Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Microsoft Businesses Operating Systems The Almighty Buck Windows

Microsoft Will Squeeze Datacenters On Price of Windows Server 274

Posted by Soulskill
from the all-about-the-benjamins dept.
Nerval's Lobster writes "Microsoft plans to raise the price of the Datacenter edition of the upcoming R2 release of Windows Server 2012 by 28 percent, adding to what analysts call a record number of price increases for enterprise software products from Redmond. According to licensing data sheets available for download from the Windows Server 2012 R2 Website (PDF), the price of a single license of Windows Server 2012 R2 Datacenter will be $6,155, compared to $4,809 today—plus the cost of a Client Access Licenses for every user or device connecting to the server. News of the increase was posted yesterday by datacenter virtualization and security specialist Aidan Finn, a six-time Microsoft MVP who works for Dublin-based value added reseller MicroWarehouse Ltd. and has done work for clients including Amdahl, Fujitsu and Barclays. The increase caps off a year filled with a record number of price increases for Microsoft enterprise software, according to a Tweet yesterday from Microsoft software licensing analyst Paul DeGroot of Pica Communications."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Will Squeeze Datacenters On Price of Windows Server

Comments Filter:
  • Fine with me (Score:5, Insightful)

    by hawkbug (94280) <psx AT fimble DOT com> on Friday August 09, 2013 @04:18PM (#44525607) Homepage

    RedHat should see a nice increase in business because of this.

    • Re:Fine with me (Score:5, Insightful)

      by hairyfeet (841228) <bassbeast1968@@@gmail...com> on Friday August 09, 2013 @04:31PM (#44525767) Journal
      Actually the guys at the FSF along with the major Linux players like Red hat and Canonical really should get together and bake a really nice cake for Steve Ballmer, because he is singlehandedly doing what Linux never could, completely destroying MSFT and killing Windows. From the "LULZ HAI I'm a cellphone, seen my appstore?" Windows 8 debacle to jacking the price of both home and server versions of Windows in a dead economy to burning Xbox with his retarded "hey lets bleed the gamers for more cash!" scheme, his pathetic leadership and Dilbert PHB obsession with Apple and the stock price is completely trashing the company.
      • by ackthpt (218170) on Friday August 09, 2013 @04:37PM (#44525827) Homepage Journal

        Actually the guys at the FSF along with the major Linux players like Red hat and Canonical really should get together and bake a really nice cake for Steve Ballmer, because he is singlehandedly doing what Linux never could, completely destroying MSFT and killing Windows. From the "LULZ HAI I'm a cellphone, seen my appstore?" Windows 8 debacle to jacking the price of both home and server versions of Windows in a dead economy to burning Xbox with his retarded "hey lets bleed the gamers for more cash!" scheme, his pathetic leadership and Dilbert PHB obsession with Apple and the stock price is completely trashing the company.

        Is anyone good at drawing a flying chair in cake frosting?

        Just more boots dropping as Microsoft try to maintain their revenue stream with the plateauing of Windows. They'll be a bit player in the tablet and mobile market, so the money to keep the stockholders happy has to come from somewhere and Server market is as likely as Office.

        • Is anyone good at drawing a flying chair in cake frosting?

          There's a printer for that:
          http://www.sugarcraft.com/catalog/airbrush/kopyjetsystem.htm [sugarcraft.com]
          It would be great to get a frame grab from the video and use it...

        • Software companies are in a position to be extremely abusive, because it is so difficult to change to new software.

          Adobe is doing the same thing: Adobe kills Creative Suite, goes subscription-only. [cnet.com] You will no longer be allowed to have Adobe CS software on your own computer. NSA magnet, and far more expensive. As you are designing a new web site, the NSA will be viewing what you are doing. Or, of course, people who work for Adobe.
          • by EvilSS (557649)

            Adobe is doing the same thing: Adobe kills Creative Suite, goes subscription-only. [cnet.com] You will no longer be allowed to have Adobe CS software on your own computer. NSA magnet, and far more expensive. As you are designing a new web site, the NSA will be viewing what you are doing. Or, of course, people who work for Adobe.

