Microsoft's 2013 enterprise software getting price hike

Pricing on Microsoft’s enterprise products is set to increase with Office 2013. As of December 1 (i.e. tomorrow / today, depending on your time zone), Visio 2013, SharePoint 2013 and Lync 2013 client-access licenses are going up.

The idea behind the price increase is to convince businesses to move away from the older on-premise model to cloud-based products. While these products are going up in price, Office 365 subscriptions are going down.

Here’s where it gets a little bit wacky, folks. Rich Gibbons, Software Manager at European VAR Bechtle, claims that Lync Server 2013’s pricing could increase by – take a deep breath here – 400%. Time is of the essence; if you’d like to buy 2013 enterprise software, pay now and get a Software Assurance guarantee. Gibbons indicates it’ll save you the price hike.

Another suggestion that’ll save even more money is to weigh up whether you need the upgrade or not. For most businesses, 2010 should be doing just fine. If there’s a reason to upgrade you shouldn’t hesitate. Do it now.

Source: UCStrategies and ZDNet

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Microsoft details how to use WP8 Rooms on other smartphones

Next Story

Nokia reveals PhotoBeamer app for Lumia 920/820 devices

26 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

we'd never put visio of sharepoint in the "cloud" our data is too sensative to made possibly easier for someone to get outside the org, heck our workstations don't even connect to the internet, the sharepoint server is internal only on an intranet... why would we want to move to the cloud?..... hate this whole subscription cloud model that is taking over

neufuse said,
we'd never put visio of sharepoint in the "cloud" our data is too sensative to made possibly easier for someone to get outside the org, heck our workstations don't even connect to the internet, the sharepoint server is internal only on an intranet... why would we want to move to the cloud?..... hate this whole subscription cloud model that is taking over

I just got back from the SharePoint Conference a couple of weeks back. MS was preaching the whole cloud thing throughout the conference. I'm like you, I don't agree with cloud technology at this point and I admin out SharePoint Farm internally but we may be creating an extranet in a couple of years. However, businesses may adopt moving into the cloud in the future when it becomes more secure and businesses are looking for more redundancy and ease of administration, not to mention cost.

I am glad this happened as a lot of companies take on these products on-premise and fail to implement them properly resulting in more harm then good. Go cloud ppl

Except it goes from $700 to $3600 AND the CAL increase, according to that post. Enterprise doesn't gain anything in functionality except high availability.

Great reporting as always guys:

Update: Here's an important clarification. Lync MVP Matthew Landis blogged in November that, actually, there still will be Standard and Enterprise versions of Lync 2013, but that they will be available for the same price.

I've been testing Office 365 at work and from a support stand point, I hate it. There's minimal control on deployment customizations and even when the software is supposedly downloaded and installed, it still streams something every time you launch it and it takes awhile.

For at home, I personally hate subscription models, it's a huge waste of money. I'll have to move to open source if this gets too expensive.

Mainer82 said,
I've been testing Office 365 at work and from a support stand point, I hate it. There's minimal control on deployment customizations and even when the software is supposedly downloaded and installed, it still streams something every time you launch it and it takes awhile.

For at home, I personally hate subscription models, it's a huge waste of money. I'll have to move to open source if this gets too expensive.

I use the Enterprise1 Office 365 plan at home and run Lync, Exchange and SharePoint. I like it a lot; I use SharePoint to host my family photos and news. I don't understand your comment about deployment except that SharePoint 2013 hasn't been released for my region yet. Are you talking about the Office Pro plan?

wrack said,
As much as I hate to say this, this would drive piracy

A more affordable cloud solution where all the advancements are actually taking place would drive piracy?

Joshie said,

A more affordable cloud solution where all the advancements are actually taking place would drive piracy?

Considering that the CALs they're talking about are only a piece of paper that grants you authorization to use the software for that many users, yes. Piracy will most likely increase. Chances are the whole reason they're doing this is because nobody buys the proper amount of CALs to begin with... Especially since every version of their software after the XP/2003 generation does not even require you to input any sort of license code to increase the CALs on your server. They rely on a trust based system... You just buy the CALs and store them somewhere....

Chances are that most businesses don't even buy these as it stands since all it does is just add more confusion to the situation. Try to tell a business they need to buy a piece of paper they just store in a drawer somewhere... most business owners will just say "well then why not just forget about it?". Of course the answer to that question is "because it's illegal" but about 90% of businesses don't care.... Even when I worked at the IT department for a college they did not own nearly enough CALs for their AD server nor their Storage/Exchange system... Sure they bought some, but not nearly enough for the entire organization.

Joshie said,

A more affordable cloud solution where all the advancements are actually taking place would drive piracy?

It's not as affordable when when you pay more over time. Their initial pricing was not great. I haven't seen it recently, though. You always pay more for a subscription.

