 08:41
SAN FRANCISCO: Users are fed up with the way vendors sell them software. How upset are they? A recent survey by software management provider, Macrovision, found that only 28 per cent of enterprises were satisfied with their vendor's pricing and licensing strategy.
That means the door is open to a number of alternative, emerging models, notably subscription and per-use schemes. Meanwhile, changes in where and how software runs - including softwareas- a-service (SaaS), virtualisation, and multicore processors - are accelerating the rate of change. Take SaaS, for example. It typically has a per-seat, per-month scheme that averts the up-front costs incurred by conventional licensing. That low cost of entry - reduced even further by the lack of hardware and installation costs - is clearly a key reason why, according to a recent Aberdeen Group study, more than half of companies surveyed were either using SaaS or actively exploring its use.
Other areas, such as virtualisation, have yet to arrive at a consistent licensing model. The main purpose of virtualisation is to run multiple sessions - and/or multiple operating systems - on one machine to vastly increase server utilisation. But most of that advantage could be blown if traditional per-machine or per-processor licensing were applied, which is why both vendors and users are struggling to find a sensible answer.
Adding to the complexity is that big customers are enjoying the fruits of new licensing models favourable to them before anyone else. Many vendors are dragging their feet in introducing such schemes to the wider world for fear of disrupting predictable licensing revenue streams, which themselves have been shaken by a tough enterprise software market.
But change they must if they want to retain their increasingly cranky customers.
Enterprises are under the gun to improve productivity as IT budgets shrink, and that means they need to cut costs or squeeze more out of their IT dollars. These emerging models, even with some details still to be worked out, offer an opportunity to do just that. The Macrovision study gave a clear idea of the way users' licensing choices are going. About 7 per cent fewer enterprises than the previous year said the expensive perpetual license was their preferred choice, whereas the same number opted for getting more of their software through monthly, yearly, or term subscriptions.
It also showed that vendors are listening. Some 40 per cent of those surveyed said they were offering subscription models in 2005, up from 33 per cent in 2004, and fully 60 per cent expect to be doing so in 2007.
A fast-growing international supplier of video game peripherals, Mad Catz, went the SaaS route when it needed to rollout a new helpdesk system. After analysing what that would have taken to do internally, it eventually decided to go with Servicenow. com, a three-year-old on-demand provider.
The Service-now.com hook-up was an education in other ways. "Licensing software this way brings out the difference when other organisations change their licenses, which they tend to do on a regular basis," Herrmann said. "We're going through that with Adobe now. It shows us there is a simpler way to license software, because this [subscription] model obviously works."
The desire to solve a business problem, as Mad Catz did, is the reason many companies are now using SaaS, Aberdeen's vice-president of enterprise research, Beth Enslow, said. Cost is generally a secondary consideration, she said, but most who use the on-demand services would find they did save once they calculated the fully loaded cost including license maintenance and other IT costs related to software and infrastructure upkeep. If a customer is diligent in tying down the details of the license from the start, then the price of the subscription should be the least concern.
Multicore processors will certainly be as disruptive to software licensing as SaaS, although it will probably take longer to have an effect.
Dual-core processors are standard for new servers after chipmakers Intel and AMD started selling them last year. Both companies expect to introduce quad-core processors soon, Intel later this year and AMD in early 2007. Market researcher, IDC, expects enterprise hardware infrastructure could be as much as 50 per cent dual-core by 2008.
Vendor concerns are that these new processors will cut into their revenue because they can do substantially more with the software they run than single-core processors. User concerns are the
opposite: that any new license schemes not based on per-processor pricing will turn out to be more expensive.
The first stabs at designing licenses for this multicore environment run the gamut from plain vanilla to bogglingly complex.
Companies such as BEA Systems and Microsoft, for example, have opted to keep pricing based on a single license per processor, at least for dual-core systems. A server with two processors each with two cores, for example, will still be charged only for two licenses.
Oracle has gone to a scheme based on what it calls a processor factor, which uses a multiplier based on the number of cores in a processor to determine how many licenses are needed. An eightcore processor has a factor of 0.25, which means it needs two software licenses per processor; a quad-core processor has a factor of 0.5; and so on. Oracle claims this will actually save users money because the previous per-processor licensing scheme resulted in a greater number of required licenses.
"Our customers have been looking for a way to do utility computing and for some kind of usagebased pricing," vice-president of IBM virtualization solutions, Rich Lechner, said. "For that we need to have granularity in our pricing methodology." That granularity comes through a complicated formula that attaches a number of PVUs to individual processors according to an evaluation of each new chip that IBM will apply as they are introduced. This evaluation will represent what IBM believes is the true processing power of each chip.
The lower the number of PVUs, the less customers will be charged for software that runs on that processor. Despite the apparent complexity of all of this, Lechner argues customers will eventually find it provides a measure of the true value they get in their software licenses along with a new level of cost predictability.
Program director of software licensing at IDC, Amy Konary, thinks IBM and other vendors are using these first runs at multicore licensing to also position themselves for virtualisation - and perhaps even to tie them together somehow. "Vendors want to avoid doing things with virtualisation that they will have to undo once multicore comes into play," Konary said, although how or even if that will happen will take time to work out.
And virtualisation will become an issue soon, as it moves out of the test and development phase and into production environments. Lechner said 54 per cent of IBM's customers have told it that they plan to start applying virtualisation this year. Forrester Research believes new licensing models based around virtualisation will be introduced by vendors - and will be accepted by large enterprises - by the end of 2008.
Vice-president of system management software at IDC, Tim Grieser, sees two approaches as the favourites for how virtualisation licensing will eventually be decided: either a base license price based on some average of virtual machine images a user decides to employ, or a tiered per-server hardware price that doesn't take virtualisation into account.
"Software vendors are telling us we will have to pay a license for every single virtual machine, but if I am still using the same [physical] machine as before, why should I do that?" Tang asked. "Vendors are trying to take a free ride with virtualisation, and they can't do that."
In the end, all virtualisation does is give you a cleaner interface and a standard, segmented way to do what people have done before. "That's why we pay for the virtualisation software," Tang said. "But I don't see why we should also pay more for other software."
Some software companies are trying to bridge the differences. Microsoft, for example, announced late last year a scheme that is based on licensing for virtual machines, but which it claims more closely matches the actual demand of its customers. It uses what Microsoft calls a running instance, where an instance refers to a virtual image, installation, and/or copy of the original software. Instead of users having to pay for a license for every stored instance of a software product, they can create and store an unlimited number of instances but only pay for those they use at any given time. "Our customers tell us that what they want [with licensing] is predictability and no surprises," senior product manager of worldwide licensing and pricing at Microsoft, Sunny Jensen Cherlebois, said.
"They also want an idea of how these emerging trends might affect their business. It's hard to find customers currently using virtualisation, frankly, but we felt we had to come out with this now." There should be areas for a reasonable compromise between what vendors and users are looking for, Community Connect's Tang said. He would pay more for the support and features that helped him get more out of his virtualized environment, for example, "But I can't see us paying for every virtual machine," Tang said.
"It will take a while to sort this out, maybe as long as a year or two, and I'm sure some people will end up paying for licenses that way," he said. "But they'll have to worry about somebody like me, who won't."