Big cloud rivals hit back over Microsoft licensing changes Microsoft's cloud competitors have reacted negatively to changes the company announced this week to licensing, claiming that they are anti-competitive and will deter customers from moving to other cloud providers. The Redmond giant confirmed major revisions and upgrades to its outsourcing and hosting terms on August 29, saying …
>I doubt it would say that; they are in three different markets.
But activist investors such as Icahn would, because to them the gains (to shareholders) from splitting the business up would far outweigh the benefits (dividends and increase in share price) of the conglomerate. Followed in a few years by a set of takeovers to "release synergies"...
Once you're tied to a subscription to keep your business alive, the provider can make any rules they like and you just have to say "yes Sir".
When they have you by the balls, who gives a tinker's cuss about your heart or mind? All they need to do is squeeze a little.
Not exactly.
Unilateral modification of terms without the other party's invitation or ability to negotiate changed terms, creates what's called a adherence contract. Case law decides that terms varied in such way are unenforceable.
Same applies to utility supply contracts.
Unlike most contract law, adherence contract theory applies equally to consumers and businesses.
> Unilateral modification of terms without the other party's invitation or ability to negotiate changed terms, creates what's called a adherence contract.
And enforcing your rights as the weak party entails time consuming and expensive legal action, as the strong party know very well.
Unilateral modification of terms without the other party's invitation or ability to negotiate changed terms, creates what's called a adherence contract. Case law decides that terms varied in such way are unenforceable.
Did someone mention the changes to the NIP??
:-)
I'm sorry, when was that promised ? I don't recall ever hearing that AWS was compatible with Azure or anything else.
Yes, that is becoming a requirement now, especially since businesses are losing their brains and flocking to someone else's server to host their business-critical data, but that was never mentioned when AWS, Azure or anything else starting building the business.
Why is it that we have come to accept bullshit like ''this is being done to benefit the customer..'' and it is never questioned as the crap it unfailingly is. No huge multinational does anything to benefit the customer unless it happens by chance.
It is the same ''...the security of our customer is our primary concern...'' bullshit which the media always tend to print and never questions.
This does need to change.
Per Micro$haft: No M$ SA or subscription SW licenses allowed on Azure, AWS, Google, or Alibaba. AWS flunky Garman sums up the rest of Micro$haft's latest BS:
"MSFT's answer is not to do what's right for customers...[—] fix [its] policy so all customers [may] run [its] software on the cloud provider[s] they choose... Rather, under the pretext of supporting European technology needs, MSFT proposes to select cloud providers about whom it is less competitively concerned and allow [its] software to run only on those providers."
The question is, will "run on any cloud, without premium or penalty" become a strong enough consumer (or, better, governmental) demand that Micro$haft capitulates?
Licensing — the one piece of wisdom from Daddy Gates off of which ugly cheater Booger-Eater made his fortune — too often turns the customer into a sucker at the whim of the owner who reserves the right to change the terms at any time.
So, how's that "cloud" sound, now?
... so they have to complain Microsoft acts the same way they do. Should we talk about how Amazon shafts "partners" on its retail platform, or the rules in the Play Store? All of them use their strongholds to hinder competition. Isn't funny to be on the receiving side of anti-competitive behaviours without being able to take advantage of somebody else work for nothing, eh?
Microsoft's cloud competitors have reacted negatively to changes the company announced this week to licensing, claiming that they are anti-competitive and will deter customers from moving to other cloud providers.
Say it ain't so <gasp>, Microsoft behaving anti-competitively?!?!?
My God, what an AMAZING new development! I am shocked I tell ya, shocked!
Tip: tilt the screen slightly, it makes it easier to catch the sarcasm dripping off it.
And this is precisely why nearly everything I've developed in the past decade can run in Linux. Even apps hosted on azure. I abhor lockin, some things are easier to swap out than others.
Other than AD for a lan, there's very little reason to run windows servers. For office/email, may as well rent it. I like some MS software and service.. But windows has much less of a place in my life.
It's pretty simple and obvious to anyone who has worked with MS Licensing what needs to happen. MS isn't going to allow Perpetual 'License Only' licensing in Public Cloud because they want the ongoing revenues and want to reduce Support Lifecycles...so why not extend the existing 'License Mobility within Server Farms' SA benefit to include ALL 3rd Party infrastructure inclusive of ALL Hyperscalers?
I've never actually ever understood the justification for excluding them specifically (aside from the anti-competition explanation).
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
