The WebADF licensing issue revisited

The WebADF Licensing Issue Revisited

March 23rd, 2007 · 10 Comments · ArcGIS Server, ESRI

At the .NET SIG, I asked the question about the cost of the licensing and the burden it places on developers. The response from ESRI was expected as we all know their reasons for charging the price, but a couple of people asked me what they can do about it. Well the best thing you can do is complain to ESRI. If they want to charge for another license of ArcGIS Server if you run the ADF on a separate server, then you need to let them know you can’t or won’t pay that. Some wondered why ESRI would bring up that they have large clients who think AGS is TOO INEXPENSIVE when most smaller customers can’t even keep their maintenance costs up to date. We all know that those ESRI customers who pay millions and millions for ESRI software and consulting do get beneficial treatment over those who have a couple licenses (and probably rightly so), but remember together we all add up to a big chunk of ESRI revenue.

All I can say if you are still unhappy with ESRI’s stance on this, just let them know. They listen to comments so if they see that “Cost of Web ADF” is a huge issue for a large number of people, they’ll respond. If the only people they hear are those large organizations saying they feel that ArcGIS Server should be $100k, then they’ll move that way.

ArcGIS Server ADF costs are coming right at us . . .

Tags:

10 responses so far ↓

1 Lefty // Mar 23, 2007 at 2:21 pm

Don’t forget James, as you pointed out before….

Just serve up WMS and use Open Layers. Easy and simple….
2 NoLove // Mar 23, 2007 at 3:12 pm

PLEASE ESRI give your users who made you a break. We are not all Fortune 500 companies.
3 TedC // Mar 23, 2007 at 6:46 pm

We, the little users, are the Long Tail when it comes to License purchases, so you bring up a good point in that if we all complain collectively maybe something will happen to give us more flexibility in pushing out more applications, while limiting the price of those applications.
4 .NET SIG Attendee // Mar 23, 2007 at 9:21 pm

Or as was mentioned at the .NET SIG, sell the Web ADF as a separate product.
5 Bill Dollins // Mar 24, 2007 at 8:54 am

Okay, I own a business. I don’t get the “too inexpensive” comment. Large or small, I don’t know any business that prefers software to be more expensive (unless it’s the vendor). If you’re the Federal government, maybe it makes sense in that La-La-Land “gotta burn my budget” sort of way.

In general, this new approach to licensing is shaky but this ADF thing really sticks in my craw. I wonder how ESRI would feel if Microsoft started licensing the .NET framework separately.
6 jeff // Mar 24, 2007 at 2:25 pm

ESRI got the message. They said at the Dev Summit closing session that it was one of the feedbacks they got from the users and that they are going to reconsider the issue of the ADF licensing.

There were lots of issues discussed at the closing session.

Unfortunately you were already gone so you could not write about it … Steve has some words about it: http://thesteve0.wordpress.com/2007/03/23/final-day-and-still-in-palm-springs/
7 jxn // Mar 27, 2007 at 3:32 pm

“large clients who think AGS is TOO INEXPENSIVE”

A FOOL AND HIS MONEY ARE SOON PARTED!!!!
8 isAGSworthAFerrari? // Mar 28, 2007 at 12:17 am

Just imagine for a moment that in some european countries, the prices for ESRI licenses is 3x higher (sic!) than in the US.

That doesn’t make things easier!
An AGS Ent. Adv. is not the price of a normal sports car, but of a Ferrari over here…
9 nolove // Mar 28, 2007 at 8:40 am

I would opt for the Ferrari. No Map Cache or optimized styles necessary.
10 anote2chris // Apr 12, 2007 at 2:50 pm

ESRI,

Don’t license in the web-tier where you have no business.

Don’t charge for multi-core procs. That’s absurd! It’s just a processor family upgrade. Like moving from the p3 to the p4. You didn’t charge us for that, why are you charging a premium for processing now? Smells like a marketing goofball got a hold of that one!!! Someone needs to educate them and set the price right.

Finally, you’re heading down a road that will be certain doom to your company. Everyone else is practically giving their software away, while you are jacking up the price. Doesn’t make sense. You are swimming in deep waters here with no hope for rescue if you push your ‘base’ to find other, cheaper solutions for their webGIS needs. I could go on about this because it’s such a big mistake, but I’ll just let what I’ve said so far simmer a while.