            Completely wrong. You still download and run the software on your PC or Mac. There is no online software. You get some online storage that you can use, if you wish. The only difference between this and CS6 is that you pay by the month or by the year for a license. Sucks for individuals/small shops but it's a good thing for many at larger companies since it makes it easier to get updates. Due to accounting voodoo many companies use, it's easier to get the company to pay a yearly maintenance fee than it is t

      • haha I would love to see them send a Cake with a big Tux logo on it; I'd even pitch in for the costs. Or a dozen Cupcakes with Tux. But honestly, we all know they are doing this because of the losses on the consumer side. Companies have to make up for the losses in other areas, like what the Credit Card companies are doing to some of us now with bs transaction fees and interest since the new laws kicked in.

      • Re:Fine with me (Score:5, Insightful)

        by dnaumov (453672) on Friday August 09, 2013 @05:11PM (#44526171)

        Actually the guys at the FSF along with the major Linux players like Red hat and Canonical really should get together and bake a really nice cake for Steve Ballmer, because he is singlehandedly doing what Linux never could, completely destroying MSFT and killing Windows. From the "LULZ HAI I'm a cellphone, seen my appstore?" Windows 8 debacle to jacking the price of both home and server versions of Windows in a dead economy to burning Xbox with his retarded "hey lets bleed the gamers for more cash!" scheme, his pathetic leadership and Dilbert PHB obsession with Apple and the stock price is completely trashing the company.

        So you mean this is why Microsoft's net income has basically TRIPLED over the last 10 years?

        • Re:Fine with me (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Kal Zekdor (826142) <kal.zekdor@gmail.com> on Friday August 09, 2013 @05:35PM (#44526423) Homepage

          So you mean this is why Microsoft's net income has basically TRIPLED over the last 10 years?

          Profit isn't really the best measurement of the success of a company in an expanding industry. Even if your profit increased, if over the same period you've lost market share, you've essentially failed. Not that I have any clue what MS market share looks like over the last 10 years; you still might be correct.

          • Re:Fine with me (Score:4, Insightful)

            by Billly Gates (198444) on Friday August 09, 2013 @07:15PM (#44527105) Journal

            So you mean this is why Microsoft's net income has basically TRIPLED over the last 10 years?

            Profit isn't really the best measurement of the success of a company in an expanding industry. Even if your profit increased, if over the same period you've lost market share, you've essentially failed. Not that I have any clue what MS market share looks like over the last 10 years; you still might be correct.

            Son, please tell me you do not work for a for profit company?

            • Re: Fine with me (Score:4, Interesting)

              by Kal Zekdor (826142) <kal.zekdor@gmail.com> on Friday August 09, 2013 @07:27PM (#44527183) Homepage
              I wasn't trying to imply that profit isn't important (it is), merely pointing out that in an expanding industry it is possible to gain a small increase in profit while simultaneously losing market share. Thus, profit alone cannot be the measurement by which managerial policies are judged. If you lose market share, then you lose potential profit, even if you can still chalk up "growth" in regards to profit.
            • Car analogy (Score:2, Interesting)

              by Anonymous Coward

              Son, please tell me you do not work for a for profit company?

              Let me explain it for you. Lets say there is a race and the MS Soapbox Express is hurtling along faster and faster every moment. Sounds like they are doing really well. Problem is that the race is on a downward sloping hill and everyone else brought engines. The fate of our beloved soapbox racer is suddenly not looking good.

              Now, son, do you understand how increasing profit is irrelevant to the measure of success if not compared to the competition in a growing market?

            • by raymorris (2726007) on Friday August 09, 2013 @09:41PM (#44527987)
              GP is absolutely right in what they said.
              You try to LOSE money in an expanding market. More on that later. The problem is, Microsoft isn't in an expanding market. Google an Apple are. Microsoft isn't really in that market, the mobile market.

              In an expanding market, especially a market where critical mass is so important (think app stores), it's all about market share during the time when the market is doubling every year or so. Remember the search engine wars? There were seven major search engines. The largest was HotBot (Inktomi). Guess how much Hotbot, AltaVista, and Excite have made in the last five years? Google is making billions per quarter because they got controlling market share while the total market was tens of milllions. To get that critical market share during the growth phase, the right move is to spend as much as you can on to gain more market share. If you turned a profit, those profit dollars are dollars you should have spent on marketing, expanding production, or otherwise growing your market share.

