Highlighted
Contributor
Contributor

vSphere 5 Licensing

I took a minute to read the licensing guide for vSphere 5 and I'm still trying to pull my jaw off the floor. VMware has completely screwed their customers this time. Why?

What I used to be able to do with 2 CPU licenses now takes 4. Incredible.

Today

BL460c G7 with 2 sockets and 192G of memory = 2 vSphere Enterprise Plus licenses
DL585 G7 with 4 sockets and 256G of memory = 4 vSphere Enterprise Plus licenses

Tomorrow

BL460c G7 with 2 sockets and 192G of memory = 4 vSphere Enterprise Plus licenses
BL585 G7 with 4 sockets and 256G of memory = 6 vSphere Enterprise Plus licenses


So it's almost as if VMware is putting a penalty on density and encouraging users to buy hardware with more sockets rather than less.

I get that the vRAM entitlements are for what you use, not necessarily what you have, but who buys memory and doesn't use it?

Forget the hoopla about a VM with 1 TB of memory. Who in their right mind would deploy that using the new license model? It would take 22 licenses to accommodate! You could go out and buy the physical box for way less than that today, from any hardware vendor.

Anyone else completely shocked by this move?

@Virtual_EZ
0 Kudos
1,980 Replies
Highlighted
Immortal
Immortal

johndennis wrote:

I don't see how people think VMware needs to charge more money going forward. They aren't losing money in the slightest if you look at their recent forward looking statement. Keeping the existing 4.1 model and tweaking the core count limitations would still leave vmware highly profitable.

I absolutely agree!  The product was overpriced to begin with.

VMWare is just looking to make more green, when in reality they should've just keep the Greene that they had.  (I'm pretty sure she wouldn't have done this to us.)

And by the same logic Microsoft should stop selling CALs because they make enough money selling mice and keyboards. When Microsoft released NT 3.1 there were no CALs. NT 3.5 introduced per client licenses. People weren't happy with that either. It is a pay for use model just like vRAM.

-- David -- VMware Communities Moderator
0 Kudos
Highlighted
Contributor
Contributor

DSTAVERT wrote:

And by the same logic Microsoft should stop selling CALs because they make enough money selling mice and keyboards. When Microsoft released NT 3.1 there were no CALs. NT 3.5 introduced per client licenses. People weren't happy with that either. It is a pay for use model just like vRAM.

Not "just like" it.  CALs are a lot more predictable than vRAM.  You have x employees/devices so you need x user/device CALs and you use them.  With vRAM you pay for something that's sitting idle most of the time.  Employees sitting idle get fired.

For Microsoft it makes a lot sense selling Windows Server Datacenter by the socket since those servers are used for running applications.  Chance is that that application may be something that microsoft sells.  So even if they sell less Datacenter licenses they may make more money with other products because customers can install as many VMs as they want.  VMware on the other hand is going to sell less vSphere licenses and thus less of its other products because they overprice a commodity product.

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Enthusiast
Enthusiast

DSTAVERT wrote:

Microsoft has moved to a licensing model based on socket count which saves money for larger customers while allowing smaller customers to keep their licensing the same maintaining current costs.

VMware has moved away from a socket only licensing model to a model that at best keeps customers at the same cost level but will increase costs by VMware's own figures for 5% to 10% of it's customers.  By the feedback seen online that 5% to 10% was grossly underestimated as are the amount of the increased costs.

VMware can no longer support a licensing model based on socket count because hardware is getting to powerful.  Microsoft doesn't share that opinion and is moving to that model.   From the posts on this thread it seems there are a lot of people that agree with Microsoft.

Do not forget that while Microsoft has provided a per socket model that isn't where Microsoft makes it's money. It is CALs. Consider that almost every MS server you deploy is hosting some other application or service that also requires a CAL. So enabling unlimited numbers of Datacenter servers is somewhat trivial. In Microsoft's licensing model you do pay for use by way of the CAL. VMware the equivalent to the CAL is becoming vRAM.

VMware does not have CALs or per a VM license. When it became more inexpensive to swap a VMware license for additional RAM VMware needed to change the model. Hopefully it gets adjusted to help some transition to the new model but it will change.

