SPLA Limitations Redux
March 27, 2010About 3 months ago, I wrote a post on the limitations on the SPLA program. You can read that post HERE.
I own and operate a business that is a Microsoft Partner in the SPLA program as well as Citrix CSP program. Both of which are “service provider” programs geared towards the “cloud”. I developed a service offering which many others have also, providing a completely hosted infrastructure which requires an endpoint and Internet connection to operate their business.
I’ve had a few comments, TONS of “hits” and some emails asking if there is any update to the post. The short answer is…no.
I recently spoke with the same Microsoft person and even provided a business example that shows the economic sense for Microsoft in hopes that this would help things along.
Using the example I presented in my last post on this topic, Microsoft could DOUBLE their Desktop OS revenue on solutions like this. How? Well, they get revenue from OEM installs of Windows 7 Pro on the endpoints AND they get SPLA revenue from the VDI solution through SPLA. Let’s face it. This solution is best served up on full OS endpoints. That’s what most of my clients want.
One could argue that they would receive that revenue if the client purchased a desktop OS license for a VDI solution through a volume license agreement (which they could). But that basically hangs the SPLA provider out to dry.
Why? For the same reason I explained in the last post. VDI solutions such as these require the Desktop operating systems to be on client-specific hardware. Therefore, I would have to dedicate an ENTIRE server or servers for hosting those VMs and therefore, cannot realize better economies of scale, which reduces my profitability.
So my question is this: Why can’t Microsoft see that they are hamstringing the very people they profess to want to help be successful? The partners that generate TONS of revenue for them building Microsoft-centric solutions.
Once again, Microsoft, please wake up and smell the coffee. SPLA partners NEED this to fully implement the solutions that our clients are ASKING for. Don’t you see that?
The reality of the situation is that we, as SPLA providers, could offer a one-stop-solution for customers wishing to utilize Infrastructure-as-a-Service offerings. Sadly, this is not the case. They will be paying us and Microsoft, and maybe that’s how Microsoft wants it. But the least they could do is be upfront as to WHY they refuse to offer the desktop OS as part of SPLA.
I wonder if I could provide Ubuntu with a Windows-based window manager and applications hosted on XenApp. Reduce my cost to the customer and reduce Microsoft’s revenue while increasing my own. Hmmm. There’s a thought. Perhaps an economic incentive to Microsoft would help the situation along a little faster.
For those readers in similar situations, please comment with a specific example, if you can. This would greatly help Microsoft collect the data it needs to make a different business decision that we all know they need to make.
I live in a province in Canada that recently implemented a large fibre, and some wireless, network to connect all municipalities via a high speed network. This has allowed many of the smaller communities, that would otherwise have been without reliable high speed Internet, to have a decent, reliable Internet connection.
Businesses in these communities would greatly benefit from an Infrastructure-as-a-Service offering, as the Internet infrastructure is very stable. I have thought about building this sort of offering into my own managed services business, but have been stopped by the same road blocks with licencing. The requirement to have hardware dedicated to desktop Operating System Environments or server Operating System Environments, and that the hardware running desktop Operating System Environments must be customer specific ruins all hope of building an effective solution for customers.
I would like to add my voice to your own, and many others, by imploring Microsoft to re-visit the decision to not allow desktop operating systems to be licensed under the SPLA.
Just a thought, but if you owned the desktops, (leased or purchased) PCs and then placed them at the custmers facilities as part of your service – couldnt you then use SPLA for the Win7 OS?
I didnt say it was practical, just more technically seeing if I understand the SPLA
Yes. But not in a virtualization offering
One work around that we did for a client is to just use the Server 2008 web edition OS($10/mo in SPLA)and as much as possible convert it to a desktop environment. For 2008 you can get the vista themes and now with R2 I think you can do the vista themes as well. I know it is not the same but it is one work around. Our client is doing quickbooks on this VM and so we just have it setup so that they login via RDP and quickbooks is always open and they don’t have to mess with anything else.
Jeff
I am dealing with the same frustrations with our Microsoft representatives. I have been searching for a potential solution to this problem for nearly as long as you and keep getting “the cold shoulder” from MS. In my most recent conversation I was however given a glimmer of hope that there were changes being made to the VECD and SPLA programs in July 2010. My rep was supposed to get back with me at the beginning of this week but I have yet to hear from him and have left a few messages. If anyone develops a solution, please post here so that we can all finally implement what should be a fantastic solution for our client’s. Thank you for the excellent blog posts!
Ralph,
I too have been hearing about the VECD and SPLA rumblings online and via Microsoft Partner emails. I do not believe the changes to the VECD licensing model impacts SPLA just yet, but believe that Microsoft’s move on licensing changes is a positive step in our direction.
Thanks for reading!
-rss
Thanks for the prompt reply. After posting above, I continued to browse for answers and found the post below. Unfortunately, this is not a great solution but is probably all that is available for the time being.
http://www.bythebell.com/2010/02/microsoft-licensing-for-vdi-made-really-simple.html?cid=6a01156f01861f970c0133f21ab9f2970b#comment-6a01156f01861f970c0133f21ab9f2970b
Add yet another person pissed at Microsoft for being asshats when it comes to desktop operating system under the spla.
the morons allow us to provide terminal services with office, but i cant also provide someone a virtual desktop instead of a TS account. give me a break, its the same damn thing…hell..chargem e for hte RDP license as well, i don’t care..but I am pretty much sunk trying to grow my businessuntil Microsoft wakes up and lets us use a Windows 7 VM for SPLA.