Microsoft Won't Charge More for Multicore Licenses

esimp writes "According to technewsworld: 'As servers with dual-core processors come closer to hitting the market, Microsoft announced today it will not base its per-processor software licensing charges on the number of cores in a chip, sticking to the traditional price per processor, regardless of its number of cores." Update: 10/20 00:37 GMT by T : One of the identical links to TechNewsWorld's story has now been deleted.

Comments

Will licensing costs remain the same?

[ffattizzi]

While this seems like good news, I suspect after multi core server become common (or sooner) it will cost more per processor to license these applications.

-Frank

Multi core processors, or multi processor cores?

[tonsofpcs]

So why don't I just take a bunch of processors, link them together, and claim it is all one processor with multiple cores, and force Microsoft to set its price down to the single processor price???

After all, a multi-core processor is really just multiple processors in one package, isn't it?

--
./Amiga/.

Marketing Fluff

[null etc.]

I just ran the linked news article through my Marketing Cut-N-Paste Detector(TM), and have displayed the results below. All phrases in bold are determined to have been directly cut-n-paste from previous marketing articles.

... Analysts have warned that software makers might license their server products at double the price for double the number of cores, but many have also indicated that software companies have little to gain from multicore price increases.

... Although some vendors have hinted they may charge more for software licensing on multicore processors, most have moved closer to Microsoft's announced stance, which seeks to maintain the status quo without charging more for multicores.

"Microsoft software that is currently licensed on a per-processor model will continue to be licensed per processor, not per core, for hardware that contains dual-core and multicore processors," the company said in a statement.

Microsoft said its multicore licensing decision is aimed at driving higher volume and better value with the advent of dual-core and multicore server processors from both AMD (NYSE: AMD) and Intel (Nasdaq: INTC) , which are expected in hardware beginning next year.

... "Our customers want to understand software costs as they evaluate the return on investment of new technologies, such as multicore processors," said Microsoft vice president of licensing and pricing Brent Callinicos in a statement.

... According to Gartner analyst Martin Reynolds, the fear has been that software vendors would double their prices for dual-core processor coverage, creating big cost jumps for enterprise customers. Gartner recommends customers attempt to negotiate software licenses that count a single-chip device as one processor, regardless of how many cores it carries.

While some vendors, including IBM (NYSE: IBM) and Oracle (Nasdaq: ORCL) , have signaled they might charge more in licensing for dual-core and multicore products, Microsoft confirmed what many analysts had predicted -- that the addition of processor cores was by no means an opportunity for software vendors.

Yankee Group senior analyst Laura DiDio told TechNewsWorld that Microsoft was making a proactive move to address the issue, but was also signaling to its customers that it is not a hardware vendor and could not lower software prices along with the dip in hardware costs that comes with the efficiency of multicore chips.

DiDio said that while customers might benefit from more efficient processors and interaction with the software, they will pay the same rate they've been paying to license Microsoft products with the new hardware.

"This multicore technology really illustrates the dichotomy between the rapid advancement of hardware capability, which is in turn making issues with how software companies license the technology," DiDio said.

[Editor's note: I admit that the previous three paragraphs come from an alternate universe in which everyone speaks marketing lingo, and understands each other.]

Referring to the complexity of per-processor licensing, even without the addition of dual-core technology, DiDio said software makers do not want to be seen as raising their prices, for fear of losing customers.

Nevertheless, software vendors have proceeded cautiously on the core question, with rivals IBM, Oracle, Sun, Microsoft and others waiting to see how the others approach the issue, partly to learn what works and partly to have the opportunity to counter, according to DiDio.

She said IBM is in a different situation since it makes money not only from software and services but also from hardware.

Re:Hurray for them!

[alanbs]

It should be no surprise that this is so. Although I am sure that dual core will eventually get to the mainstream desktop pcs, they will probably initially be heavily used on servers.

Although people are accustomed to paying per processor for servers, dual cores are another chance for Microsoft to make it seem like they have a good deal on their servers over Linux. Of course Linux is free, and if Microsoft charged for each core, that would be another reason to choose Linux. Microsoft is already facing worse and worse odds in the server market, so this is their next deffensive manuver (in addition to all the FUD with their truth about Linux garbage).

Cool, but not necessarily "good"

[Lord Kano]

I'm sure that a part of the decision was not making Linux more attractive for low to mid end servers.

It's already less expensive than Windows, if they charge more for dual or quad cores, the will really jack up the Windows TCO.

Microsoft is a business, they want to make money. Sometimes you can make more money by selling things at a lower price.

LK

This is why microsoft has been sucessful

[twfry]

As much as people don't want to hear it, they have always been smart with how the price licenses. Most other high-end software vendors, such as Oracle, are pricing their software based on the number of cores.

But microsoft is being smart and realized that 1) 1 proc 2 cores != 2 proc 1 core and 2) people will be happier upgrading their systems under this system.

Re:This is why microsoft has been sucessful

[NutscrapeSucks]

Yes, but Oracle's current multicore customers are using high-end Unix systems and are used to paying top-dollar for everything.

Intel/AMD have come out and said so, but it's a pretty sure bet that they will be selling dual-core CPUs for the same price as single core CPUs today. That means the customer who buys a $2500 2-way Xeon/Opteron today will be buying a 4-way system for the same $2500 next year. Oracle is in for a shock if they think they can get away with doubling a Dell customer's licensing costs.

Re:This has to do with Intel, not Microsoft...

[tepples]

they'll realize that the best way to get a processing speed boost is to slap a second core in the processor and call it a Pentium 5 or Pentium 4 Ultra or something like that

Or they could skip straight to P6 (though wasn't that the codename of the Pentium Pro core?) and put multiple Pentium M cores on one die, which would probably run even faster.

Why are they charging more for multiprocessors?

[initialE]

AFAIK, Windows doesn't have any difference in functionality no matter how many processors you run, it's all about speed. Why should I have to pay for 2 servers when I'm only running 1? Is this some kind of speed tax?

Hang on!

[wiresquire]

Doesn't most MS products actually charge per CAL/per user, or have some sort of hybrid "Pay $X for machine + x CAL's, and then $Y/CAL"

If that's the case, then there is virtually no difference!

Oracle & MS SQL Server

[Nick Driver]

I suspect they are directly targeting Oracle's decision to treat each core as a separate processor for licensing costs. MS intends to further grab market share away from Oracle, and that's it. Oracle will soon have to relent on its greedy licensing practices, or they will slowly but surely find themselves about equally as relevant in the database market as Informix has become.

Micro$loth = Stupid Licensing

[teknurd]

Paying more for an OS used on a multiple processor box would be like paying more for gas because you have an 8 cylinder engine instead of a 4 cylinder.

Totally STUPID!

Re:Breaking News Bulletin

[2short]

Except of course that they don't have a monopoly in the server space. If they charged per core for lets say SQLServer, I might thus be prompted to take another look at Oracle. This way I won't.

They are not being nice despite having a monopoly. They are being nice in hopes of getting a monopoly.