              But again, though his statement is true, it doesn't apply to Microsoft, unless they actually want to get into mobile. If they want to be a significant player in mobile, they should have spent another $400 million developing something that could compete. That would be a $400M "loss", in exchange for a shot to remain relevant in the consumer market.
          • Re:Fine with me (Score:5, Insightful)

            by saleenS281 (859657) on Friday August 09, 2013 @07:37PM (#44527273) Homepage
            I don't think you understand how being a publicly traded company works. Your goal as a CEO isn't "grow market share", your goal is "maximize shareholder value". So you can say whatever you want about how it's going to affect Microsoft long-term, or whether you personally think it's the right path to be on, but at the end of the day when it comes to brass tacks he's been an EXTREMELY successful CEO in the eyes of the people who matter: shareholders and the board.
        • Actually it hasn't tripled. 200-2003 WAS a bad time for them compared to earlier years, but there's no tripling of profit.
          In that same ten years, Google's profit actually HAS increased 100X and Apple's up 586X over the same period.
          So the the score is:
          Microsoft 2.2
          Google 100.0
          Apple 586.0
    • There is a significant install base of Windows in datacenters? Who knew...

      • Re:Who knew... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by hawguy (1600213) on Friday August 09, 2013 @06:33PM (#44526877)

        There is a significant install base of Windows in datacenters? Who knew...

        Every fortune 500 company?

        Once you get away from internet and other tech companies, Windows has a *huge* back office presence.

        Once you make the investment into Windows to run your back office, there's not much incremental cost to add servers here and there to do other things, it's not worth the investment to switch to Linux for a few servers, and then as "a few servers here and there" grow to hundreds of servers running mission critical tasks, it's even harder to move away from Windows. Microsoft is good at lock-in -- their products work well (mostly) with each other, but poorly with everyone else. So once you move down the Windows path you get more and more ingrained in it. And, just like there are plenty of Linux zealots, there are plenty of Windows zealots that are firmly convinced that Microsoft is the One True Way to get things done in the corporate world - and of course, much of the software that you companies use to use to run their business only runs on Windows.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Tough Love (215404)

      It's fine with me because all those smug assholes who were too shortsighted to see this coming from twenty years ago should suffer for their stupidity. And in this day and age, whoever is stupid enough not to be moving forward with a Microsoft exit strategy deserves what is coming to them.

      • Re: Fine with me (Score:2, Insightful)

        by alen (225700)

        Not much in real dollars since you get unlimited virtualization rights with datacenter and with current hardware you can decrease your server count

      • Re:Fine with me (Score:4, Interesting)

        by erroneus (253617) on Friday August 09, 2013 @05:03PM (#44526089) Homepage

        A Microsoft exit strategy is a pretty hard thing to do. It's funny to me because even though ALL of the core infrastructure products my company runs from Cisco Unity phone and voicemail, Cisco's NAC, VMWare to Falconstor and others ALL run Linux, my boss's boss and my boss and his peers have knocked Linux as a toy. We had the option of running our Documentum servers on Linux or Windows and they went with Windows even though Oracle would have fully support Linux. The hit in performance and resources of Windows has resulted in a Documentum collection that just doesn't perform as well as it should or could.

        The short of it is that they don't know enough about Linux to want to go with it. The sad reality is that they actually don't know enough about Windows to make a reasonable decision which favors Windows either -- they just expect it to work because everything else is Windows to them... except for the core infrastructure.

        That's right... you'll never catch me driving a crappy Toyota car. I'll drive a Lexus any and every day.

        Idiots.

        Now Microsoft on the desktop is another matter... a lot harder to get away from.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by tnk1 (899206)

          You mean in this day and age, there are morons who still have executive level jobs that actually like Windows *Server*? I suppose if they really, really hate Oracle they may need it for SQL Server, but that's all I can think of. If you want to argue cost, you can argue for like Red Hat or even CentOS (if they can get over the fact that they aren't paying anyone for support).

          And yeah, there will still be AD servers, Desktop support file/print share servers and Sharepoint servers, but you use Linux for ever

          • You make a great point... but it just doesn't work that way. At least not where I work now, or the previous places.

            Pointy haired bosses get comfortable when things "just work", even if they "just work" inefficiently and create additional maintenance/bugs/breaches. Even when it comes time to "true up" and pay the ludicrous MS taxes, they justify it and you end up supporting it. Each time I found out my superiors have picked "just one more product, we promise" that runs on windows, I die a little inside and f

        • The hit in performance and resources of Windows has resulted in a Documentum collection that just doesn't perform as well as it should or could.

