This post falls into the “my two cents worth” category.
As most know, starting with the 2007 version of SharePoint,
the product is available in three editions. In the 2010 version of SharePoint,
those three are SharePoint Foundation, Server Standard, and Server
Enterprise. Microsoft publishes a good
comparison of what you get in each edition here
for SharePoint 2010.
I think most people know that the Foundation edition of
SharePoint does not require any additional license purchase other than Windows
Server licenses and Windows Server CALs.
People often talk about the Foundation Edition being “free.” We could debate whether or not this is really
true given that Windows Server licenses are still required, but that debate is
not for this post.
The Server Standard edition is not free. It requires one server license for each
server in the SharePoint farm. It also
requires SharePoint users to have a Server Standard Client Access License (CAL). Both of these licenses are sold through
Microsoft Volume Licensing and its volume licensing partners.
The Server Enterprise edition requires one server license
for each server in the SharePoint farm, and this server license is the same
license that is required for a Server Standard farm. There is no distinction between server
licenses for a Standard farm vs. an Enterprise farm. There is a distinction between the two
editions for the user CAL. To use the Enterprise edition your users need
BOTH a Server Standard CAL and a Server Enterprise CAL.
So, let’s look at a licensing\pricing example using pricing
from the Microsoft volume licensing partner, CDW.
(Note: Licensing details and pricing for SharePoint 2013
have not been published yet by Microsoft.
So, for this post, I am going to use current SharePoint 2010 license
pricing and assume that the pricing for the 2013 version will be similar.)
Pricing for volume licenses for SharePoint 2010 depends on
the volume level that will be purchased.
In this example, I am going to assume that the volume is relatively low
and select licenses from CDW at what is referred to as the “Microsoft Open
Business” licensing level.
Here are those prices from CDW’s site (as of June 28, 2012):
License Name
|
CDW SKU
|
CDW Price Per License
|
Microsoft SharePoint Server 2010 Server license
|
CDW #: 2076079
|
$ 4,646.99
|
Microsoft SharePoint Server 2010 Standard CAL
|
CDW #: 2076078
|
$ 93.99
|
Microsoft SharePoint Server 2010 Enterprise CAL
|
CDW #: 2067864
|
$ 82.99
|
So, let’s say your company has 300 users and plans on a SharePoint
2010 farm architecture of 2 web front-end (WFE) servers. Here is what your licensing costs would be
for Server Standard vs. Server Enterprise:
SharePoint Server 2010 Standard for 300 users and 2 WFE’s:
$ 37,491 = ((2 * $4646.99) + (300 * $93.99))
SharePoint Server 2010 Enterprise for 300 users and 2 WFE’s:
$ 62,388 = ((2 * $4646.99) + (300 * $93.99) + (300 * $82.99))
So, what is it about the upcoming SharePoint 2013 licensing
that I think would really help SharePoint customers?
A lot of SharePoint
procurement decisions would be much easier if Microsoft also included InfoPath
Forms Services in Server Standard instead of only in Server Enterprise.
I can’t tell you how many consulting clients and students
I have talked with over the past three years who have said that the only
feature they use regularly in Server Enterprise is InfoPath Forms Services, and
they feel it’s unfair to have to pay the
premium price to get this one feature.
Don’t get me wrong. There are some great features in addition to
InfoPath Forms Services in Enterprise that provide value to a lot of companies. But, the need for InfoPath Forms Services is
very widespread as opposed to the need for Access Services, for instance.Also, I can’t tell you how many others have made the decision to just forgo solving business problems that require electronic forms, just because they can’t see paying $82.99 per user (an addition to $ 24,897 or 40% of the total licensing cost) for the Server Enterprise CAL just to be able to use InfoPath Forms Services.
Here’s an idea: Maybe Microsoft could move InfoPath Forms Services from Enterprise to
Standard and then just increase the cost of the Standard CAL to cover the added
value.
Anybody out there feel the same about this as my consulting
clients, students and me? Anybody happy
with the way it is and would like for it to stay that way?
10 comments:
Before, of course, there used to be the alternative of adding Forms Server (in addition to the unreal option of buying copies of InfoPath for all users). Microsoft then removed that product leaving the present mess.
While I think your idea is worth considering, I think the easier and better way would be to offer Forms Services as a chargeable add-in to the Standard edition.
The difference to your suggestion is that only users who actually want Forms Services would have to pay for it.
Why should everyone pay for Standard to include it?
Offering Forms Services as an add-on for an extra fee to the Standard edition (as you pointed out - like it used to be) works fine with me as well.
The only reason I suggested that it be included in the Standard edition price is that my experience is that there are very few companies in the marketplace that don’t want or need Forms Services. At least I haven’t run across many in the last nine years that I have been teaching and consulting on SharePoint.
For the mentioned calculations, what are the figures of $ 37,491 and $ 62,388 for ?
For the mentioned cost calculation, what are the figures of $37,491 and $62,388 for?
Why are they used in the calculations ?
Looks like it is simply the total. the minus sign through me off as well. Should have been an equals sign since the stuff on the right is just an example of how the total was calculated.
Thanks for the editing note. We made the change to make the formulas clearer.
Hello,
Thank you for the informative details.
Do you know if SharePoint for Internet Sites will be unlicensed?
Thank you,
Alkis
I wonder how much Sharepoint cost if we use it to provide outside customerts with Excel services reports over the web?
I can't use CALs.
I appreciate your perspective. I would hope that Microsoft did exhaustive analysis about the solution packages of SharePoint (foundation, standard, enterprise) and found more of a profit potential with the current buckets. Technically, I agree with you. One of my previous clients, a state medicaid system, was able to negiotiate with Microsoft to get enterprise CALs for all users at the standard CAL price, and "promise" to only allow the 100 or so to actually use enterprise functionality on a certain site.
There has always seemed to be more flexibility in pricing for US regional offices than those given (or assumed?) to MS offices outside the US.
This example "promise to allow the 100 or so to actually use Enterprise functionality" is typical of this and is something that for instance the UK office of Microsoft do not allow because they use the letter of the MS licence agreement and lso the letter of the instructions on licensing which MS give out to them.
I find it appaling but then I like and follow clear rules.
Post a Comment