With the introduction of Windows Server 2008, Microsoft improved its software licensing options for virtualized servers. Still license fees for virtual servers, as well as support of software running on them, remain big areas of contention for Microsoft customers. But customers will be hard pressed to find loopholes in Microsoft's terms, suggests Forrester analyst Christopher Voce at Forrester’s IT Forum in Las Vegas Friday. However, customers are creatively trying to circumvent the virtualization issue when they need product support, and not just with Microsoft products, according to a recent Burton Group report. It said customers of numerous software vendors deal with support limitations by “accidentally” failing to disclose that an application is running on a virtual machine, or by cloning virtual machines to a physical server before calling support.
Customers are reporting that they are able to get more favorable licensing terms when they are not trying to license Microsoft operating systems to run on VMware or Citrix. In other words, these customers say Microsoft is willing to look the other way (fiscally speaking) when counting up instances of its operating systems running on its own hypervisor, but not when those instances are running on competitors' products. While this may not be the kindest way to treat one's customers, it is in some ways, to be expected. That said, Microsoft obviously realizes that virtualization is also to be expected with server software, and it isn't just its own brand of hypervisor that will be deployed. The Windows Server 2008 standard license grants one virtual machine per license (see Microsoft's WS2008 licensing pages). That may be laughable, but the standard license is really geared toward the SMB. The enterprise license allows four virtual machines per license and the data center model is based on the truly archaic practice of counting processors (thanks to multicore CPUs, that can be hard to do). However, it allows unlimited instances of virtual servers.
Microsoft might be among the friendliest old-school software companies in its approach to virtualization, the Burton Group reports. But the issue is broader than that. It is time for these long-lived software companies to let go of revenue models built in the 1980's and 1990's and make a success out of Software as a Service. The enormous profit maker, otherwise known as Microsoft, must move into new revenues models cautiously, for sure. Still, the idea of charging for the software but doing basic support for free is problematic when you can no longer count the number of servers or processors. The model where the software is give3n away but service and support costs money is a logical evolution.
Go to the Microsoft Subnet home page for more news, blogs, podcasts.
More Microsoft Subnet blog posts:
Microsoft to add ODF, PDF support to Office
Six free security tools you shouldn't live without
Yahoo takeover drama postponed
Are open source advocates growing soft over Microsoft?
The Microsoft Subnet blog is the official blog of the Network World's Microsoft Subnet community, and is written by Online Community editor Julie Bort. Microsoft Subnet is the independent voice of Microsoft customers and is your gateway to daily Microsoft news, blogs, opinion, books, prize giveaways and more. Visit the Microsoft Subnet index page daily, and while you are there, subscribe to the Microsoft newsletter. The newsletter includes news generated by the Microsoft Subnet community as well as other Microsoft news stories published by Network World.
The Leader in Network Knowledge
Licensing virtualization
You've certainly identified one of the most difficult topics within technology innovation, be it virtualization or other innovation. For example, today we still have vendors licensing their software per CPU core, such as Oracle, and IBM licenses using some abstract computational method. You incorrectly note Microsoft's policy: they license per processor (sometimes called socket). Microsoft doesn't take into considering CPU core when licensing.
I do expect licensing terms to change for the better as vendors introduce new technologies, such as SaaS and virtualization. But I also know that the same vendors have shareholders to address and therefore I know they will try to maximize their margins. But competition will maintain pressure on vendors to price and license their goods at levels the market is willing to accept. This story is not new.
Upstarts and per processor licensing
Yes, the truly big picture is how any established IT vendor deals with the technology upstarts. The established vendor has got shareholders to answer to and a channel that depends on it. The upstart can use any money-making model it wants as it has nothing invested. If it succeeds, then soon enough it will be the established vendor and another upstart will come around with a new model.
It has by now become clear to everyone, Microsoft included, that the old ways of licensing software cannot continue forever, thanks to new technologies (open source, virtualization, multicore). It is harder to see how Microsoft will be able to move its giant machine into equally profitable alternative licensing models. Its work so far with cloud computing -- well, can't see people lining up to pay a lot for Microsoft Live services just yet.
Also, just to note, the post above does not say that Microsoft licenses per core -- it says per processor. But you are right -- that this is good for the customer if a customer is paying for two processors but is using multicore servers that perform like four. Microsoft's licensing policies are more friendly to new technologies than other established vendors. It helps that the company came from the PC world and has only recently reached into the big bucks world of the data center -- easier to be generous.
Grammar
You make silly punctuation mistakes such as "give3n" and not continuing a sentence with a comma to
"but", instead, starting the sentence with but, which is unacceptable in the English language. Take that job at the mechanics shop, you idiot.
Alexander ....
.... you must have a very sick brain. If you have a brain at all.