Not exactly true.  A CAL covers an unlimited number of servers so you pay the same amount whether you have one server or one thousand. There is no additional CAL cost associated with adding additional servers. I will admit that generally more servers means more users which means more CALs so there is a relationship between CALs and number of servers although not direct. 

With a SQL socket license you don't need to buy a CAL. In the past I might need 8 dual core/dual socket SQL servers for a total of 16 licences.  Today there's a good chance I can virtualize those servers down to 2 8 core/sockets.

CALs are an addition revenue stream for Microsoft but VMware also has additional streams as sites scale up.  Essientials to Enterprise to Enterprise Plus is one.  They also have a variety of add on products that become more important as sites get bigger so they aren't depentant on ESXi revenue alone.

I'm not sure how Microsoft will license their products in the future but I'm sure they are looking past a two year window.  The Datacenter licensing is a recent change so I'm sure they aren't going to drop it with the next software version.  Microsoft generally has licensing plans that lets you decrease costs as you scale up. VMware did with 4.1 but no longer do with 5.0.

There is no way for a lot of customers to do a no cost upgrade that they already paid for with their SnS agreements. I think that is the main point being made here.  It isn't what customers will be paying for future purchases but the additional charges for products and services we already paid for.

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Enthusiast
Enthusiast

jmounts wrote:

Gary H wrote:

For all the people bashing Microsoft here I'd like to point something out.  They came out with Datacenter which licenses the product by socket.  It allows you to install unlimited instances of the software in a virtualized environment up to the limits of the hardware.  They didn't change the licensing model on Standard or Enterprise editions.  I can still purchase those editions just as I always did.  At some point it become cost effective to switch to Datacenter and your costs become fixed from that point forward as long as you don't add more sockets.  If I run out of memory on a server I can add more and then continue adding servers without purchasing additional software licenses.  Smaller datacenters aren't penalized, larger companies save money.

Microsoft has moved to a licensing model based on socket count which saves money for larger customers while allowing smaller customers to keep their licensing the same maintaining current costs.

VMware has moved away from a socket only licensing model to a model that at best keeps customers at the same cost level but will increase costs by VMware's own figures for 5% to 10% of it's customers.  By the feedback seen online that 5% to 10% was grossly underestimated as are the amount of the increased costs.

VMware can no longer support a licensing model based on socket count because hardware is getting to powerful.  Microsoft doesn't share that opinion and is moving to that model.   From the posts on this thread it seems there are a lot of people that agree with Microsoft.

You can't compare the MS Licensing model to VMwares.

Apples and Oranges.

MS is the CORE of most environments. Everything you run will require an OS. for shops that run more then 5 2008R2 servers, Datacenter makes the most sense per socket (ESP if you are vitualizing). MS HAD to do this, else more and more people would switch to Linux/Unix for non MS Based systems.

Where you don't need VMware to run your servers. You can run it on hardware, hyper-V. Xen, Virtual Box, Vmware server 1.0/2.0, Free ESXi, then start looking at the paid versions of the software.

VMware had to move into a new licensing model cause not only were they losing money in sales (Really, we don't have proof of this, now do we?), but the future on hardware compression is looking bleak for them (again, i don't see this being true either).

where as with MS, you will always find yourself using windows OS in your environement. You will have atleast a AD server, Exchange (most organizations run this now) and a MSSQL (even if its MSDE).

I realize it isn't a direct one to one comparison but I think the points you make support my argument more than they contradict it so I'll have to agree with the points you make but disagree with your conclusion.

Because MS is the core of most environments they have less of a reason to go with a virtualization friendly, socket based licensing model and away from a server based model. We saved a lot of money by the introduction of Datacenter.

You are also correct VMware has a lot more competition than Microsoft and switching away from VMware as a virtualization platform is a lot easier than switching away from Microsoft as an application platform. This should force VMware prices down and Microsoft prices up. The opposite is happening.

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Contributor
Contributor

This will not change the picture - free version drops out of consideration and 24 and 32 GB per socket is a kidding in the next few years.

