What about added setup and deployment costs? Added support costs?

Anonymous in the comments says “What about added setup and deployment costs? Added support costs?

http://titlerequired.com/2012/07/11/on-premises-exchange-integration-windows-server-essentials/

Take that post.  See how with condensing that down to little snippits of scripts that you can reuse over and over again that you can minimize the setup and deployment costs?  Not to mention, aren’t most of your clients going to be migrating from SBS 2003?  Like that migration doesn’ t have setup and deployment costs of migration headaches?

And support costs?  Again need I remind you of SharePoint on SBS 2011 standard and how much it costs you and your client when it blows?

I’m not saying this isn’t a lot of change thrown at folks… but I still say our biggest issues are that it’s a pricing problem that Microsoft can fix, not that it’s setup and support costs.

The balls in your court, Mr. Ballmer.

9 Thoughts on “What about added setup and deployment costs? Added support costs?

  1. Keith on July 14, 2012 at 12:41 am said:

    If you move to a multi server solution (even virtual) there is extra cost and complications everywhere:

    How do you back the thing up now? – SBS backup worked fine for the cost of the USB drives only. With a virtual environment its either more complicated or costly or both.
    You need virtualization aware UPS software or a network enabled UPS.
    Patching x3 Servers now. (Host and 2xGuests)
    You need virutualization aware Antivirus, or at least an extra server licence.
    Drive space up. RAM requirements up.
    Installation time will be up even with the scripts you mention.

    It’s all extra cost for the client.

    Next year what will be Exchange 2012 requirements and cost. Will it even be supported on a single Server. Remember EBS split the Exchange roles across two.

    I’d take the SBS 2011 Sharepoint patching issue anyday rather than deal with workstations using POP3 to PSTs on a file share, but that is what my smaller clients will have to return to, unless I am able to find something else. The cloud… not on my watch.

    There is no way around it – the cost of implementing an onsite exchange server for a “small” small business can no longer be justified.

  2. bradley on July 14, 2012 at 11:25 am said:

    I don’t put a/v on parent, you can backup the guests via the parent. You put exclusions in a/v, no a/v software is virtualization ready per se.

    If it can’t be jusitfied then deploy SBS 2011 standard or look at Kerio. Bottom line Microsoft won’t be changing their minds. So either we make lemonade or look at alternatives.

  3. Keith on July 14, 2012 at 10:54 pm said:

    True, No AV on the Hyper-V parent is the recommendation:
    http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/security/hh535714.aspx

    And if you do there are exclusions:
    http://social.technet.microsoft.com/wiki/contents/articles/2179.hyper-v-anti-virus-exclusions-for-hyper-v-hosts.aspx

    With traditional AV you need the extra licence for that second guest. Several AV vendors do have products specifically for a virtualized environment eg: Trend Micro Deep Security.

    True, You can backup everything from the parent, but restore of an individual file is a time and space consuming “restore and mount entire guest” without 3rd party software. eg: Backup Assist Add-on, Altaro, etc.

  4. bradley on July 15, 2012 at 1:00 am said:

    I haven’t restored a single file in ages due to shadow copies and prior versions. You sure you have a need of restoring an individual file that often?

  5. Regarding the headaches that migrations bring, I usually test migrations in a VM with a restored backup of the source server to the target OS so I can determine what issues will arise and add those ‘fixits’ to the ever-growing database of post-install fixes. Each Migration brings new challenges but you keep building on what you have fixed in the past to ensure smoother subsequent roll-outs. The “Added Support Cost” is really a non issue. (Just Wish Microsoft would patch/fix/automate these things when they are well aware of the issues themselves)
    *cough* PSConfig, etc *cough*

    I already have experience with VM’s/Hyper-V and am very familiar with multi-server configurations. The “Added Support Cost” is really a non issue here either. It is actually easier to manage/correct exchange issues when it is isolated in its own VM.

