With Sinofsky gone, is there hope for a Microsoft monopoly getting it together and hosting Windows desktops on Azure? - AppDetective - BrianMadden.com
Brian Madden Logo
Your independent source for desktop virtualization, consumerization, and enterprise mobility management.
AppDetective's Blog

Past Articles

With Sinofsky gone, is there hope for a Microsoft monopoly getting it together and hosting Windows desktops on Azure?

Written on Dec 07 2012 5,080 views, 7 comments


by appdetective

Brian recently posted a really interesting discussion about hosting Windows on Azure and the barriers Microsoft puts up. I see two issues at play here. The Microsoft client business model, and Microsoft's definition of VDI.

VDI is not just about a desktop or a server operating system

Microsoft defines VDI as a Windows Server role and calls it RDS, which is really shared hosted virtual desktop (SHVD) that runs only on a server operating system. With the previous Windows Client regime, VDI (as a hosted desktop operating system-Windows XP/7/8) never stood any chance of succeeding. Sinofsky never gave a crap about the enterprise and was laser-focused on his "me too" Apple compete. Let's also not forget the failure of Microsoft to bring the phone and desktop closer together earlier (like Apple), versus the cluster f*** that is Metro and Surface tablets today. Even if there was a voice for, "Hey guys make VDI (desktop OS ones) work," it was a tiny percentage of the market so nobody cared. That's the problem with Microsoft—they only care about big numbers and don't build the products (especially for the enterprise) that we actually may want and take a chance that they will grow to be big. This leads to them being out of touch with where the portions of market are going. The fast follower mindset in a world where things are changing rapidly is a failing business model.

Obsession with device CALs needs to die and evolve faster

Microsoft is still about protecting their client device CAL business model and brain dead sales force who are robots that will defend this until they are forced to change. If they were smart, they would understand that a percentage of enterprise desktops are going to a VDI and SHVD model. This is going to happen because it solves real problems. So with a new regime, my hope is they will understand that they are losing appeal in the enterprise, and this is one small thing they can do to keep people on Windows. The recent price increases demonstrated that they do understand user-based licensing, even though people are bitching about it. Perhaps this is all a function of time in a huge organization. All Microsoft is doing is hanging onto a legacy device-based business model until they figure out how to change it without blowing up their cash cow. I hope that is the case versus they don't care, since then Ballmer justs needs to decide "let's fix this problem before we lose yet another market," win goodwill and just make it happen. IT'S THAT F'ING SIMPLE!

There's an opportunity to make Azure more interesting sooner

However, due to their definition challenge, even if Microsoft did something with VDI on Azure, I have no doubt that it will be on RDS which they will claim is VDI. They will say we have a SPLA license model for rent style use cases, they will say it's cheaper (not the use case to do VDI) and they will say it's good enough for the mass market. This would be the typical response of a monopoly that is too blind to see the ship is about to hit an iceberg and then wonder why customers still remain frustrated.

I'd like to see RDS on Azure for many use cases. If VDI with a desktop OS was also available as an Azure workload, I may actually stop thinking Azure is not a serious player for many years to come versus the rest of the ecosystem. It may even start to make sense to consume apps written on Azure for desktops hosted on Azure and do all sorts of interesting stuff with Windows tablets. The question remains, does Microsoft have the vision and understanding? I am sure they have people who get it. Can the client and server groups work together to solve a problem that the world wants them to? With Sinofsky gone, there's an opportunity to change and demonstrate that collaboration in a monopoly is possible, since lack of collaboration has been touted so much as his downfall.

 
 




Our Books


Comments

Scott Bowling wrote re: With Sinofsky gone, is there hope for a Microsoft monopoly getting it together and hosting Windows desktops on Azure?
on Fri, Dec 7 2012 7:14 AM Link To This Comment

"Azure is not a serious player"....

In what manner do you mean? Most client's I run into are leveraging Azure in some capacity for PaaS today.

I don't like their virtual machine platform and processes for VM's but for PaaS, Azure is in play for many.

appdetective wrote re: With Sinofsky gone, is there hope for a Microsoft monopoly getting it together and hosting Windows desktops on Azure?
on Fri, Dec 7 2012 12:42 PM Link To This Comment

@scott That's correct not a serious player in the enterprise. Azure is not even sure what it is. Started with PaaS, then changed to IaaS and now it's becoming more of a hybrid play to keep pace with AWS.

Your point is uutside of the scope of my discussion about Microsoft enabling Windows desktop use cases. But I am very interested to understand what your clients are using Azure for. I interpret what you are saying as clients are building apps on Azure. For the enterprise's that I work with it's just not the case. At best it's a few experiments. If there is some traction it's mostly with AWS and IaaS use cases. PaaS apps just not anytime soon use cases as it's all off premise cloud hype that nobody trusts yet. Would love to hear about what you see though.

rahvintzu wrote re: With Sinofsky gone, is there hope for a Microsoft monopoly getting it together and hosting Windows desktops on Azure?
on Sat, Dec 8 2012 5:00 PM Link To This Comment

In Australia the closest Azure instance is outside the country in Singapore. AWS has set up shop within the last 6 months in Sydney.

VDI workloads need low latency to help ensure user acceptance.

So for us it wouldn't be 'build it and they will come'.

It would be 'build it and it will be lag'.

appdetective wrote re: With Sinofsky gone, is there hope for a Microsoft monopoly getting it together and hosting Windows desktops on Azure?
on Sun, Dec 9 2012 12:00 PM Link To This Comment

@rahvintzu Fair point, but I guess that's something that will get resolved over time. Also from my own experience working with colleagues in Australia, lot's of regulatory requirements to keep certain things on Australian territory, so lot's of incentive to build there. It's not as though there isn't space :-)

rahvintzu wrote re: With Sinofsky gone, is there hope for a Microsoft monopoly getting it together and hosting Windows desktops on Azure?
on Sun, Dec 9 2012 9:19 PM Link To This Comment

I do hope they get here in due course, I guess we aren't as cool as Iceland :-P

I would be impressed if they could offer NVIDIA VGX on remoteFX from Azure, that would put a smile on my dial. But i guess this would require them to create different hardware nodes.

Scott Bowling wrote re: With Sinofsky gone, is there hope for a Microsoft monopoly getting it together and hosting Windows desktops on Azure?
on Tue, Dec 11 2012 5:01 PM Link To This Comment

@appdetective I am seeing my customers move their IIS workloads to Azure, not much else yet.

markfermin wrote re: With Sinofsky gone, is there hope for a Microsoft monopoly getting it together and hosting Windows desktops on Azure?
on Thu, Dec 20 2012 9:43 AM Link To This Comment

Have to agree with you, @appdetective.  Azure has tried to stake a claim in healthcare byciting "HIPAA compliance" and being the only major provider I know of that's willing to sign a BAA.  Despite an appetite for moving to cloud or PaaS services, I'm not seeing a ton of even traditional Microsoft healthcare shops moving to Azure.

(Note: You must be logged in to post a comment.)

If you log in and nothing happens, delete your cookies from BrianMadden.com and try again. Sorry about that, but we had to make a one-time change to the cookie path when we migrated web servers.