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Enthusiast
Enthusiast

aroudnev wrote:

This will not change the picture - free version drops out of consideration and 24 and 32 GB per socket is a kidding in the next few years.

My Essentials Plus hosts are sitting at 96GB

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Contributor
Contributor

Someone in VMWAre try to protect his reputation by saying O, I made a great change, we just miscalculate a little. Unfortunately they are not ready to accept the fact thet their new vRAM model is total failure and if they proceed with it, it will cost them a lot of money and they lost a lot of loyal customers.

As I said already, the MINIMAL acceptable limitations which maybe can help to keep the customers are

24 GB - free ESX

64 GB - essentrial

128GB - Essential+ and standard

256GB - enterprise or advanced

This is a BARE MINIMUM which allows most today-s customers to proceed with planned upgrades and hardware purchases. And lkeeping FREE version in reasonable limits is important too, it is a very important channel of getting new users into the VMWare brand.,

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Contributor
Contributor

So I have a specific question related to Essentials Plus licensing.

I have a customer with a single ESXi host w/96 GB physical ram and two CPUs.  They want a new server and I would like to sell them Essentials Plus so they can run VMs on the new server and have High Availability and vMotion capabilities.  I belive the customer can run their current VMs using less than 64 GB RAM total.

So here's the question.  Essentials Plus is licensed for 6 CPUs and a total of 144 GB vRAM allocated.  If I'm only using 2 x Dual-Socket servers, but want to use 144 GB vRAM across those two servers, am I still within the licensing limitations?

If so, I'd like to sell the customer a new esx host w/two processors and 64 GB RAM.  My understanding is that as long as I don't allocate more than 144 GB vRAM I'm ok.

I hope this was clear enough and appreciate any feedback in advance.

Thanks,

Nathaniel

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Contributor
Contributor

nolent wrote:

First, we all know hyper-v isnt FREE. It has it's associated Windows license cost. Beyond that, your licensing costs are the same as they would be with VMWare. You have to have a valid license for each guest OS REGARDLESS of which hypervisor you use.

Second, the Datacenter arguemet is moot, as the same rules would apply regardless of VMW, Hyper-V or Xen. If an SMB cant get Datacenter, they cant get Datacenter. Dont cloud the issue here (no pun intended, but maybe appropriate).

Third, Hyper-V WASNT that great, and maybe ISNT so great, that's why we all use VMWare. But then again, their costs were rational, and their SnS should allow us to upgrade at will without this ridiculous new licensing scheme a-la EMC Mafia type tactics.

Fourth, I think you are SERIOUSLY overestimating the engineering time to migrate from one virtual platform to another. I believe this will be trivial.

1) True, but my argument was two-fold.  First, there is a cost associated with any migration project, regardless of technology; this is a very real cost that people are largely ignoring in their arguments.  However, that cost is variable depending on the size of the infrastructure.  Second, A free HyperV farm is as useless as a free ESXi farm with no licensed guests (assuming you want to run windows).  To say I can start a free HyperV farm today is the same as saying I can start a free ESXi5 farm tomorrow.  Since you won't have any (windows) guests, the vRAM license won't affect you.  However, all bets are off once you populate that environment and that's where the real discussion about costs lie... one we conveniently ignore during our arguments as it's too complicated to predict and there are so many types of businesses with different technology needs.

2) I apologize for clouding the issue, but that is the reality when dealing with different size businesses and various licensing models between competing technologies.  A small business is unlikely to have a DC license, so to assume they can convert tomorrow and "the sky's the limit" isn't a valid assumption.  An enterprise customer would see that differently.  Sure the "sky's the limit", but can you really get that (approx.) 30:1 ratio vmware was giving you on that server?  If not, you now have to incur additional hardware costs to "scale-out" and that requires additional windows DC licenses, sustainment and support costs; both in MS fees and potentially more support personnel depending on the magnitude of growth.  Even if that cost is less than vSphere5 pricing, it's still an additional cost.

3) I completely agree.

