About 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.