          Im curious how you measured this, if you havent run it on Linux. I ask because I see a lot of people throw this idea around, but I dont believe Ive seen recent benchmarks showing that.

          • by erroneus (253617)

            It's presumption, more or less. But it is presumption based on the knowledge and experience of dealing with Windows. For every file open, for every TCP session, for every database connection, Windows seems to require a lot more of everything to do the same things. What's more the specs seem to say the same things when it comes to system requirements. For Windows they always recommend more memory and more processor power than for Linux. That can't be because they just like Windows better.

        • Re:Fine with me (Score:4, Insightful)

          by chispito (1870390) on Friday August 09, 2013 @06:21PM (#44526795)

          That's right... you'll never catch me driving a crappy Toyota car. I'll drive a Lexus any and every day.

          Idiots.

          Now Microsoft on the desktop is another matter... a lot harder to get away from.

          I'm missing the analogy. Lexus is a re-badged and gussied up Toyota. And both are reliable cars.

          • by erroneus (253617)

            Sorry. The point is that people don't know what they're buying when they buy it. They just buy brand names.

      • It's fine with me because all those smug assholes who were too shortsighted to see this coming from twenty years ago should suffer for their stupidity. And in this day and age, whoever is stupid enough not to be moving forward with a Microsoft exit strategy deserves what is coming to them.

        I see Microsoft astromods slithering around.

      • by 1s44c (552956)

        Exit strategy? Who exactly are these people who have not exited already?

        All the enterprise software runs on some kind of UNIX, all the web hosting is done on Linux or *BSD, all the heavyweight computation is done on Linux.

        What server applications still need windows? The only two I can think of are active directory and SQL server, there must be a lot more.

      • by Tough Love (215404)

        It's fine with me because all those smug assholes who were too shortsighted to see this coming from twenty years ago should suffer for their stupidity. And in this day and age, whoever is stupid enough not to be moving forward with a Microsoft exit strategy deserves what is coming to them.

        Apropos 'nym is apropos.

      • For most businesses, even small businesses, the issue isn't the cost of Windows Datacenter licenses and CALs. They pay far more for people to administer the thing. One fully loaded dual-socket server can serve an armada of Windows Server instances (any version) with the license included, Linux servers as well, and petabytes of storage. You just need to load up on the RAM and flash storage the instance images are stored on to get around the I/O bottleneck. They're paying more for the software that enable

    • by Anonymous Coward

      We just left Red Hat - converted the entire datacenter from an OpenLDAP/samba infrastructure on Red Hat 5 & 5 to an AD/windows environment - because Red Hat couldn't (or more acurately wouldn't) meet Microsoft's pricing. The fact that HyperV proved to be fantastically more stable and capable than RHEVM (and RHEVM had Active Directory dependencies) didn't help the situation any, but it was price discrepancy that really did it.

      We had to replace hardware anyway, so we priced out new software while we were

    • Re:Fine with me (Score:5, Interesting)

      by bobbied (2522392) on Friday August 09, 2013 @05:22PM (#44526293)

      No.. I don't think Red Hat will see that much, some, but most folks will be heading to Cent-OS if they are Red Hat shops and start feeling the cost pinch too much. My guess is that ALL Linux distributions and vendors will see an uptick in their server installs, starting with the ones that have the latest SAMBA version on the install media.

      Where I do like Red Hat's support, it is wildly expensive and overkill for most low end shops who are not trying to push the envelop of the bleeding edge. Cent-OS is by definition the same thing as Red Hat offerings, minus the up-line's copyrighted graphics and trademarks and a whole lot of subscription fees. You might have to wait days, weeks or even months for the latest release, but they eventually come.

      The guys that really should be jacking up the prices are the training houses that get paid to convert Windows admins into Linux Admins. THAT'S where the money will be made when Micro$oft starts turning the thumb screws to hard.

      Actually... I'm betting Micro$oft has studied this and figures that the increase in fees will offset any defections to Linux they may see going forward. I'd figure that they are likely pretty close to being right and should they see too many folks defecting, they will quickly change the price or do some rebate deal to stop it. Micro$oft won't loose on this deal.. Trust me.

  • by intermodal (534361) on Friday August 09, 2013 @04:18PM (#44525611) Homepage Journal

    it's almost as if you're trying to get people to use something else.