4) I don't think I am.  I've been involved in many different virtualization and datacenter projects for large enterprise customers.  Sure the conversion for a SMB might be trivial, but an enterprise running 500+ VMs will not convert as easily.  Also, what if that enterprise uses other VM technologies (SRM, Lab Mgr, VDR, VC Heartbeat, etc) meant to augment their vSphere install?  These further complicate the equation and a company seeking a conversion needs to identify replacements if available or possibly acceptable weaknesses to offset costs.  This is especially true in a subcontract engagement where the third party is tied by SLA's governing performance and downtime.

I understand we are all looking at this situation from our respective employer's stereotype, but we also have to realize that not all of our companies are created equal.  Thanks Nolent for being honest and sincere in your response.

kmcferrin wrote:

This is not true.  There is a tremendous amount of FUD and blatant misinformation in this forum with regards to Hyper-V licensing.  As someone who sells services for both VMware and Hyper-V, let me enlighten you:

Hyper-V is free.  Period. End of discussion.  You can download it for free.  You can install it for free.  It includes HA, Live Migration, Dynamic Memory, and all of the other features that Microsoft has developed, and it is all free.  There is absolutely zero licensing cost associated with Hyper-V.  If you CHOOSE to leverage System Center to manager Hyper-V then you must license the management server that runs System Center and buy a System Center CAL for each physical server that it manages.  That is it, but that is System Center licensing, not Hyper-V.  Hyper-V can be managed perfectly well from the command line, via PowerShell, or via the free Remote Server Administration Tools that you can download from Microsoft.

The Datacenter Edition of Windows doesn't enter into the discussion.  Let me repeat myself:  Windows Datacenter Edition has NOTHING to do with licensing Hyper-V.  You can download and install Hyper-V for free, then install any supported guest that you want.  You could install free editions of Linux (though I wouldn't use Hyper-V if I were a Linux shop) and have ZERO licensing cost for Hyper-V and the guests.

If you are virtualizing Windows on Hyper-V (or VMware, or Xen) then YOU MUST license those guest/VM operating systems.  It doesn't matter what virtualization solution you are using, the licensing for Windows VMs is EXACTLY THE SAME.  Period.  If your Windows VMs are properly licensed under VMware then you can swap out your virtualization solution for Hyper-V or Xen with no additional Windows licensing cost.  Obviously you can also go from Xen or Hyper-V to VMware as well.

A lot of people get confused about this because of the guest/VM rights that come with Windows Server licenses, but those rights don't change depending what virtualization solution you use.  You license your guest VMs exactly the same way, regardless of the virtualization solution, and there is not licensing cost for Hyper-V hosts because IT IS FREE.

So Hyper-V is free?  Honestly, you've gone to too much trouble to cloud my argument that a conversion to Hyper-V isn't totally free.  As I explained above, there are very real costs associated with a conversion to Hyper-V (or any virtualization technology for that matter).  That is the crux of my argument and your diatribe does little to address it.  Your free argument only works for businesses who have already purchased datacenter licenses or are bound by VL agreements that allow license transferance; not ALL businesses fall into this category.  However, if you are a SMB who relies on OEM licensed servers, then a conversion to Hyper-V will cost you more than "free" as you can't transfer OEM licenses to new hardware (virtualization included).  If you have to buy new OEM licenses or sign a VL with sustainment, these are NOT free.

And in case you were wondering:

http://www.microsoft.com/oem/en/licensing/sblicensing/pages/transfer_oem_licenses.aspx

http://www.microsoft.com/oem/en/licensing/sblicensing/pages/licensing_faq.aspx

Q. Can my customers transfer or sell their OEM software licenses?

A. After an OEM software license has been installed on a PC, the license  may not be installed on or transferred to another PC. However, the  entire PC may be transferred to another end user along with the software  license rights. When transferring the PC to the new end user, the  software media, manuals (if applicable), and Certificate of Authenticity  label must be included. It is also advisable to include the original  purchase invoice or receipt. The original end user cannot keep any  copies of the software.

http://blogs.technet.com/b/jhoward/archive/2005/05/27/405432.aspx

John Howard - Senior Program Manager in the Hyper-V team

Q: May I move an OEM license for Windows to a virtual machine?
A:  You may not transfer original equipment manufacturer (OEM) server  licenses from the original computer to a different computer. Any  Microsoft Windows Server license acquired preinstalled with a new  computer from a computer manufacturer is tied to the computer on which  the licensed software is first installed. This applies to the initial  copy installed on the computer as well as any subsequent copies licensed  to run with virtual machine software. However, if you have acquired  Software Assurance for this preinstalled license, you receive the  rights associated with the Volume License program, including license  reassignment. At this point, you would be able to move that license and  Software Assurance from one computer to another, including a VM.

jmounts wrote:

You can't compare the MS Licensing model to VMwares.