Yes, the future. Software you don't own a perpetual license for, instead subscribe. When you get tired of paying the subscription, you own no software. They would like that to be the future, and it might be.

Many institutions do not listen to their IT Departments and decision makers succumb to the succulent lunches and dinners, and golf trips, and will subscribe, and continue to cut IT budgets.

Whatever works. I prefer to own a perpetual license. I mean, how often do you really need to upgrade Office or any other productivity suite.

MorganX said,
Yes, the future. Software you don't own a perpetual license for, instead subscribe. When you get tired of paying the subscription, you own no software. They would like that to be the future, and it might be.

Many institutions do not listen to their IT Departments and decision makers succumb to the succulent lunches and dinners, and golf trips, and will subscribe, and continue to cut IT budgets.

Whatever works. I prefer to own a perpetual license. I mean, how often do you really need to upgrade Office or any other productivity suite.

Oh you know, just every 2 years

I like the subscription model. You get the new stuff whenever it's available, you don't have to buy a new license, you don't have to worry about moving between computers, losing serial numbers, or any of that business. You just sign in, download the software, and there you go.

siah1214 said,
Oh you know, just every 2 years

I like the subscription model. You get the new stuff whenever it's available, you don't have to buy a new license, you don't have to worry about moving between computers, losing serial numbers, or any of that business. You just sign in, download the software, and there you go.

Every two years? My last job still used XP and Office 2003 and no problems getting business done. You can also have those benefits a lot cheaper doing it other ways. Not to mention the serial number issue is irrelevant even without subscription.

farmeunit said,

Every two years? My last job still used XP and Office 2003 and no problems getting business done. You can also have those benefits a lot cheaper doing it other ways. Not to mention the serial number issue is irrelevant even without subscription.


So either your last job was 5 years ago or your IT department sucked. Horses and buggies worked fantastic too, why the hell should we switch to the horseless carriage?

Seriously, any IT department that allows their company to cling to 10 year old software should be replaced.

siah1214 said,

Seriously, any IT department that allows their company to cling to 10 year old software should be replaced.

Depends on the sector and the applications they rely on. There are POS systems somewhere running DOS I'm sure, lol.

Seriously, 10 years is a long time, but not if you're talking about the OS. If it works and is stable and runs your enterprise apps ... Google is not passive in this either. Their wooing of Google Apps with fake promises of riches and vaporous savings of millions of dollars in the enterprise without loss of functionality isn't a total failure.

MorganX said,

Depends on the sector and the applications they rely on. There are POS systems somewhere running DOS I'm sure, lol.

Seriously, 10 years is a long time, but not if you're talking about the OS. If it works and is stable and runs your enterprise apps ... Google is not passive in this either. Their wooing of Google Apps with fake promises of riches and vaporous savings of millions of dollars in the enterprise without loss of functionality isn't a total failure.


ATM machines use DOS, although there's plenty that run on Windows XP (mostly embedded or something) aswell. The infrastructure behind it tho is from the 70s if i recall correctly. At least here in holland, the system has been updated since, but not overhauled and the Original system is still practically there.
Or how about mainframes, some of which also go back 2 or more decades since the first time they're started up.

If it ain't broke don't fix it, pretty much works when you do one thing, and do it well, reliably, and securely. The functions of ATMs haven't changed in a long time, so why mess with them? Sometimes smaller footprint and fewer features are best. The most secure computing environment has no network and no keyboard, lol. Just sayin'. We've been conditioned to upgrade "just because" under all conditions. And that "just because" is usually because corporate America needs it's money to maintain its lifestyle and keep shareholders happy, not because you actually need it.

However I would consider mainframe upgrades simply because the cost of maintenance is highway robbery.

MorganX said,
Yes, the future. Software you don't own a perpetual license for, instead subscribe. When you get tired of paying the subscription, you own no software. They would like that to be the future, and it might be.

Many institutions do not listen to their IT Departments and decision makers succumb to the succulent lunches and dinners, and golf trips, and will subscribe, and continue to cut IT budgets.

Whatever works. I prefer to own a perpetual license. I mean, how often do you really need to upgrade Office or any other productivity suite.

I think what a lot of people here are missing is on premises licenses are a capitol expense whereas subscriptions are an operating expense. If you don't know how they impact the books, ask someone in your finance department about it.

Enterprise Agreements tend to be operating expenses depending on the sector you are in. The only real difference is that after 3 years of subscribing to Software Assurance, you own perpetual licenses and have the option of renewing or not.

Where Enterprise Agreements are treated as a capital expense, they are are actually more likely to be cut, in such cases, Microsoft would definitely prefer subscriptions, and least for the Office component which account for almost triple the cost of the Operating System licenses.

webdev511 said,

I think what a lot of people here are missing is on premises licenses are a capitol expense whereas subscriptions are an operating expense. If you don't know how they impact the books, ask someone in your finance department about it.