  • by jaseuk (217780) on Friday August 09, 2013 @04:18PM (#44525613) Homepage

    Datacentre allows unlimited virtualization and consolidation ratios are climbing.

    We run around 300 Windows VMs on 16 CPUs, that was a major saving over Windows Server Enterprise Licenses.

    Still, the pain.

    Jason.

    • by UnknowingFool (672806) on Friday August 09, 2013 @04:25PM (#44525701)
      What is the gain for this pain? From a business standpoint, I would want to know what R2 delivers that would necessitate a price increase. If there isn't much then this makes it hard sell for businesses: "We get to pay more for no reason!"
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        The gain is, "You can only buy R2 Licenses once it's released".

      • by jaseuk (217780) on Friday August 09, 2013 @04:38PM (#44525845) Homepage

        Well it's too late. If you need a Windows Datacenter licenses (e.g. for new hardware) then you don't really have a lot of choice, even if you do want to use 2012 or 2008. We have ours on SA. Even with a price hike, it's still a pretty good deal. What's more newsworthy is they have reduced the virtualisation count for Enterprise (down from 4 to 2) and gone to a per-CPU price.

        Those businesses that are using Datacenter probably wont notice the actual price hike so much... You only run Datacenter on some serious hardware. (e.g. 20 core, 512GB RAM etc. and there are relatively few requirements in a single org), which is why I think the price hike is overdue. This is the Microsoft equivilant of the VMWare VSphere 5 VMEM fiasco... Something tells me Microsoft are in a better position than VMWARE though.

        Jason

      • by afidel (530433) on Friday August 09, 2013 @04:39PM (#44525849)

        R2 doesn't deliver any outstanding new features, but with higher and higher consolidation ratios this was pretty much inevitable, we've gone from 72GB to 144GB to 384GB of ram in our hosts in 3.5 years while the cost of the hardware has actually dropped. Since datacenter edition allows unlimited virtualization that means people need fewer license and hence to keep up revenue costs per license rise. Trust me, the other MS prices from last fall had a MUCH larger impact on most enterprises EA renewal than this little increase will.

      • From Windows 2008 a ton. Its finally vm ready where if you allocate 2 gigs of ram it wont use a 100% of the ram. Like Linux it will dynamically use it. It supports AD data compression too which is nice for slow wan links. You can now run a dns and ad controller in a VM finally! Also HyperV is now a type 1 virtualizer and goes head to head with VMware.That is the biggest selling point for the datacenter edition.

        R2 just has a sily role menu to chose from over R1 and some IIs feautures.

        So no business reason ov

      • by benjymouse (756774) on Friday August 09, 2013 @05:14PM (#44526209)

        What is the gain for this pain? From a business standpoint, I would want to know what R2 delivers that would necessitate a price increase. If there isn't much then this makes it hard sell for businesses: "We get to pay more for no reason!"

        A number of important improvements to Hyper-V allowing higher VM density and (if you run 2012R2 guests) improved performance because of more direct access to hardware. Also, Hyper-V replica

        Storage Spaces with tiered storage (what is usually only available with SANs). You can fit a server with regular disks, fast disks and/or SSDs and set up tiered storage spaces, e.g. with parity (think ZFS). Server 2012R2 will then move "hot blocks" to faster disks and move them back to slower disks when they are not accessed as often anymore, letting other hot blocks utilize the faster tier.

        A number of manageability improvements, among those PowerShell with Desired State Configuration (think puppet/chef on steroids for what is not already covered by group policies).

        There's more. You can read some of it here: http://www.zdnet.com/windows-server-2012-r2-a-first-look-7000017675/ [zdnet.com]

        Whether it is value enough to justify the price increase is probably subjective. However, it could steal away some SAN business as you now basically can set it up to provide the same features as (at least) entry level SANs. Also the higher VM density could be worth money.

    • by gbjbaanb (229885)

      it does not offer unlimited CALs though, you still have to pay for them, and the cost of them is rising similarly. So you might be able to run 1000 VMs on a single physical server (please note, the cost is per processor, not per server), but all those users will start to look really expensive.