Apples and Oranges.

MS is the CORE of most environments. Everything you run will require an OS. for shops that run more then 5 2008R2 servers, Datacenter makes the most sense per socket (ESP if you are vitualizing). MS HAD to do this, else more and more people would switch to Linux/Unix for non MS Based systems.

Amen brother... Microsoft's product line encompasses most (but not all) of VMware's product offerings, but VMware barely scratches the surface of Microsoft's portfolio.  This is exactly why MS can "borrow from Peter to pay Paul" in order to ensure they maintain a competitive advantage.  Similar in argument to IE being bundled with Windows.  It still cost MS loads of ca$h to develop IE, but they offset it with costs charged elsewhere.  While this too is not an exact representation of the virtualization race, it somewhat fits.  This is also why monopoly's are generally a bad idea.  Once they use their market dominance to push out the smaller competitors, there is nothing to keep them in check unless they are run by CEO's with a conscience (or a government that regulates private business).

kmcferrin wrote:

Fair enough. All I wanted was to ensure that people were making comparisons based on accurate information.  If it doesn't meet your needs then you have to use something else.  As I stated before, if I wouldn't use Hyper-V in a primarily Linux shop.  On the other hand, if people trust Windows enough to run their database, email, collaboration, web, DNS, directory, and LOB application servers then it's a bit of a stretch to say "I trust it to run all of those things but not my virtualization."

Wow, finally a statement from kmcferrin I can actually agree on.

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Contributor
Contributor

We plan 32 and 64 GB of RAM (not vRAM; vRAM is approx pRAM x 2 on dev and staging systems and 1.3 pRAM on production) per essential hosts in the small new installations, and it is for the next year only; it will became 128 in couple years. So, I don't want even to test ESX5 until they have this dumb vRAM limitation - if they insist, we will continue to use ESX4 and will start to make a transition to XEN for the new installations (yes, it takes time, but once done and environment tested, it will became pretty easy). I dont need funny features from VMware so while VMware is the best XEN is GOOD ENOUGH for small sites (it require SAN redesign and so on, but this all can be done). And then, I plan to use free ESX4i foreveor testing and development in this case (if they switch all lines to ESX5); I can write my own management tools (already have backups which replaced VCB backups) if necessary (to clone etc), not a big deal - it did not make any sense when they had essential licenses but it will make sense if they switch the line to vRAM model.

And I believe that many customers will do the same. Moreove, if I did not have free ESXi which has reasonable limitations (definitely not 8 gb of vRAM) i should never come with ESXi at all, so new custores will be cut off from VMWare. My friend run free ESXi in school; guess what he will run if he wil be entitled to 8 gb of vRAM per socket only (his servers are 1 cpu servers)? And guess what school students will use when they graduate and go to the univercity?

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Enthusiast
Enthusiast

Marcel1967 wrote:

This evening a blogposting from Gabrie van Zanten was published titled VMware changes vRAM licensing on vSphere 5 after customer feedback on vTAX

http://www.gabesvirtualworld.com/vmware-changes-vram-licensing-on-vsphere-5-after-customer-feedback-...

According to a rumour he picked-up VMware will change the vRAM policy!!

As Gabrie is well informed, has his contacts  I think this is could very well be true  and thus good news for all of us!

