4 ms·

> One of the most significant restrictions occurred in 2019, when Microsoft adopted new licensing terms that imposed extreme financial penalties on businesses w

> One of the most significant restrictions occurred in 2019, when Microsoft adopted new licensing terms that imposed extreme financial penalties on businesses wanting to use Windows Server software on Azure’s closest competitors, such as Google Cloud and AWS. Microsoft’s own statements indicate that customers who want to move their workloads to these competitors would need to pay up to five times more. Sounds like textbook anti-competitive behavior. Unfortunately cloud is super sticky, MS knows this will force folks to Azure and even if it gets thrown out in court the customers won't be able to move back easily.

tw04 2y ago
I assume Amazon is going to let you run their S3 stack on Microsoft or your own compute? If not, how is it any different?
- nerdjon 2y ago
  Not the same in the slightest, this would be like AWS allowing you to run S3 on Azure but charging you 4 times the same licensing cost in Azure as you would pay in AWS. A cloud having exclusive software and features is expected.
  - itsdrewmiller 2y ago
    Windows Server isn't a cloud software feature though, so S3 is not a good analog. This is a lot closer to the bundling shenanigans that have repeatedly gotten MS in hot water (Internet Explorer, Teams, etc.)
    - nerdjon 2y ago
      True, I was mostly trying to tie it into what the OP had said then really a valid example. Maybe should have added "and s3 was software that was generally available outside of the cloud" or something like that. Mostly trying to point out why S3 is not an example of this.
  - tw04 2y ago
    An OS having exclusive software and features is expected. A vendor dictating what hardware you can run it on is expected. Why is one a problem and the other isn’t besides the fact that half of HN has an irrational axe to grind anytime they hear Microsoft?
    - nerdjon 2y ago
      Neither of those things are happening here. Microsoft is charging higher license costs for Windows server on competing cloud providers (but not all competing providers) than on Azure. For the exact same software. This isn’t an axe to grind with Microsoft, it’s clearly anti competitive.
      - tw04 2y ago
        >Microsoft is charging higher license costs for Windows server on competing cloud providers (but not all competing providers) than on Azure. > A vendor dictating what hardware you can run it on is expected. Correct, Microsoft is literally dictating what hardware you can run it on, and what it costs to run it on that hardware. Which has been happening for decades. Either you've never dealt with enterprise software, or you're refusing to acknowledge reality. Oracle has been doing this from the beginning of time, they charge a different "per core" price depending on the type of core you choose, to promote the sale of their own hardware. They extended the same pricing model to cloud. The only reason you're complaining about this is because it's Microsoft. https://www.oracle.com/contracts/docs/processor-core-factor-table-070634.pdf?download=false&er=221886 https://www.oracle.com/contracts/docs/processor-core-factor-... https://medium.com/@vbalebai/debunking-the-myth-oracle-in-the-cloud-cost-and-performance-comparison-8433b9659b0f https://medium.com/@vbalebai/debunking-the-myth-oracle-in-th...
        happymellon 2y ago
        I'm surprised you think that people don't complain about Oracle.
- diggan 2y ago
  Imagine if Amazon has their own OS or software you could run yourself. Then imagine that Amazon charges 50 USD/month for the license for this OS/software if you run it on AWS. But if you run it outside of AWS, it would be 200 USD/month. This is what Microsoft is currently doing.