      There is no Enterprise edition anymore either - Server 2012 has Datacentre, Standard, Essentials, and Foundation. The cost ratio is if you run 16 VMs per standard licence, so if you are running a 16 CPU server, you'd b

      • by jaseuk (217780) on Friday August 09, 2013 @04:59PM (#44526057) Homepage

        I think you've mis-calculated.. $1764 gets your 4 VMs. $12310 gets you unlimited VMs. So it's under 24 VMs (12 CPU licenses) that you might be better off running with many essential licenses. Of course the one advantage to running with multiple standard licenses is that you could having many more CPUs in the server than you could afford with Datacentre.

        I expect this is what the plan is, this new pricing makes 4 way servers possibly interesting again and one wa or the other increases Windows licensing revenue.

        What's also nice is they finally done away with the crippled standard vs enterprise nonsense. Paying almost double for one tiny feature (like ts session balancing) gets a bit annoying on a large TS farm. There are some silver linings here.

        Jason

    • by HuguesT (84078)

      As I understand it, you can run an unlimited number of VM instances on Win2k12R2, but don't you need a license for each and every one of these VM ? That must cost something, no?

      • by whoever57 (658626)

        As I understand it, you can run an unlimited number of VM instances on Win2k12R2, but don't you need a license for each and every one of these VM ? That must cost something, no?

        It amazes me that there are people who work as analysts of Microsofts' licensing scemes and pricing, but there are, because the schemes are so complex and wrapped in Microsoft's own language.

        In this case, the Datacenter edition allows unlimited "OSEs" to run on the system without having to buy a license for each "OSE". What's an

  • Good, even smaller chances that someone will buy it.
  • by raymorris (2726007) on Friday August 09, 2013 @04:22PM (#44525651)
    I must, I must increase my going bust
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 09, 2013 @04:26PM (#44525723)

    They've got to pay for all of those Slates they have stuck in the warehouse.

  • by wiredlogic (135348) on Friday August 09, 2013 @04:39PM (#44525853)

    These dramatic price hikes look like Microsoft is working to stem the tide of massive losses with increased revenue in their core product domains. They are running out of options as each new offering falls flat on its face over and over again. I wouldn't be surprised if there is some significant trimming of "non-essential" personnel in the next few years to further boost the quarterly profits.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      These dramatic price hikes look like Microsoft is working to stem the tide of massive losses with increased revenue in their core product domains.

      Microsft is still an extremely profitable company - Profit margins of over 28% [yahoo.com].

      But their stock price hasn't done much in over a year - It's about where it's at in March of '12.

      Wall Street doesn't like that. They want growth.

      MS, I think, is hoping that this will give a revenue and profit boost to help the stock price.

      In meantime, I just see MS throwing ideas at the wall and seeing what sticks.

      I don't necessarily see cuts - although that is a quick way to boost profits short terms - I do see possible acquisit

      • by Tough Love (215404) on Friday August 09, 2013 @06:28PM (#44526837)

        Wall street doesn't love Microsoft because its business model for the last dozen years ago is about squeezing increasing license fees out of locked in customers. Nobody is under any illusion about where that leads.

        Knowing that, Microsoft has been desperately thrashing about trying to find some new market into which it can extend its monopoly. Arguably, the biggest single factor in forestalling Microsoft's boundless ambition was Mozilla, which ended Microsoft's dreams of becoming gatekeeper to the internet. Then Apple killed Microsoft's hopes in the phone market and Sony refused to concede the high end console market. Next sea change is, the corporate workplace moves to the cloud and Microsoft isn't invited to the party.

        Last year's flurry of new product hype was just comical. Microsoft got the benefit of the doubt that time. They shot their wad, next manic outbreak of product announcements will get exactly zero cred.

  • Gov Balmer (Score:5, Funny)

    by the eric conspiracy (20178) on Friday August 09, 2013 @04:42PM (#44525889)

    Princess Leia: Governor Balmer, I should have expected to find you holding Gates' leash. I recognized your foul stench when I was brought on board.
    Governor Balmer: Charming to the last. You don't know how hard I found it, signing the order to terminate your license.
    Princess Leia: I'm surprised that you had the courage to take the responsibility yourself.
    Governor Balmer: Princess Leia, before your execution, I'd like you to join me for a ceremony that will make this game console operational. No IT department will dare oppose the Emperor now.
    Princess Leia: The more you tighten your grip, Balmer, the more data centers will slip through your fingers.
    Governor Balmer: Not after we demonstrate the capabilities of Windows 8!