The new policy:

  • VMware vSphere 5 Essentials will give a 24GB vRAM entitlement
  • VMware vSphere 5 Essentials Plus will give a 32GB vRAM entitlement
  • Max vRAM in Essentials / Essentials Plus will be maxed at 192GB vRAM
  • VMware vSphere 5 Standard vRAM entitlement has changed to 32GB ( <- my assumption)
  • VMware vSphere 5 Enterprise vRAM entitlement will be doubled to 64GB
  • VMware vSphere 5 Enterprise Plus vRAM entitlement will be doubled to 96GB

This would at least be an improvement.  Whether you agree or disagree with the vRAM licensing model there are still two flaws that rarely get discussed.

1.  Why different vRAM entitlements with different versions?  I should be paying for features by upgrading to different versions not the number of guests I can run.  I can understand slight differences between Essentials and Enterprise but not to the degree that VMware was gone.  If vRAM entitlements allow me to run 16 guests on Enterprise Plus why not at least 12 or 14 on Essential?  There's a difference in features I get by going with a higher version.  These features generally benifit the guest not the host. As it stands I'm severely limited on the number of guests I can run on Essentials as opposed to Enterprise Plus.  The RAM entitlements listed above just increase that gap.  To bring Standard up to 96GB with the figures listed above I'd be paying almost as much for Standard ($2985) as Enterpise Plus ($3,495).

2.  What was VMware thinking when they set the entitlements on Enterprise as compared to Enterprise Plus?  If you do a cost/vRAM comparision Enterprise Plus is cheaper than Enterprise, $73 vs $90 using current model.  I can't see a reason for a new customer to ever go with Enterprise.  The people this is really going to hurt are sites that are heavily invested in Enterprise licenses and can't afford the upgrade cost to Enterprise Plus for their existing licenses.  They will be penalized everytime they need to do a vRAM upgrade.  The feature set of Enterprise Plus should offset the price difference for that version and should be the deciding factor to use it.  vRAM entitlement should be the same for both versions.

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Contributor
Contributor

Why dont sell him system with ESX4.1 and avoid all these hassles at all? ESX5i don't exist yet and it does not promise any features which can be important for the next 3 - 4 years.

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Enthusiast
Enthusiast

nhasenfus wrote:

So I have a specific question related to Essentials Plus licensing.

I have a customer with a single ESXi host w/96 GB physical ram and two CPUs.  They want a new server and I would like to sell them Essentials Plus so they can run VMs on the new server and have High Availability and vMotion capabilities.  I belive the customer can run their current VMs using less than 64 GB RAM total.

So here's the question.  Essentials Plus is licensed for 6 CPUs and a total of 144 GB vRAM allocated.  If I'm only using 2 x Dual-Socket servers, but want to use 144 GB vRAM across those two servers, am I still within the licensing limitations?

If so, I'd like to sell the customer a new esx host w/two processors and 64 GB RAM.  My understanding is that as long as I don't allocate more than 144 GB vRAM I'm ok.

I hope this was clear enough and appreciate any feedback in advance.

Thanks,

Nathaniel

You might get a better response to this in a new thread but I can answer the licensing part.

The vRAM/CPU entitlements apply whether you have an actaul processor installed or not so you can use all 6 licenses.  You would be withing the limits for your setup.

Make sure the new server has processors that are compatible with the old server's processors.  vMotion will only work if the processors are within certain specs of each other.  VMware has a compatiblity doc on their website but I don't have the link to give you.  I'd also up the new servers memory to 96GB so the two servers match in memory.  Memory is fairly cheap so it shouldn't add that much to the cost.  Unless you will need to go with a higher density DIMM or the new server won't support it I think the price difference will be worth having the two servers match in that area.

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Contributor
Contributor

They're keeping around Enterprise to avoid having to give current Advanced and Enterprise customers with SnS a free upgrade to Enterprise Plus.  If I were to give my honest opinion about this my post would at the very least be moderated and possibly deleted...

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Enthusiast
Enthusiast

hmtk1976 wrote:

They're keeping around Enterprise to avoid having to give current Advanced and Enterprise customers with SnS a free upgrade to Enterprise Plus.  If I were to give my honest opinion about this my post would at the very least be moderated and possibly deleted...

