Nobody Gets Fired for Buying Support from Microsoft—but They Should.

Beyond traditional IT support: Modern choices for enterprise solutions.

In the world of enterprise IT, there’s a much-used tagline that has created a space for itself in day-to-day conversations while shaping IT decision-making for decades: “Nobody ever got fired for choosing IBM.” This adage, generated during the era of IBM’s dominance in computing, encompassed a standard truth about how to go about support selection. That is: choosing the biggest, most established vendor was seen as the safest career move, regardless of whether it was the best choice for the organization.

Today, Microsoft has also been deemed the “safe choice” in enterprise Microsoft support, but is bigger actually better when it comes to supporting your IT infrastructure? Today, there are more choices than ever for qualified third-party support that offers economic pricing without jeopardizing expertise.

In this industry, US Cloud is one of the leading providers of this highly rated third-party support—and we’re here to talk about why choosing the most obvious option may no longer be the smartest option.

The phrase “Nobody got fired for choosing IBM” gained recognition during the company’s heyday in the 1970s and 1980s, when selecting IBM hardware and support was considered the ultimate risk-averse choice.

At that time, IT managers could rest easy knowing they had chosen the industry’s “gold standard,” even if more innovative or cost-effective solutions existed outside of it. This mindset created a universal condition through which the biggest player continued to dominate the market simply because they were the biggest player.

Just as IBM once dominated the hardware landscape, Microsoft now exercises command over enterprise software and cloud services. While that is not a bad thing in itself, Microsoft’s power over this facet of enterprise IT support encourages a large portion of leaders to opt for what is promoted as the “safest” option, preying on professional fears of having this choice go awry.

However, in an era where agility and cost-effectiveness are integral to maintaining a competitive advantage, should companies still let this “bigger is safer” thinking guide our support decisions? As it turns out, what enterprises previously thought was the conservatively confident choice may be costing IT teams excess money and preventing efficient resolution times and resource allocation.

The famous 'nobody got fired for buying IBM' adage challenged in a bold 1980s competitor ad.

Many organizations default to Microsoft’s direct support offerings based on three primary assumptions:

• Brand recognition (Who hasn’t heard of Microsoft by now?)
• Perceived integration capabilities with Microsoft products (Logically, support from Microsoft for Microsoft products should make the most sense.)
• Belief that choosing Microsoft is inherently less risky (Microsoft should be the best at resolving issues with their products.)

These assumptions, while understandable, often don’t consistently hold up under scrutiny.

Take, for instance, the argument for clean support integration. While Microsoft’s support team certainly has access to product documentation and updates, third-party providers often develop deeper expertise in specific Microsoft technologies because they focus exclusively on support rather than product development, sales, and the myriad other activities that may occupy Microsoft’s attention.

Premium prices don't always guarantee premium IT support.

Microsoft’s direct support model comes with several hidden challenges that organizations often discover only after commitment. Premium support plans through Unified can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars annually, yet still subject organizations to rigid tiered support systems. These tiers can mean that critical issues don’t always receive the immediate attention they require—unless you’re paying for the highest service levels.

Consider the example of a mid-sized enterprise that recently experienced a critical SharePoint outage. Despite having Microsoft direct support, they found themselves navigating multiple escalations and handoffs, explaining their problem to different representatives, losing valuable time while their business operations remained disrupted.

This situation plays out regularly across organizations that assume Microsoft direct support provides the fastest path to resolution. This is in stark contrast to third-party support from US Cloud, where we value efficiency alongside cost savings. Faster Microsoft support means more solutions for a lower cost, keeping your business running and your resource allocations tight.

Bringing personalized support back to IT: The US Cloud approach.

Service from US Cloud has emerged as a compelling Microsoft direct support alternative, offering several distinct advantages over direct support. By typically delivering more personalized service at 30-50% lower cost than Microsoft’s premium support plans, the benefits extend far beyond cost savings.

The most significant advantage lies in the service model itself. The nature of our third-party support affords our team the space to assign a designated support engineer (DSE) who can be seamlessly integrated into your environment, eliminating the need to explain your infrastructure repeatedly after issues arise.

This dedicated support can additionally provide proactive monitoring and maintenance, often identifying and resolving potential problems before they impact your operations. This prevents business-halting problems from taking hold of your team’s productivity.

Historically, direct support from Microsoft Managed Desktop included proactive security monitoring, but this service was transitioned to end-of-life (EOL) in July 2024. In the absence of a specialist keeping an eye on your system so you can focus on what you do best, security issues can take hold of your Microsoft systems long before you notice that the issue is on the rise.

General objections to third-party support often center around concerns about update access, service reliability, and agile risk management. Today, we know that these concerns typically stem from outdated perceptions about direct vs third-party support rather than the new reality.

Reputable third-party providers, such as US Cloud, employ Microsoft-certified professionals who have access to the same tools and updates as Microsoft’s direct support team. That way, you’ll never have to worry that your Microsoft support is secondary in quality to direct offerings from Microsoft.

Moreover, many third-party providers offer more airtight Service Level Agreements (SLAs) than Microsoft’s standard support contracts, backed by financial guarantees. This level of accountability usually exceeds what’s available through direct support channels.

The core question at hand isn’t whether third-party Microsoft support can match up to direct support—in many cases, this benchmark has already been surpassed. The real question is whether your organization is ready to break free from blind conformity to embrace a more cost-effective, time-efficient, and personalized approach to Microsoft support.

Modern SLAs challenge old assumptions about third-party IT support.

The most innovative organizations have learned that blind allegiance to brand names can be costly. Consider the case of a global manufacturing firm that switched to third-party Microsoft support after years of frustration with rising costs and impersonal service from direct support. Within the first year, they reduced their support costs by 40% while experiencing faster resolution times and more proactive service.

Making the switch to third-party support isn’t about taking unnecessary risks—it’s about making informed decisions based on value rather than brand name. Modern IT leaders know that it’s risky to float by on the status quo while competitors move forward with more efficient Microsoft direct support alternatives.

Your third-party Microsoft support should not be selected without careful vetting and evaluation. Some important indicators to look for include:

• Proven track records with similar organizations
• Strong Microsoft partnerships and certifications
• Comprehensive SLAs with meaningful guarantees
• Dedicated support teams with uncompromised Microsoft expertise
• Proactive monitoring and maintenance capabilities

Enterprise IT support costs: Microsoft Direct vs US Cloud comparison.

It’s time to challenge the notion that choosing the biggest name is always the safest choice. In today’s competitive business environment, the smartest decision is often the one that delivers the best value and service quality, regardless of the provider’s size.

As you evaluate your Microsoft support options, consider this: no one ever got fired for making a well-researched decision that saved their organization money while improving service quality. The modern era reboot on this tagline should be: “Nobody ever got fired for choosing smart over safe.”

Book a call US Cloud to start evaluating the wisest choice for your team’s Microsoft support needs. Our experts are waiting to help your IT infrastructure find even smarter paths to success.