  - datavirtue 2y ago
    Yep. It's kosher. If you don't like it, don't use Windows Server.
    - trueismywork 2y ago
      How much is Microsoft paying you?
  - tw04 2y ago
    So literally what oracle has done for 30 years? Run it on one type of hardware it costs X per core, run it on something else it costs Y per core.
  - hsbauauvhabzb 2y ago
    Now imagine it’s reached such a market dominance that the product you’re attempting to host requires Amazon OS
- jsheard 2y ago
  S3 is probably the worst possible counter-example given that Amazon hasn't made any moves against S3 being cloned verbatim by their competitors, even though they probably could block them from using the S3 trademark to market their services as "S3 compatible" if they wanted to. They even let you use the official AWS tools and libraries to interface with third party S3 clones. That's about as fair to the competition as it gets.
  - tw04 2y ago
    Nobody is stopping you from cloning windows functionality on something else. You’re free to run samba or WINE all day long. Let me know when Amazon lets me run THEIR S3 stack on hardware of my choice. Until then, all the downvotes in the world won’t change the fact they’re doing the same thing only worse.
    - CursedSilicon 2y ago
      Why would AWS let you run something they don't even sell licenses for? your attempt at an equivalence makes no sense
      - ForHackernews 2y ago
        Exactly. They're even more anti-competitive. At least MS will sell you a Windows license. Amazon will only let you run their software on AWS. Apple will only let you run MacOS on their hardware.
    - weq 2y ago
      100%. Amazon is the anti-competitive king. They just copy everything thats popular. unfortunately you cant just copy your way to sql server. Apple, Google, they all do the same. Sour grapes the MS does it better.
  - Macha 2y ago
    Note that it's normally legal to use trademarks descriptively as in "S3 compatible" though maybe it would have to be S3™ compatible or S3® compatible to be totally up to scratch. But even then, the reason Intel CPUs have marketing names at all was judges telling them that 386 wasn't a good enough trademark
quitit 2y ago
Back in 1994 the United States filed a civil antitrust complaint against Microsoft for their practice of entering long term contracts with PC manufacturers in which the PC manufacturer would pay Microsoft a fee to license their OS based on the number of systems they sold, regardless of whether or not that system actually came with Windows. This of course made it more expensive to engage Microsoft's competitors such as IBM's OS/2. PC manufacturers that didn't enter into these deals would have significantly higher licensing costs which put them at a disadvantage to other PC manufacturers, this of course rapidly distorted the market and stunted the spread of alternatives. Microsoft's cloud tactics of today are so similar that I'm actually surprised that they'd try something like this again.
- immibis 2y ago
  The business tactic may not be different, but the regulatory environment is - we haven't really forced corporations to follow competition law in two decades.
  - quitit 2y ago
    While I consider Microsoft's punishment was rather soft - they did however make a huge effort the publicly act like they were changing, including embracing open source instead of trying to kill it. That's why I find it surprising, they'd made a significant effort to at least appear compliant to the antitrust rulings.
    - Gee101 2y ago
      I think they only started embracing open source when they could directly benefit from it with people running it on Azure.
- hsbauauvhabzb 2y ago
  Do you think this was profitable for Microsoft, even after the antitrust fines?
  - 2y ago

