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?
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.
Unfortunately our director just doesn’t pay attention to these things. When I try to bring them to him, suggest “hey this looks very bad, maybe we should plan on something now”, he brushes it off. Same thing happened when I pointed out how much VMWare we use and that it would be good to start a transition, or at least start shopping around for some alternatives to consider.
Now like a year later he’s only just starting to mutter stuff about Hyper-V.
Which just feels like…Hyper-V is fine I guess, but god damn, could we at least try not to sink further into Microsoft quicksand? There’s better options out there.
The fact that it’s called Broadcom at 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.
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.
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. They began phasing out OpenStack. 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.
think of it similar to consumer examples like adobe products. there are a lot of people/industries tied to it where they can start to charge ludicrous prices. while there are alternatives, there is also a cost attached to retooling and retraining people with the new tech.
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?
It is the point, this is exactly what Broadcom does.
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.
Unfortunately our director just doesn’t pay attention to these things. When I try to bring them to him, suggest “hey this looks very bad, maybe we should plan on something now”, he brushes it off. Same thing happened when I pointed out how much VMWare we use and that it would be good to start a transition, or at least start shopping around for some alternatives to consider.
Now like a year later he’s only just starting to mutter stuff about Hyper-V.
Which just feels like…Hyper-V is fine I guess, but god damn, could we at least try not to sink further into Microsoft quicksand? There’s better options out there.
What platform your company (I assume) migrated to?
Probably Xen. Maybe proxmox. Both had tools to assist with migration.
Standard private equity form behavior
The fact that it’s called Broadcom at 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.
Yay capitalism
What you’re seeing is the best economic system ever created in action
/s
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.
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. They began phasing out OpenStack. 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.
Sounds like a pretty standard project, we did the same, but hyperv instead of openstack. Just finishing cleanup…
Currently doing the same thing.again, just with openstack :) hope it won’t have the same outcome
Doing a couple of Harvester migrations atm and I can confirm that a lot of organizations invested heavily into VMWare’s tech.
I’m personally happy that it makes my pushes for Nutanix that much easier.
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.
think of it similar to consumer examples like adobe products. there are a lot of people/industries tied to it where they can start to charge ludicrous prices. while there are alternatives, there is also a cost attached to retooling and retraining people with the new tech.