AWS claims 50% of Azure workloads would jump ship if licensing costs allowed

AWS estimates half of the workloads Microsoft enterprise customers run on Azure would migrate away from the Windows giant's cloud if only the licensing costs of doing so were not prohibitively high and a competitive deterrent. This claim is made in the latest submission by AWS to the UK's Competition and Markets Authority's ( …

[Anonymous Coward]

"while it does not want to charge too little for the use of its software, if its software was too expensive it would create incentives for large providers to move their customers off Microsoft software and onto an alternative software platform"

That's precisely what some of our customers are doing though - ditching SQL Server and Windows Server in favour of open source alternatives in AWS. But in the interim they're still having to eat the expense of paying more to Microsoft via AWS for the licenses than they would if their Windows workloads were running in Azure. Which is just plain wrong.

If you've got software licensed for your company's sole use, you should be able to run it anywhere on any provider, at the same cost.

If Microsoft hadn't abused their monopoly to gain market share, Azure probably wouldn't even be mentioned in the same breath as AWS and GCP given how poorly implemented it is.

[Groo The Wanderer - A Canuck]

Nobody "owes" Bezos profits...

[Peter-Waterman1]

Damn right! Well Said.. Microsoft are a bunch a wankers though, thats for sure.

[JoeCool]

I know, two apex predators and one victim/customer-base.

Does IP Law have the concept of a simultaneous knoock out ?

[Joe 59]

precisely zero people are forced to use AWS or Microsoft products. Don't like giving Bezos money? Don't.

[Nate Amsden]

Sorry for stupid question but what is the cost difference? My assumption was that if for example you have sql server licensed on prem and have a software assurance contract you could put that anywhere for the same cost(provided you maintain the software assurance).

I have to guess that perhaps MS gives discounted prices for situations where the customer is hosting in their cloud only? (Vs the model in first paragraph).

If so then MS is taking a hit on their income to attract those customers. Something Amazon and google at least have tons of cash to be able to do the same(eat the cost of the difference), if they want.

[Anonymous Coward]

Google "Azure Hybrid Benefit".

You can't take Windows Server licenses with SA into any other cloud, but you can effectively take it into Azure.

[Anonymous Coward]

> My assumption was that if for example you have sql server licensed on prem and have a software assurance contract you could put that anywhere for the same cost(provided you maintain the software assurance).

I think this was the case back in the early days, but licenses have been truly weaponised now. Microsoft and Oracle are using every dirty trick in the book to force on-premise customers to their clouds.

[Nate Amsden]

I looked up Azure hybrid benefit (using Bing..) and the first hit was MS which says

"Azure Hybrid Benefit is an Azure offer that helps organizations reduce expenses during their migration to the cloud. By providing Azure discounts on Windows and SQL Server licenses, and Linux subscriptions, it supports infrastructure modernization and a cloud-first strategy."

(key point is providing discounts, which is what my assumption was originally)

They also mention discounts for Red Hat Linux, SuSE Linux, and Nutanix, none of which of course are MS products.

I dug up the SQL server 2019 licensing doc (the version my org uses), and on page 30 it seems to indicate what I expected, specifically mentions non Azure clouds.

"In the case where you are using AHB to license your primary database running on shared hardware in the non-Azure cloud, you may run the two passive SQL Server instances (one for HA and one for DR) in a separate OSE running in the cloud on shared hardware to support failover events."

They have a chart showing 36 total cores, 12 are "active" and 24 are standby, only 12 cores are needed to be licensed. I don't know what "AHB" is that is the only mention of that term in the document. Though the version of the doc I have is copyright 2019, I found a newer version copyright 2022(page 26 on the newer doc) which changes the language for this section to be Azure cloud, but the below section remains the same.

Then below that they have another scenario with 24 cores in use, 12 active, 12 in a non Azure cloud. Only have to pay for 12 licenses.