tw04 2y ago

I assume Amazon is going to let you run their S3 stack on Microsoft or your own compute? If not, how is it any different?

nerdjon 2y ago
Not the same in the slightest, this would be like AWS allowing you to run S3 on Azure but charging you 4 times the same licensing cost in Azure as you would pay in AWS. A cloud having exclusive software and features is expected.
- itsdrewmiller 2y ago
  Windows Server isn't a cloud software feature though, so S3 is not a good analog. This is a lot closer to the bundling shenanigans that have repeatedly gotten MS in hot water (Internet Explorer, Teams, etc.)
  - nerdjon 2y ago
    True, I was mostly trying to tie it into what the OP had said then really a valid example. Maybe should have added "and s3 was software that was generally available outside of the cloud" or something like that. Mostly trying to point out why S3 is not an example of this.
- tw04 2y ago
  An OS having exclusive software and features is expected. A vendor dictating what hardware you can run it on is expected. Why is one a problem and the other isn’t besides the fact that half of HN has an irrational axe to grind anytime they hear Microsoft?
  - nerdjon 2y ago
    Neither of those things are happening here. Microsoft is charging higher license costs for Windows server on competing cloud providers (but not all competing providers) than on Azure. For the exact same software. This isn’t an axe to grind with Microsoft, it’s clearly anti competitive.
    - tw04 2y ago
      >Microsoft is charging higher license costs for Windows server on competing cloud providers (but not all competing providers) than on Azure. > A vendor dictating what hardware you can run it on is expected. Correct, Microsoft is literally dictating what hardware you can run it on, and what it costs to run it on that hardware. Which has been happening for decades. Either you've never dealt with enterprise software, or you're refusing to acknowledge reality. Oracle has been doing this from the beginning of time, they charge a different "per core" price depending on the type of core you choose, to promote the sale of their own hardware. They extended the same pricing model to cloud. The only reason you're complaining about this is because it's Microsoft. https://www.oracle.com/contracts/docs/processor-core-factor-table-070634.pdf?download=false&er=221886 https://www.oracle.com/contracts/docs/processor-core-factor-... https://medium.com/@vbalebai/debunking-the-myth-oracle-in-the-cloud-cost-and-performance-comparison-8433b9659b0f https://medium.com/@vbalebai/debunking-the-myth-oracle-in-th...
      - happymellon 2y ago
        I'm surprised you think that people don't complain about Oracle.
diggan 2y ago
Imagine if Amazon has their own OS or software you could run yourself. Then imagine that Amazon charges 50 USD/month for the license for this OS/software if you run it on AWS. But if you run it outside of AWS, it would be 200 USD/month. This is what Microsoft is currently doing.
- datavirtue 2y ago
  Yep. It's kosher. If you don't like it, don't use Windows Server.
  - trueismywork 2y ago
    How much is Microsoft paying you?
- tw04 2y ago
  So literally what oracle has done for 30 years? Run it on one type of hardware it costs X per core, run it on something else it costs Y per core.
- hsbauauvhabzb 2y ago
  Now imagine it’s reached such a market dominance that the product you’re attempting to host requires Amazon OS
jsheard 2y ago
S3 is probably the worst possible counter-example given that Amazon hasn't made any moves against S3 being cloned verbatim by their competitors, even though they probably could block them from using the S3 trademark to market their services as "S3 compatible" if they wanted to. They even let you use the official AWS tools and libraries to interface with third party S3 clones. That's about as fair to the competition as it gets.
- tw04 2y ago
  Nobody is stopping you from cloning windows functionality on something else. You’re free to run samba or WINE all day long. Let me know when Amazon lets me run THEIR S3 stack on hardware of my choice. Until then, all the downvotes in the world won’t change the fact they’re doing the same thing only worse.
  - CursedSilicon 2y ago
    Why would AWS let you run something they don't even sell licenses for? your attempt at an equivalence makes no sense
    - ForHackernews 2y ago
      Exactly. They're even more anti-competitive. At least MS will sell you a Windows license. Amazon will only let you run their software on AWS. Apple will only let you run MacOS on their hardware.
  - weq 2y ago
    100%. Amazon is the anti-competitive king. They just copy everything thats popular. unfortunately you cant just copy your way to sql server. Apple, Google, they all do the same. Sour grapes the MS does it better.
- Macha 2y ago
  Note that it's normally legal to use trademarks descriptively as in "S3 compatible" though maybe it would have to be S3™ compatible or S3® compatible to be totally up to scratch. But even then, the reason Intel CPUs have marketing names at all was judges telling them that 386 wasn't a good enough trademark

quitit 2y ago

Back in 1994 the United States filed a civil antitrust complaint against Microsoft for their practice of entering long term contracts with PC manufacturers in which the PC manufacturer would pay Microsoft a fee to license their OS based on the number of systems they sold, regardless of whether or not that system actually came with Windows. This of course made it more expensive to engage Microsoft's competitors such as IBM's OS/2. PC manufacturers that didn't enter into these deals would have significantly higher licensing costs which put them at a disadvantage to other PC manufacturers, this of course rapidly distorted the market and stunted the spread of alternatives. Microsoft's cloud tactics of today are so similar that I'm actually surprised that they'd try something like this again.

immibis 2y ago
The business tactic may not be different, but the regulatory environment is - we haven't really forced corporations to follow competition law in two decades.
- quitit 2y ago
  While I consider Microsoft's punishment was rather soft - they did however make a huge effort the publicly act like they were changing, including embracing open source instead of trying to kill it. That's why I find it surprising, they'd made a significant effort to at least appear compliant to the antitrust rulings.
  - Gee101 2y ago
    I think they only started embracing open source when they could directly benefit from it with people running it on Azure.
hsbauauvhabzb 2y ago
Do you think this was profitable for Microsoft, even after the antitrust fines?
- 2y ago