Surprised? This is the same company that not long ago was waging a mafia-style Linux patent war against open source verndors. Microsoft only got into the open source game because they had no choice. How long, I wonder, before ASP.Net Core is "optimised" for deployment on Azure even if it can be run on Linux?
Microsoft Screws Azure Customers and Its Own Advocates Alike
151–160 of 166 posts
Re: Microsoft Screws Azure Customers and Its Own Advocates Alike
#152Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Because giving something more to the customer would not cost them anything. Even if that were true, so what? Some customers are willing to trade less features for less money. It doesn't matter that other features are present but disabled. Those customers got exactly what they paid for. They're not getting cheaped out on.
One thing is trading features for money, the other is artificially crippling the product just so you can release a cheaper version. For what, to justify unreasonably high price for complete version? The second part sounds kinda like “They don’t know they got screwed, so it’s completely fine”.
They didn't get screwed. They paid for X features. That's not getting screwed. The fact that +Y features are turned off is of absolutely zero consequence.
Re: Microsoft Screws Azure Customers and Its Own Advocates Alike
#153Earlier quoted context omitted.
You seem to think simply re-stating the facts is enough to dismiss the article. But you forgot to tell us WHY it is acceptable for Microsoft to charge their customers a premium for using their fully purchased licenses on a cloud provider of their choice rather than dedicated physical hardware. And why it is ok for Microsoft to create an artificial monopoly for these licenses via Azure Dedicated Host. Microsoft sold l…
Why is it okay for Nvidia to disable parts of a fully working chip in order to sell it as a more popular and cheaper part? Why is it okay for them to disable features in the PC vs Workstation drivers on the same hardware that you bought? Why is it okay for Apple to legally restrict OS X from running inside a VM or on a PC? Welcome to price differentiation.
[deleted]
Re: Microsoft Screws Azure Customers and Its Own Advocates Alike
#154Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just because you run windows doesn't mean you like it. SQL Server, vendor app requirements etc. A windowless world is about as likely as a paperless bathroom and for the same reasons. Also, not sure what huge risk you are talking about here besides licensing pricing?
> Also, not sure what huge risk you are talking about here besides licensing pricing? The many business risks of being 100% tied down to a single provider (Microsoft). Licensing is one, but also what would happen if Microsoft decided to kill off a service that your product depends on? You'd have to invest in finding an alternative and rewriting your software. Or what if Microsoft sells that service to another company…
You are vastly more likely to have a long, dependable platform when you use Microsoft than almost anything else. They worship backwards compatibility. Being stranded and all-alone on an open source dependency is very possible. You're vastly more likely to be stranded after using a Google open source product. I say all this having used the linux stack for my entire professional career. I prefer linux by a long shot, but Microsoft backwards compatibility is exemplary compared to almost anyone else, including open source.
Re: Microsoft Screws Azure Customers and Its Own Advocates Alike
#155Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Also, not sure what huge risk you are talking about here besides licensing pricing? The many business risks of being 100% tied down to a single provider (Microsoft). Licensing is one, but also what would happen if Microsoft decided to kill off a service that your product depends on? You'd have to invest in finding an alternative and rewriting your software. Or what if Microsoft sells that service to another company…
You are vastly more likely to have a long, dependable platform when you use Microsoft than almost anything else. They worship backwards compatibility. Being stranded and all-alone on an open source dependency is very possible. You're vastly more likely to be stranded after using a Google open source product. I say all this having used the linux stack for my entire professional career. I prefer linux by a long shot, b…
Now that's some grade-A FUD
Re: Microsoft Screws Azure Customers and Its Own Advocates Alike
#156Earlier quoted context omitted.
The other option is to stick to what works and see if MS change strategy again as they seem to be doing very few years.
MS has not changed strategies since starting .net core. It's on v3, going on v4. If you're still unsure what the future is going to be, you've missed the boat.
I guess that’s true. The .NET framework strategy is pretty consistent. I guess I am still traumatized by the mess they have created with their desktop UI toolkits.
Re: Microsoft Screws Azure Customers and Its Own Advocates Alike
#157Earlier quoted context omitted.
When you have a monopoly on Y, it is not fair to offer a discount on a bundle of X and Y. The problem is not the general idea of a discount bundle, it's leveraging a monopoly to get more business in a different market.
Is Microsoft a monopoly on Server operating systems? I’d say no, and not by a long shot. Even on Azure, Linux is more than 50% of their workloads.
If you're running nginx, no.
For most software deployed on a windows server, there is no compatible OS. There's no real choice.
Re: Microsoft Screws Azure Customers and Its Own Advocates Alike
#158Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is not - it would be if they had a monopoly, but they clearly don't in this case.
They do have a monopoly on Windows licenses, and they are trying to leverage that to sell cloud hosting of Windows servers, which they do not have a monopoly on. In this case Microsoft's defense would probably be "Windows is not the only OS available", which may or may not be accepted by a government (it's gone both ways for them in the past).
The right question is if Windows Server has a monopoly - and the answer is no. Even in Azure more then 50% of servers run Linux.
Re: Microsoft Screws Azure Customers and Its Own Advocates Alike
#159Earlier quoted context omitted.
MS has not changed strategies since starting .net core. It's on v3, going on v4. If you're still unsure what the future is going to be, you've missed the boat.
I guess that’s true. The .NET framework strategy is pretty consistent. I guess I am still traumatized by the mess they have created with their desktop UI toolkits.
that's a good point about the desktop UI stuff, thankfully I stay away from that area.
Re: Microsoft Screws Azure Customers and Its Own Advocates Alike
#160Earlier quoted context omitted.
They're a monopoly for companies that are already locked into Win32 or Win32-specific applications.
Once again we have a definition of “monopoly” on HN that is nowhere near reality.
Wow real stumper - almost as if Microsoft has a monopoly on their own ecosystem. And Apple. Etc. Etc.