"Primary server licenses covered with SA include support for one Disaster Recovery secondary server only (outside Azure), and any additional secondary Disaster Recovery servers must be licensed for SQL Server. Note: The rights to run a passive instance of SQL Server for failover support are not transferable to other licensed servers for purposes of providing multiple passive secondary servers to a single primary server" (which seems reasonable to me)

Pretty confusing I guess in any case..keep it simple & on prem is my strategy(though I deal with windows maybe 10% of the time) which seems to be the most cost effective/most reliable for me. Moved out of cloud in 2012 and have never looked back.(though that hasn't stopped others in the orgs from trying but then they give up when they see how much more expensive it is).

Oracle is certainly tricky to deal with too, haven't had to deal with them in a while. I do remember educating the sales/audit team back in 2007 about their own CPU licensing (specifically Standard edition had no limit on cores/socket at the time anyway which they didn't know) when the org I was at at the time was undergoing another Oracle audit.

[Cloudy Day]

Aside from the Windows Server stuff, that gets discussed all the time…

SQL licenses in Azure can be used to cover Azures ‘managed’ SQL offerings but are blocked from the equivalent Managed SQL offerings in GCP/AWS. And customers, almost without exception, want to use managed SQL rather than SQL on unmanaged VMs.

Microsoft provide ‘free’ extended security updates for Windows/SQL in Azure, but not in GCP/AWS.

They let you use MSDN licensing in Azure for non prod, but not in AWS/GCP.

Want to do robotic process automation for a system that needs to access MS Office? Microsoft licensing terms completely block you from doing that in GCP/AWS

Wanna use Dynamics 365? Microsoft licensing terms forbid you from deploying any required software components on to GCP/AWS? Same with PowerBI server. There is just no legal way to use it in AWS/GCP.

Planning on using Citrix for cloud hosted VDI solution? The VDI users are likely going to want to run MS Office, and there is literally no way that customers can license that on VMs in GCP or AWS. But they can in Azure..,

And so on. It’s death by a thousand cuts that I personally think Microsoft consider as being too clever, or too complex or too subtle for folks like the CMA to notice.

[Anonymous Coward]

Basically, microsoft are not "taking a hit to their profit"

Microsoft heavily restrict BYOL to competitor clouds, meaning that clients end up having to write off the licenses they already have (and depracate assets on their books) and then pay for the same licenses they just wrote off (at the rate of the SPLA price list.)

Meanwhile microsoft DO allow BYOL onto their cloud. - same software sold by the software business, but different terms depending on the cloud business it is sold into.

[Anonymous Coward]

Lets keep this simple

Both Amazon and Microsoft are evil companies.

Personally, I hope both die a slow and painful death. Their time in almost up.

MSFT product free for 8.5 years. AMZN? Not bought anything from them for 3.25 years.

Sadly, we often have little choice when it comes to cloud services.

Oh, and by the way, Google is the third member of the evil triumvirate.

[Roland6]

>” ditching SQL Server and Windows Server in favour of open source alternatives in AWS”

Amazon prefer you to use the “more performant” AWS services, which make it more difficult to move away from AWS…

[Bob H]

Yup, it's super ironic of AWS to be complaining about Microsoft charging extra for their technology when it's used off their own platform. When AWS themselves are constantly evolving their tech stack to make themselves as sticky as possible. Heck, at least MS is licensing their technology to be used off platform!

But AWS is practically a cult at this point, you're expected to worship at the cardboard alter and if you're not getting the efficiency you expected from moving to AWS you just need to make sure you're maximising your use of AWS products. If you don't make all your workloads AWS native, then you're a bad acolyte.

[Groo The Wanderer - A Canuck]

Tough shit, Bezos - Windows isn't "open source" like everything you use from the community but refuse to pay support for!

[NoneSuch]

Memories of Spaced, RobotWars episode.

"THAT'S NOT FAIR! THAT'S NOT FAIR!!!"

Deploy TFU.

[Richard 12]

That's not the complaint

The allegation is that Microsoft are charging N for your Microsoft software licenses if you run it Microsoft Azure, and 4×N if you run the exact same Microsoft software on a competitor like AWS or GCP.

