4 ms·

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

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.

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.