    The issue really is the price/bundle issue. We DO need a cost effective bundle of Exchange & Server 2012 with RWW that matches the price point our SBS Customers are familiar with. “The Cloud” is not something any law office I deal with is willing to consider.

  6. OK, here’s what I think Microsoft should do, although the odds of them doing so are probably infinitesimally small.

    1) The Essentials management interface and PC backup should be an installable role on all editions of Server. It should be able to manage AD, Exchange (whether Office 365, on-premise, or hosted by someone else), WSUS, and check AV status of all clients. It should not be limited to 25 users.
    2) The only difference between Standard and Essentials should be that Essentials has to have FMSO roles and no CALs needed. In-place upgrade via product key to Standard would remove the FMSO limitation.
    3) The cost of upgrading from Standard to Essentials should be around the cost of how many CALs you need less 5.
    4) There should be an Essentials version of Exchange that is limited to 25 CALs max, and has a similar upgrade policy, includes Windows Standard, but can’t install Domain Controller role. This would have to be available in 5 CAL packs.
    5) Essentials + Exchange Essentials should be around the same price per user as SBS Standard

  7. Joe Raby on July 16, 2012 at 2:21 pm said:

    The Metro-style (technically, it’s “Cosmopolis”, after the VStudio desktop app theme, which I wish they would nickname “Cosmo”) MMC replacement for managing multiple servers is quite easy to use. I would rather have a singular server manager that works like that, something that is scalable, rather than use a management console that is only designed for SMB setups.

  8. Anon on July 18, 2012 at 9:43 am said:

    I have been convincing customers to embrace telecommuting/co-working for some time now and part of that involved RWA and Company web if I simply deploy SharePoint foundation 2013 (bandwidth download caps large files and backup) it will no longer show up in RWA. If I have Server 2012 Essentials and Office 365 I have two environments to setup two deployments that I will need to monitor and maintain as well as bill the customer for the deployment and work. The ISP’s that I deal with have a download cap anything over the small 7-12GB download cap the customer gets billed extra so what if I backup data from Office365.
    “That’s too bad, but then both of these products also suffer from the same basic problem: Configuring them is far too complicated for the intended small business audience. I wrote about the difficulty of just configuring Office 365 for a custom domain for email previously, but the truth is, I glossed over how difficult the similar custom domain configuration for SBSE remote access can be in my note above. Asking a typical SMB worker to undergo either of these tasks could be frustrating and ultimately futile.
    My advice here is simple: Both Office 365 and Windows Small Business Server 2011 Essentials offer excellent functionality for small businesses, and integrating them in a “better together” fashion makes even more sense, but only assuming that you can get someone else to do it. This is an excellent opportunity for Microsoft’s partner ecosystem to step in and fill the gap. It’s a role these companies already play. I’m guessing most small businesses just don’t know about that option. “
    http://www.winsupersite.com/article/office-365/office-365-small-business-server-2011-esoffice-365-small-business-server-2011-essentials-integration-142116

  9. Anon on July 18, 2012 at 9:45 am said:

    It’s the concerns I have regarding the pricing plans and options of offerings like Office 365. Microsoft doesn’t release the details of the financials behind Office 365 so I have no idea if the price per mailbox I’m seeing now truly is a reasonable fee for the product or if they are loss leading the prices to suck in customers. Getting onto cloud services is relatively easy. Getting off, perhaps not so easy. In this case of OpenDNS, they are not sticky enough and hard enough to migrate off of, nor (in my opinion) provide $1500 of value to my firm that I can’t find elsewhere for much cheaper amount.
    But it’s that “are you really making a decent living from what I am paying you or are you going to jack up the price tag once you no longer have your cash cows of Windows and Office to carry the load” that honestly concerns me because I have no means to make that decision based on the financials of Microsoft – and I’m a shareholder.
    http://msmvps.com/blogs/bradley/archive/2012/01/26/paying-for-a-fair-share-of-cloud.aspx

Post Navigation