3 ms·

It's going to be out of their hands on this one. Apple have pretty strong EULAs. Microsoft's licensing for clouds is also a pain in the arse. You (the cloud

It's going to be out of their hands on this one. Apple have pretty strong EULAs. Microsoft's licensing for clouds is also a pain in the arse. You (the cloud platform) have to pay for a full months license the moment an instance is created. The way it's structured you have some wriggle room, e.g. you have your placement algorithm land new instances on where Windows instances have already been in a given month, so you don't incur additional licenses (because the license "transfers"). It gets worse if you start wanting to do things like run SQL Servers, where it's the entire month license outright with no prorating, and it applies to a specific instance instead of the machine/VM slot. Strangely enough, despite all the trends in the market, operating system vendors are determined to make it harder for people to pay them to use their stuff, rather than easier.

thayne 6y ago
Strategically it makes sense. Apple is a hardware company, so making it difficult to run their OS in the cloud means more people need to keep buying their hardware. Microsoft has their own cloud, where they don't have to deal with the license requirements they force on other cloud providers, which gives them a competitive advantage over their competitors (when it comes to windows servers). The key is that these companies don't just sell operating systems. Red Hat on the other hand, which doesn't have competing market pressures, is much more friendly to licensing in a cloud environment.
- ampdepolymerase 6y ago
  Does Microsoft have to follow its own EULA? Will it be an antitrust violation if they don't?
  - throwawayffffas 6y ago
    No, Microsoft owns it's software it does not need a license to use it.
    - ampdepolymerase 6y ago
      But is using legal mechanisms to reduce a competitor's advantage (where the competitor licenses your product) considered to be antitrust? In the internet explorer case one of the major disputes was whether Microsoft manipulated its API to favour explorer versus other software.
      - thayne 6y ago
        IANAL, but I think only if you have monopoly power (at least as I understand US antitrust law), and MS doesn't really have a monopoly on the server OS market.
Closi 6y ago
> Microsoft's licensing for clouds is also a pain in the arse. You (the cloud platform) have to pay for a full months license the moment an instance is created. This is exactly how I would expect the licensing to work.
- mbreese 6y ago
  Can't you also bring your own licenses for AWS/Windows? This all makes sense to me too... if you want to run a Windows instance, you need a license for Windows (on top of the hardware fee). Microsoft says that AWS can loan you a license (if you need one), but AWS would still need to hold a full license.

thayne 6y ago

Strategically it makes sense. Apple is a hardware company, so making it difficult to run their OS in the cloud means more people need to keep buying their hardware. Microsoft has their own cloud, where they don't have to deal with the license requirements they force on other cloud providers, which gives them a competitive advantage over their competitors (when it comes to windows servers). The key is that these companies don't just sell operating systems. Red Hat on the other hand, which doesn't have competing market pressures, is much more friendly to licensing in a cloud environment.

ampdepolymerase 6y ago
Does Microsoft have to follow its own EULA? Will it be an antitrust violation if they don't?
- throwawayffffas 6y ago
  No, Microsoft owns it's software it does not need a license to use it.
  - ampdepolymerase 6y ago
    But is using legal mechanisms to reduce a competitor's advantage (where the competitor licenses your product) considered to be antitrust? In the internet explorer case one of the major disputes was whether Microsoft manipulated its API to favour explorer versus other software.
    - thayne 6y ago
      IANAL, but I think only if you have monopoly power (at least as I understand US antitrust law), and MS doesn't really have a monopoly on the server OS market.

Closi 6y ago

> Microsoft's licensing for clouds is also a pain in the arse. You (the cloud platform) have to pay for a full months license the moment an instance is created. This is exactly how I would expect the licensing to work.

mbreese 6y ago
Can't you also bring your own licenses for AWS/Windows? This all makes sense to me too... if you want to run a Windows instance, you need a license for Windows (on top of the hardware fee). Microsoft says that AWS can loan you a license (if you need one), but AWS would still need to hold a full license.