25 comments

  • imglorp 4 days ago ago

    You know a vendor has substantial lockin when they can 10x the price, then liberally threaten to sue their customers, and their stock doesn't dive.

    There's probably a substantial opportunity here for a consultant team to specialize in migrating VMs off this platform.

  • EADDRINUSE a day ago ago

    I have seen a lot of community money go down the Broadcom drain this month, at the tread of breaking a mission-critical platform's features by disabling a perpetual license, forcing a 9.5x license fee increase. Criminal.

  • dismalpedigree a day ago ago

    Merger with Oracle in the near future? They have almost identical tactics.

  • udev4096 a day ago ago

    Moving to either proxmox or incus is the best choice for any business right now. Both are open source and offer enterprise plan, which is probably way less than VMware

    • robert_foss a day ago ago

      I just set up my first Incus machine, and it was a joy.

    • exsomet a day ago ago

      I can’t speak to Incus but IIRC Proxmox isn’t a supported hypervisor for Red Hat deployments. I’m a fan, and I run it in my home lab, but that might be an issue in a business context if you’re running RHEL.

      https://access.redhat.com/articles/886983

  • NBJack a day ago ago

    I remember hearing how Broadcom would likely gut VMware once it got ahold of it, but this almost seems worse. I imagine it would also have been bad if the Qualcomm deal had gone through.

    Their roots are in Hewlett-Packard, so I suppose this isn't that surprising.

  • dark-star a day ago ago

    Basically they are telling people whose support contract expired to stop using/installing newer patches (that they received/downloaded from "somewhere")

    Doesn't sound too unreasonable to me...

    If you prefer to run without support, you can of course still do that. But don't install newer patches then.

    • NikolaNovak a day ago ago

      Ahh, you've read the article... Where's the fun in that! :-)

      My minor personal grief is that I've had perpetual licenses for vsphere 6. In the transition to broadcom account, those have completely and utterly disappeared - if you read the details of 3rd level FAQ, by design. Ah well!

      • znpy a day ago ago

        Can the acquiring company even decide to dishonour the acquired company’s legal obligations?

        • NikolaNovak a day ago ago

          I think lawyers will decide whether they are dishonoring obligations or not.

          The real tragedy to me is the loss of access for non massive customers. Vmware was smart to build a slope of adoption, from individual techies with curiosity and home labs, to small shops with simple needs, all the way through massive governmental or multinational behemoths. That ramp-up is being dismantled. They can ride current crop of enterprise customers for a long time -- but where is next batch going to come from? Which techies in which company in 10 years,who don't already have pervasive vmware footprint, will even begin to consider it?

          • moepstar a day ago ago

            > Which techies in which company in 10 years,who don't already have pervasive vmware footprint, will even begin to consider it?

            Quite the opposite, actually - actively try to not fall into that trap.

        • grendelt a day ago ago

          SiriusXM tried to weasel out of Lifetime subscription obligations and lost in a class action.

      • twelvedogs a day ago ago

        Did you, there were people getting it days after there contract expired

      • dark-star 9 hours ago ago

        correct me if I'm wrong, but the perpetual licenses under VMware also came with the requirement that you only get patches/updates as long as you pay for a support contract, right?

        "perpetual" basically meant that your license doesn't suddenly expire, not that you get free lifetime patches/updates

    • wkat4242 a day ago ago

      You don't think it's unreasonable to sell a 'lifetime' license and then go like "haha fooled you bro, gotta pay up now"?

      • dark-star 9 hours ago ago

        I'm pretty sure "lifetime license" never meant what you think it did.

        It just meant that the license itself doesn't suddenly expire (and render your VMware environment useless/non-working). It didn't mean that you get lifetime free updates. That was always tied to a support contract.

  • polski-g a day ago ago

    I have never heard of an acquisition go so badly as VMware. Thousands of links broken across the internet as the VMware forums are gone, same thing with the manuals. Broadcom is unable to make sales of new licenses because their internal migration of the user database didn't work. Just all avoidable errors.

  • ImJamal a day ago ago

    This is a slight tangent, but with Spring being owned by VMware, what do you think it's future looks like?

  • sam_goody a day ago ago

    Didn't VMWare make their products free?

    I am not trying to be difficult - I know that I can now download VMware for both Windows and Mac, and two years ago I could not. And yet the article refers to ridiculous licensing fees and licenses.

    Who needs to license, are there multiple products with the same name, and what "audit rights" are given to someone who installs the VMWare Pro player on their laptop?

    • al_borland a day ago ago

      I believe they made their consumer offering free for personal use, but their business offering prices went through the roof. That’s where all the problems are.

  • conartist6 a day ago ago

    [deleted]

    • conartist6 a day ago ago

      Too much, or exactly as toxic as Broadcom's lawyers?

  • undefined 5 days ago ago
    [deleted]