But, isn't this a good thing? Doesn't it reduce my costs? That is up for debate per environment. I just wrote my Veeam account rep about this licensing change and gave him the reasons why I don't want a per VM licensing model as a Veeam customer. Here's a copy of that message. Think about this for a moment:
I want you to not charge me per VM and offer me socket licensing like we had approved. It’s clearly a model made by executives who are out of touch with how businesses operate and only thinking about how to make a quick buck. Moving to this licensing model will make us have machines that are unprotected for at least a period of time, if not indefinitely in some cases, and if we buy with this licensing type, it will force our Director of IT to implement a VM control policy limiting IT’s ability to spin up machines before undergoing a lengthy approval process because you just single handedly attached a hard cost to a VM. More than just increasing our TCO, this licensing type is bad news for our engineering team and positions us to have to constantly make a case about the business need to spin up a VM for anything we do. Further, it will force us to cut our total number of VMs by consolidating services to single machines which hinders our ability to make realistic maintenance windows a reality per application. This becomes a problem as VM consolidation of applications means I need buy in from more stakeholders to do a simple maintenance window.
Pay as you go systems only help those who have smaller environments by allowing pricing to scale down and enjoy the software benefit with a cost that suites their environment size. Pay as you go increases costs and hinders our ability to forecast. It also shifts our purchase from capex/opex split to solely opex which we have not been approved to do, so we would have to get creative and find a way to allocate funds appropriately.
Many businesses have moved to the cloud for the promise of the “Pay as you go” system, only to realize costs were way higher than anticipated and had to move right back to traditional hardware. This is why our upgrade was to bring Nutanix in-house, and not just go to AWS/Azure. These systems work great for small business, but for us this pricing model is a budgeting and logistical nightmare. Additionally, this licensing model allows us to become out of compliance more easily which means Veeam will be seeing an increase in dollars made when auditing customers. If socket licensing goes away and customers are required to count their VMs there will be a dramatic uptick in your revenue stream from techs who don’t know the rules and get audited by Veeam. Socket licensing simplifies all of this. VM count licensing does nothing for us, your customer, and gives you everything. Did I mention you’re asking me to pay more money for the product, and we don't even own it? Solarwinds pulls this crap with us and it’s constantly got me going and asking for more money so I can buy another piece of the puzzle to accomplish some task I need done and every time I have to stake a very good case or I get denied and can’t get the benefit. They have a great product but due to their licensing model alone, I want to delete the VMs, low level format the data disks, rip up the contract, take it into the facilities and wipe my ass with it.
That is the pricing model I'm being forced me into now.