Microsoft Changes Server Licensing Model

Microsoft changed its licensing model for server-based products as of 2016 for Server Licensing Model. Microsoft, which has adopted the per-product and per-user licensing model until now, will market its server-based software by pricing per core with a radical decision.

For now, there is no impact on desktop software. Analysts also predict that mid-sized server hosting companies will face a cost close to the cost of a Windows Server 2012 R2 license.

However, it is thought that it will create a higher cost for Cloud Companies at the top of the pyramid compared to previous licensing models. Unfortunately, this will cost companies and end-users extra.

If we examine the table showing the licensing costs for the“Standard Edition” version of Microsoft’s Server software as of 2016;

Licensing Model

• 8 core licenses for 2,4,6,8,8 and 10 physical cores on only 1 server, (a cost close to 2012R2).
• 8 core licenses for every 2,4,6,8 physical cores on a server with 2 processors (cost close to 2012R2) and 10 core licenses for every 10 cores (extra cost).
• 16 core licenses for 2,4,6,8 physical cores on a server with 4 processors (cost close to 2012R2) and 20 core licenses for 10 cores (extra cost)

As can be seen, there are extra costs for datacenters with more than two processors and 8 cores.

The biggest reason that pushed Microsoft to implement a“Microsoft Server Licensing Model ” in this way is actually the Virtual structure itself. Since the inseparable duo of Cloud & Virtualization will continue its effect for the next 10-15 years, the software costs planned to decrease have been prevented in a sense. The low cost of licensing, which is one of the biggest benefits of virtual systems, seems to be out of the option. Although it is said that it will not affect small-scale server systems for now, this model will be fully implemented in the future.

Microsoft is almost the sole provider of Server Systems. The biggest reasons for this are unlimited support, sales network and reliability (reliability not security). About 88% of the software developed in recent years has been developed on .Net. In fact, the software & hardware market has become somewhat dependent on Microsoft.

Opting for open source software would require a radical change. Since this would mean both a waste of time and high costs, individuals/organizations do not want to take this path easily. They will prefer the easiest way, such as passing on the increased costs to the end users as an excuse. Let this come as a criticism from us.