Shadowzz said,

ATM machines use DOS, although there's plenty that run on Windows XP (mostly embedded or something) aswell. The infrastructure behind it tho is from the 70s if i recall correctly. At least here in holland, the system has been updated since, but not overhauled and the Original system is still practically there.
Or how about mainframes, some of which also go back 2 or more decades since the first time they're started up.

There are ATMs running every OS under the Sun (and some under the moon as well) - I've seen DOS, multiple versions of Windows, OS/2 (which actually used to be the majority OS for ATMs as little as ten years ago), even Linux distributions and (egad) *UNIX* (specifically, Solaris) - and that is *just* in the Washington, DC metro area. There are multiple software subscription models for any which way your business wants - in fact, between Microsoft and their resellers on most of the planet, there are often more pricing models than there are types of enterprises. (More often than not, the only thing stopping a reseller from offering a particular price model is the reseller - not Microsoft.)

All I can see here is more of Microsoft shooting themselves in the foot.

Do they have ANYONE there who knows how to run a business anymore and give the BUYERS what they want?

Lucky I have no Microsoft shares, but it would appear these will shortly be in a race to the bottom with Facebook ones.

dvb2000 said,
All I can see here is more of Microsoft shooting themselves in the foot.

Do they have ANYONE there who knows how to run a business anymore and give the BUYERS what they want?

Lucky I have no Microsoft shares, but it would appear these will shortly be in a race to the bottom with Facebook ones.

Giving buyers what they want is poor practice, long term. I know it sounds counter-intuitive, but in tech, falling into the trap of delivering on customer demand is what allows smaller, more agile competitors to turn the market on its head. While many think that's a good thing, it's gradually warped into the idea that business SHOULD be a process of regularly dismantling the old businesses and replacing them with the new, with no room for established corporations to spearhead new paradigms (a behavior which would be considered abusive influence).

There are major hurdles to giving customers "what they want" due to conflicting requirements. People want major advances in flexibility and capacity while retaining the same level of usability (people hate retraining) and adhering to the same standards (people hate investing in new minimum requirements).

When 3.5" HDDs came out, there was enormous resistance. Storage capacity took a hit, and visions of portability in an era of mini-computers weren't at all compelling. Why pay more for less space when the form factor had no realizable benefits yet? This was not what the customers "wanted".

Existing customers "want" iteration. Evolution rather than revolution. Existing customers are the bane of innovation, because they fear it and the costs that come with it.

One of the VERY few ways for a company to push revolution over evolution is by taking the fear (cost) and turning it upside-down: make the new cheaper than the old. That's what Microsoft has done, and it may or may not work.

Truth is, the cloud Office experience offers enormous benefit over the old paradigm. Who's to say what the real value of these benefits are? Businesses have been willing to abandon a metric sh!tton of benefits to jump from Exchange to Gmail (a move that baffles me to this day). The question comes down to whether they were genuinely opting for simplicity and affordability, or whether they snagged an aggressively anti-Microsoft/pro-Google executive (good lord do they exist).

Joshie said,

Giving buyers what they want is poor practice, long term. I know it sounds counter-intuitive, but in tech, falling into the trap of delivering on customer demand is what allows smaller, more agile competitors to turn the market on its head. While many think that's a good thing, it's gradually warped into the idea that business SHOULD be a process of regularly dismantling the old businesses and replacing them with the new, with no room for established corporations to spearhead new paradigms (a behavior which would be considered abusive influence).

There are major hurdles to giving customers "what they want" due to conflicting requirements. People want major advances in flexibility and capacity while retaining the same level of usability (people hate retraining) and adhering to the same standards (people hate investing in new minimum requirements).

When 3.5" HDDs came out, there was enormous resistance. Storage capacity took a hit, and visions of portability in an era of mini-computers weren't at all compelling. Why pay more for less space when the form factor had no realizable benefits yet? This was not what the customers "wanted".

Existing customers "want" iteration. Evolution rather than revolution. Existing customers are the bane of innovation, because they fear it and the costs that come with it.

One of the VERY few ways for a company to push revolution over evolution is by taking the fear (cost) and turning it upside-down: make the new cheaper than the old. That's what Microsoft has done, and it may or may not work.

Truth is, the cloud Office experience offers enormous benefit over the old paradigm. Who's to say what the real value of these benefits are? Businesses have been willing to abandon a metric sh!tton of benefits to jump from Exchange to Gmail (a move that baffles me to this day). The question comes down to whether they were genuinely opting for simplicity and affordability, or whether they snagged an aggressively anti-Microsoft/pro-Google executive (good lord do they exist).


Good post. My only reservation is that some things just are not "better in the cloud", and honestly, some things that make sense in the cloud for one business don't for another... For this reason, the current push to move every blessed thing to the cloud concerns and irks me. Companies that can't (or simply don't want to) shouldn't be forced under financial durress to move to the cloud.

That is my only issue here.