Gartner Blog Network


Cloud First Licensing – Boosting Microsoft’s Race to the Cloud

by Stephen White  |  February 4, 2016  |  2 Comments

We’re less than 6 weeks into 2016 and Microsoft are bringing changes to their licensing thick and fast – let’s look at three of those introduced in the February Product Terms update
Firstly – Changes to the ability and right to transition from on premises licensing to cloud subscriptions and back again.
Secondly – Introduction of Hybrid Use Benefits or Rights for Windows Server
Thirdly – Microsoft’s announcement that Windows per device licensing will no longer include roaming rights as of this time next year

Last year we produced guidance that Microsoft was not only driving a cloud first technology strategy but also behind the wheel of a cloud subscription model, using a combination of carrot delivering incentives or benefits attached to subscription models, and stick when creating subscription only options, increasing on premises prices, or removing rights and benefits previously associated with perpetual licensing.

speed_tunnelPut in terms of Formula 1 or LeMans Prototypes, licensing changes and levers act as the hybrid boost for the engine of cloud computing.

The three changes I’ve mentioned here are examples of the different approaches or levers being used by Microsoft in order to drive subscription revenue.

Transitions until now had been one of three options for the licensing the likes of Office 365 and Enterprise Mobility Suite (EMS), alongside add-ons to perpetual licensing and full cloud subscriptions a transition license enabled an organization to adopt Office 365 having originally committed to on premises licenses. Microsoft, by removing the transition, slim down options to two models – some stick.

For Microsoft however this change increases revenue that will be recognized as a cloud subscription when purchases are made or contracts renewed. What’s positive here is that clients could have transitioned without negotiating terms specifically to protect their interests when moving to the cloud, having to acquire the new licenses clients should help to avoid sleepwalking into an unwanted commitment. Also Microsoft have made clear the model for transitioning back to on premises editions if a client has previously transitioned to the cloud from SA coverage, whereby the SA payments re-start with the return to the on-premises model – some carrot.

Hybrid Use Rights enable Windows Server to be used in Azure, overdue perhaps may be a reaction but welcome particularly given the carrot of parallel on premises and Azure usage of a single Windows Server Datacentre license with active SA. That is to say if you acquire Windows Server Datacentre with SA today, for the next three years you can utilize that license on your own premises and in Azure at the same time as an additive right.

But is two for one too good to be true? Consider the potential cost of renewing into the new Windows Server core licensing models in three years time plus the potential risk for Hybrid Use Rights no longer being active at that time. For now at least this change is very much a carrot, and for Microsoft provides added impetus for clients looking to beat the shift to per core licensing when the new Microsoft year begins in July, whilst also creating more momentum for Azure.

Roaming Rights removal is very much in the stick category of removing benefits associated with perpetual licensing and moving those to a subscription only model. To some degree the move from a requirement to have active SA on a perpetual license to subscription has little impact as renewing is a requirement in order to maintain the use right. Consider firstly that a subscription will attract more revenue for Microsoft than a payment for SA only. Then consider that Windows per User licenses are also a component of the Enterprise Cloud Suite (ECS) and you start to see this change will create a propensity for clients to take ECS if Office 365 is in scope, even if a genuine requirement for third component EMS doesn’t exist.

So who wins and who loses? Organizations with limited cause to stay on the leading edge of adoption will pay more in a subscription only model than they otherwise would. Procurement professionals used to leveraging non renewal of maintenance to extract better pricing from the vendor have fewer options, or put in terms of Porters Five Forces the subscription model leads to a reduction in buyer power. Organizations planning to move forward with a Hybrid model using Azure benefit, whilst Microsoft channels business which may have been destined for AWS or SPLA hosting toward Azure at the cost of some Windows Datacentre revenue.

How should you react – firstly if you have not already, record the changes being made in your toolkit format, secondly assess the impact on your own existing scenarios, thirdly investigate forward looking considerations to identify how potential changes in your own environment may be affected by these changes, and fourth review approaches to mitigate any negative impact.

Category: asset-management  it-cost-optimization  licensing  

Tags: azure  enterprise-agreement  hybrid  licensing  microsoft  office-365  

Stephen White
Research Director
2 years at Gartner
14 years IT Industry

Stephen White is a Research Director in Gartner's IT Asset Management, Vendor Management and Procurement team, focusing on strategic licensing and negotiation strategies, asset management, and reseller engagement. Mr. White leverages his experience in software sales and consulting to assist IT leaders through his coverage of best practices in license life cycle strategy and trends, license metric and pricing practices, contract negotiations, optimizing terms and conditions, sourcing, and relationship management. Read Full Bio


Thoughts on Cloud First Licensing – Boosting Microsoft’s Race to the Cloud


  1. […] you are reading this post, you may have also seen our update last week referencing recent licensing changes from Microsoft in context of a desired business transformation […]



Comments are closed

Comments or opinions expressed on this blog are those of the individual contributors only, and do not necessarily represent the views of Gartner, Inc. or its management. Readers may copy and redistribute blog postings on other blogs, or otherwise for private, non-commercial or journalistic purposes, with attribution to Gartner. This content may not be used for any other purposes in any other formats or media. The content on this blog is provided on an "as-is" basis. Gartner shall not be liable for any damages whatsoever arising out of the content or use of this blog.