They know customers will pay, but mostly they can lock in long term contracts on favorable terms.
Hock is scarily good at his job, depending on how you define his job.
“Extreme” Broadcom-proposed price hike would up VMware costs 1,050%, AT&T says
Submitted 1 month ago by avidamoeba@lemmy.ca to technology@lemmy.world
Comments
InverseParallax@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Modva@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Any one want to guess who will really end up paying for the price hike?
It’s not AT&T.
Badeendje@lemmy.world 1 month ago
HyperV looking like a good option for a lot of customers now. They are in the Microsoft noose anyway… so now they can go all in.
antithetical@lemmy.deedium.nl 1 month ago
Thankfully Microsoft is a thrustworthy partner with the users best interests in mind. /s
At home Proxmox works reall well. When our VMWare licenses expire we’ll certainly evaluate that as option.
Badeendje@lemmy.world 1 month ago
I’d start now… these transitions usually take a bit. And Broadcom will only get more predatory. Staying with VMware is not a realistic option… especially if you rely on a support partner. With these mega corps only the other mega corps will get proper support… the test can crawl in a hole and die
So now is the time to figure out what replacement fits best, check your team for capability gaps and send your VMware people to courses to get intimate with the replacement.
jubilationtcornpone@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
Microsoft is sunsetting Hyper-V Server (Not Hyper-V itself) so now you have to run Hyper-V on a bloated Windows Server install. Too bad because Hyper-V is actually a decent hypervisor and Microsoft is shutting out a lot of their smaller customers who don’t have the money for tons of exhorbitant licensing.
I even use Hyper-V for my self hosted setup but I’ll be forced to switch in a few years whenever my host server is ready for retirement.
Passerby6497@lemmy.world 1 month ago
They also offer the Azure Stack HCI platform, which is the modern version of hyper-v, but goddamn is it a pain in the ass (and requires active connection and subscription to azure for onprem workloads).
JigglySackles@lemmy.world 1 month ago
DiaperV can go die in a fire. I’d move to Nutanix
avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 1 month ago
Why would MS not use this opportunity to also hike the prices of their equivalent offerings? 1000% increase leaves a lot of room for an increase while still being cheaper.
Badeendje@lemmy.world 1 month ago
They absolutely will. Maybe not tomorrow.
llamatron@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Surely this is self defeating? Everyone seeing these insane price increases will scare off any potential new customers and drive away the customers they do have. Sure it might increase revenue in the short term but ultimately it’ll kill the product. Or is that the point? Make as much money as they can with as little effort as possible and then let it die?
DaPorkchop_@lemmy.ml 1 month ago
It is the point, this is exactly what Broadcom does.
postnataldrip@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Yup, this is on form for them. This isn’t the first product they’ve done it to and surely won’t be the last.
The moment the news broke we started migration planning, a short while later their new pricing came through and immediately justified the project spend. Tens of thousands of VMs migrated, a ton of labour, and even some hardware refreshes thrown in - and still cheaper than renewing, by a looong shot.
Shame, I liked VMware.
Evotech@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Standard private equity form behavior
The fact that it’s called Verizontat all… They just bought the company a while back and started using the brand because it’s recognizable in the tech industry. It’s not really Broadcom, just a shell.
llamatron@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Yay capitalism
Nollij@sopuli.xyz 1 month ago
It’s very much the Oracle model.
A long time ago, Oracle DB could handle workloads much, much larger than any of their competitors. If you needed Oracle, none of the others were even a possibility. There are even tales that it was a point of pride for some execs.
Then Oracle decided to put the screws to their customers. Since they had no competition, and their customers had deep pockets (otherwise they wouldn’t have had such large databases), they could gouge all they wanted. They even got new customers, because they had no competition.
Fast forward and there are now a number of meaningful competitors. But it’s not easy to switch to a different DB software, and there are a ton of experienced Oracle devs/DBAs out there. There are very few new projects built using Oracle, but the existing ones will live forever (think COBOL) and keep sucking down licensing fees.
VMware thinks they are similarly entrenched, and in some cases they’re right. But it’s not the simple hypervisor that everyone is talking about. That can easily be replaced by a dozen alternatives at the next refresh. Instead it’s the extended stack, the APIs and whatnot, that will require significant development work to switch to a new system.
avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 1 month ago
To add a concrete example to this, I worked at a bank during a migration from a VMware operated private cloud (own data center) to OpenStack. In several years, the OpenStack cloud got designed, operationalised, tested and ready for production. In the following years some workloads moved to OpenStack. Most didn’t. 6 years after the beginning of the whole hullabaloo the bank cancelled the migration program and decided they’ll keep the VMware infrastructure intact and upgrade it. If you’re in North America, you know this bank. Broadcom can probably extract 1000% price increase and still run that DC in a decade.
JigglySackles@lemmy.world 1 month ago
I’m personally happy that it makes my pushes for Nutanix that much easier.
CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 month ago
Short term is all that matters. Did the line go up this quarter? Then they’re good.
Killing the product is the future CEOs problem.
Dudewitbow@lemmy.zip 1 month ago
think of it similar to consumer examples like adobe products. there are a lot of people/industries toed o it where they can start to charge ludicrous prices