    • by roc97007 (608802) on Friday August 09, 2013 @05:17PM (#44526239) Journal

      Princess Leia: No! Alderaan is peaceful! We have no weapons, you can't possibly... Wait, nothing's happening. Isn't that supposed to be doing something?
      Governor Balmer: Give me a minute. Try the hot corner. No, the other one! Get out of the way. Desktop Mode.... WHERE THE %#@$ IS THE START MENU?

  • Thank you Microsoft (Score:3, Interesting)

    by vinn (4370) on Friday August 09, 2013 @04:49PM (#44525959) Homepage Journal

    Thank you Microsoft. This makes implementing enterprise strategy so much easier. So let's see.. in the past year we've ditched Microsoft CRM completely. We got rid of 2 SQL Server instances. We will purchase SQL 2012, but with only half the CAL's. These price increases make it so much easier to consider other options.

  • My licensing costs (Score:5, Informative)

    by EmperorOfCanada (1332175) on Friday August 09, 2013 @05:06PM (#44526127)
    My licensing costs. Let's see:
    CentOS 6 - $0.00
    Apache - $0.00
    MariaDB - $0.00
    PHP - $0.00
    GNU C++ - $0.00
    TOTAL -- $0.00

    Plus number of hours spent auditing licensing: ZERO
    Now let's look at my development tools:XCode, SSH, Firefox, Chrome, VIM, and the command line. For an additional zero dollars.

    But the best bit is that even if MS said, "Dude you are so wonderful that we will now give you an unlimited license to every product we have completely for free for life." I wouldn't even crack the film wrap on the packaging. It is not out of some religious hatred of MS but that the products I use match my needs perfectly. So for me at least to switch back to MS would be to make my products and productivity worse.
    • by sjames (1099)

      Skipping the walloping headache from trying to figure out how many CALs I need: priceless!

  • MS is just covering losses on their Surface, it shouldn't be a huge surprise. ;-)

  • Sure, it looks expensive, but Microsoft is throwing in a Surface RT I believe.

    Woot!

  • by Kaenneth (82978) on Friday August 09, 2013 @05:38PM (#44526453) Homepage Journal

    The license fees for running Linux have effectively doubled every year since it came out.

  • Are they insane? Six grand for a server OS that literally can be replicated with any Linux distribution and a few things like SAMBA, Rsnapshot, etc? So long as it LOOKS like a Windows server to the user community, they don't care.
    • by Shados (741919)

      Replicated with Linux, a few things like samba, and _a datacenter support contract_

      The gap in price gets much lower when you compare apples to apples. If you just want a small cluster of windows servers for your business, you can get that for almost free (included support!)

    • by Billly Gates (198444) on Friday August 09, 2013 @08:10PM (#44527491) Journal

      Are they insane? Six grand for a server OS that literally can be replicated with any Linux distribution and a few things like SAMBA, Rsnapshot, etc? So long as it LOOKS like a Windows server to the user community, they don't care.

      I take it you have not seen an Oracle License for Solaris have you?

      They go for up to $100,000 as the database is part of the deal whether you need it or not!

      $6,000 is laughable cheap as the real cost comes when Samba doesn't work for a 3,000 user environment where shit wont break because of a Windows Update to the clients or if you need virtualization.

      VSPhere last time I looked was $8000+. So $6,000 is -$2000 less than debian plus VSPhere to run your virtual machines believe it or not. Dynamic I/o that moves the requests to the least uitilized SAN/volume means hardware savings too and Linux (outside of IBM's flavor) still does not have this.

      The enteprise is totally different than the desktop world.

  • Where I work is a Microsoft shop. Almost all of the servers are Microsoft with the emphasis on keeping it that way. If I was told to convert 50% my machines over to Linux I could do it pretty quickly. Now will this price increase make this happen?

  • by Aryeh Goretsky (129230) on Friday August 09, 2013 @08:52PM (#44527725) Homepage

    Hello,

    While raising the price on an enterprise product is a good way to boost short-term revenue, it seems to me that companies might begin to seek less expensive alternatives. In this case, though, that might not be Linux at all.

    I haven't seen any mention of this so far, but I have to wonder if the price increase might be an attempt to make enterprises look at Windows Azure [windowsazure.com] as an alternative to continuing to run their own datacenters.

    Regards,

    Aryeh Goretsky

Klein bottle for rent -- inquire within.

Working...