If true, that is a clear abuse of their monopoly in one product to force customers to use an unrelated product.

Which is illegal.

[CowHorseFrog]

Re: That's not the complaint

Software licensing and how it works today is very much a case of a monopoly abusing its position.

Try and move your system from AWS services somewhere else.

[Paul Hovnanian]

Re: That's not the complaint

"Try and move your system from AWS services somewhere else."

If your application runs on a LAMP stack, no problem. Any proprietary components you need on top of that would depend on their licensing terms.

It's not AWS or Google. It's the particular server stack that you have selected. If you are stuck with Windows, it's time to sit back and think about the life choices you have made.

[Randy Hudson]

Re: That's not the complaint

Who the f*$k is still using PHP?

[uccsoundman]

Re: That's not the complaint

I am! I'm programming with it right now on the other screen.

[CowHorseFrog]

Re: That's not the complaint

The reality is many people are using AWS services with zero abstractions. They cant lift and shift in moments, if they want to leave AWS its basically a rewrite.

[Martin M]

Re: That's not the complaint

The problem is that before you can declare a monopoly, you have to define the market the monopoly exists in.

It’s a tautology that Microsoft has a monopoly in Windows Server - the whole point of copyright is to grant one. But Microsoft will argue that the relevant market is “business server operating system software” or even wider, and nowadays they’re a bit player. Almost all cloud workloads run on Linux and a large chunk of on-prem.

There are slightly stronger cases in areas like email server software, but this is undercut by the fact that Microsoft has lost significant market share to Google Workspace etc., so it’s hard to argue they have customers truly locked-in.

That there may not be a formal monopoly doesn’t take away from the fact that this is extremely shady and abusive and customers shouldn’t put up with it. Don’t continue to live with your abuser by moving your Windows workloads to any cloud - they’ll never stop. It may be a bit painful, but migrate as soon as possible to open infrastructure that can be run anywhere.

[Randy Hudson]

Re: That's not the complaint

> that is a clear abuse of their monopoly

Except they don't have a monopoly. It's no different than insurance companies offering discounts if you bundle home and auto.

[neilg]

1981 called.

Microsoft's licensing practices are harming competitors

Nothing to see here, move along please.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: 1981 called.

Microsoft EULA prohibit you from suggesting they actually have competitors since 2021.

[Roland6]

Re: 1981 called.

>” Nothing to see here, move along please.”

I think the 1981 Microsoft would see the 2025 Microsoft as one of old guard charging inflated subscriptions for licences Which suggests the 2025 Microsoft is at risk of being sidelined by a new energetic market entrant…

[cjcox]

AWS's new discovery

Microsoft is an unchecked monopoly. Who knew?

[Anonymous Coward]

AWS would do the same if it could

My outfit is getting stiffed with RDS costs for example.. going back to self hosting is increasingly becoming attractive.

[werdsmith]

Re: AWS would do the same if it could

Self hosting is indeed a cheaper option. It has been demonstrated here where now only dev boxes remain the cloud, and they are all self contained on VMs, no special managed services.

If we needed to quickly scale up for a massive web global website, for example, this would work better in the cloud. But that's not us.

They reel 'em in with the cheap VMs but then you need this and this and this and this and this and it's all getting very complicated so you need more support staff and structure and so it goes on.

[Anonymous Coward]

AWS And Microsoft.................

........a marriage made in hell!!!

Friends don't let friends sign up for this marriage!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: AWS And Microsoft.................

If you want to run stuff in AWS, and 90% of your workloads can be migrated just fine, no drama, but 10% of your workload are Windows-based, why shouldn't you go down that road?

Why should artificial licensing restrictions on the 10% of your workloads make that chunk so expensive to run on AWS that Azure is cheaper overall, even if it's not as good a fit for the other 90% of your workloads?

Yes, you could put some in Azure, and some in AWS, but the point is you shouldn't have to. That potentially then incurs data egress charges in both directions to both providers.