I think you are right.   24GB, 32GB, 48GB memory levels are nice even memory increments and might look nice at first glance on paper.   But when you look at the cost/vRAM numbers things fall apart.  If VMware didn't look at those numbers I can't believe they looked at this in any other way than to get the most money from existing customers at every level.

And for all the people that say VMware had to make this move because they were losing money with the old model, I would suggest you look at their latest earnings report.  They are making record profits.

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Contributor
Contributor

I read this article -

http://www.gabesvirtualworld.com/vmware-changes-vram-licensing-on-vsphere-5-after-customer-feedback-...

- this is NOT TRUE::

      • When reading all the comments, people weren’t complaining about the vRAM model, but mostly about the entitlements.

No, pelopel complaining about the vRAM MODEL which is weird because it don't allow to plan / upgrade accordingly, They do not complain about the numbers, the whole model is broken and is a huge step-back into the past.

I personally don't see much difference between what was proposed and what is proposed (in the article) - problem is exactly the same - in the new model you can't virtualize as necessary because you got artifical limitations (and you will rech vRAM cap eraly or later), and free version is absolutely kidding one. This again is an attempt of some dumb sales in Vmware to keep his face.

And no one in the article even mentioned that the huge harm to VMWare reputation is ALREADY DONE.

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Contributor
Contributor

They shafted  ESX 3.5 Enterprise customers whe n intorducing vSphere 4 Enterprise Plus and not giving a free upgrade for those with SnS.  Now they're still keeping Enterprise around to milk loyal customers for all they can.  I've said it a few times already but VMware is an untrustworthy partner.  AFAIC ex-partner.

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Contributor
Contributor

DSTAVERT wrote:

johndennis wrote:

I don't see how people think VMware needs to charge more money going forward. They aren't losing money in the slightest if you look at their recent forward looking statement. Keeping the existing 4.1 model and tweaking the core count limitations would still leave vmware highly profitable.

I absolutely agree!  The product was overpriced to begin with.

VMWare is just looking to make more green, when in reality they should've just keep the Greene that they had.  (I'm pretty sure she wouldn't have done this to us.)

And by the same logic Microsoft should stop selling CALs because they make enough money selling mice and keyboards. When Microsoft released NT 3.1 there were no CALs. NT 3.5 introduced per client licenses. People weren't happy with that either. It is a pay for use model just like vRAM.

Second time you have used this analogy so you should understand it better in that the hardware refrence is not aplicable. Secondy NT 3.51 was $699 street and Cals were $40 if I recall.  That was 1994 and almost two decades later the price for the core product and cals has not risen much at all.   By all means please use that logic.

EMC tried the same approach on us in 2006 and the end result was moving off the products permantly when support expired. I hope that does not happen here as it is a great product.

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Contributor
Contributor

And this WILL BE their RECORD for a long time, now. I will not be surprised to see a sharp earning drop after announcing new vRAM licensing.

And for all the people that say VMware had to make this move because they were losing money with the old model, I would suggest you look at their latest earnings report. They are making record profits

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Enthusiast
Enthusiast

DSTAVERT wrote:

Do not forget that while Microsoft has provided a per socket model that isn't where Microsoft makes it's money. It is CALs. Consider that almost every MS server you deploy is hosting some other application or service that also requires a CAL. So enabling unlimited numbers of Datacenter servers is somewhat trivial. In Microsoft's licensing model you do pay for use by way of the CAL. VMware the equivalent to the CAL is becoming vRAM.

Not really.   The CAL is a flat charge per user,  or  per organizational user device authenticating (if you  choose device-based licensing)

You do not pay for more CALs based on what amount of resources on the server are allocated/used to serve the client licensed by CALs.

And the CAL is good for that user/device  throughout the entire environment.   It doesn't matter if the user logs into one server with 1GB of RAM or 1000 file servers with 10000GB of RAM each, the CAL has the same price.

vRAM is not equivalent to a CAL.    The closest thing I can think of to a CAL would be an entire environment license to run a

certain number of virtual machines.

A license based on the number of administrators who authenticate to  vCenter/ESXi  to manage the servers.

Or a license based on the number   of organizational end users  that access any server running on the hypervisor.

0 Kudos