The very fact that Microsoft gives Windows VMs running in Azure a licensing advantage over Windows VMs running in AWS is a de-facto abuse of monopoly. It's taking a dominant position in one market (provision of Operating System and Database software) and using it to gain significant leverage and advantage in a totally different market (provision of virtual compute services). Azure has not had to compete on merit, it's been allowed to unfairly compete on price.

It's illegal, and it's a travesty that it's been allowed to continue for as long as it has.

PS - for AWS, you can replace with literally any 3rd party hosting provider, the argument is exactly the same.

[Anonymous Coward]

It already does move...

I've migrated a lot .NET projects to run on Linux in recent years. Which is pretty straight forward if it uses something like Blazor. The main factor there causing resistance is the developers of the software...folks that develop .NET based stuff tend to be quite resistant to running their stuff on Linux.

I ported one chaps project to Linux (with some code rewrites to make it work with PostGres instead of MSSQL) and the developer was mortified, I'd done the work because the client had asked me to, I didn't know I was treading on toes. It was like I'd shot his dog...but his contract didn't include the server maintenance and infra stuff and didn't preclude others working on the code because he "doesn't do server stuff". Dude lost his mind, had him on the phone at random times swearing at me and calling me names...he did calm down and came around in the end though when he saw the performance improvements and he realised he didn't have to work alone...so much so in fact, that he started hiring me to do his Linux deployments which he decided to start offering. I think he wigged out because he'd been a VBA developer for decades and shifting to Blazor was enough of a struggle for him and I think seeing Linux now thrown into the mix sent him off the edge, he saw his arse essentially...which is why I let him rant at me for a couple of days before I sat him down and made an offer, there was trepidation to begin with because I can also write software, so he thought I was trying to poach his business (which I wasn't, I particularly hate corporate software development, particularly front ends for financial systems etc, it's so dull and nothing about it interests me)...now though, he's never been happier, he can sit at his desk at home and code all day, never has to deploy anything (that's my domain) and he take on the server side support elements with confidence because he has someone to sort it out...dude is super chill these days. There is the odd panic every now and then when a complex requirement comes up...but after some tea and biscuits, some breathing into a bag and a little calm down, he's fine again. I take care of my sensitive little .NET guy..."it's ok...sssh...you build the thing and I'll take care of the rest, it's ok...it'll be fine...".

.NET guys out there, just find a Linux guy out there and hammer out a deal...they don't bite and they're not that expensive if you have a regular flow of work. They won't steal your coding business because not many Linux guys have any interest in .NET development, that's your job. You can simply add them as an additional support service. I take around 60% of the support contract and let the dev keep 40% as well as 100% of the dev money...Linux guys...find a .NET guy to be a "minder" for, they usually don't offer support services and typically chill out when they've got a burly Linux henchman, so they are a way in to a lot of potential clients for other work, without treading on your .NET guys toes (which is worth a lot more than the .NET deployment work)...sometimes you can find stuff for the .NET guy that you can kick back, it's a good partnership...you can mop up, even if you don't take anything for the support work...we don't have to hate each other...it's all good...we're all techies here.

[CowHorseFrog]

Re: It already does move...

.NET is one big monopoly.

Many major components are MS, where MS has rewritten something just to be different. and lock you in.

[Anonymous Coward]

Fair?

One might argue that any tricks designed to lock customers in are unfair.

[Plest]

A plague on both your houses!

This is why I hated AWS, they're evil 'cos they lure you in with the promise of cheaper FOSS software but then do everything in such a "unique" ( read : shite ) way that it's a bastard to extricate yourself. MS aren't much better, they lure you in on cheap licenses, lock you with a very tight and well designed eco system, then you can't untangle anything and have to move it all out wholesale and keep paying off prem MS licenses costs!

Oh and Google can just f**k off 'cos they're Google!

[SFC]

"If they would just let us steal their source code like all these open source projects, we could capture all of their revenue".