Yesterday was a huge day for desktop virtualization. Microsoft shared it’s vision for the virtual desktop, corrected its past mistakes, and showed off its bright new future.
Right from the start Microsoft showed that it had been listening to its customers’ feedback. As of July 1st Microsoft is rolling Virtual Enterprise Centralized Desktop (VECD) into the Windows Software Assurance (Windows SA) program. This means that anyone with Software Assurance can deploy desktops locally or in the data center at no additional cost. At the same time Microsoft is extending the remote access rights so that remote isn’t tethered to a single PC in the primary users’ home. This awareness of the fact that users want flexibility around when and where they work is the key element that has been missing from Microsoft’s virtualization strategy since day one.
If this wasn’t enough, Microsoft is introducing a new desktop virtualization license called Windows Virtual Desktop Access (Windows VDA) costing $100 per year per device and aimed at organizations who are using endpoints that do not have a Windows SA license – Contractors PCs, devices that are do not run Windows (e.g., thin-clients, smart phones and Apple Macs) and yes, PCs with OEM licenses. Hang-on, isn’t that just the same as the old non-SA VECD license? More or less, yes; it’s certainly cheaper, although at $100 per year not by much. What’s more important is that Windows VDA is now a first-class citizen in the Microsoft licensing hierarchy with all the benefits of Software Assurance (e.g., 24×7 support, upgrade/downgrade rights), and as a desktop virtualization license it gets the same extended roaming rights offered to a full member of the SA club.
While dropping the VECD tax will draw the headlines, it’s that second change from offering remote access from a single home PC to offering extended roaming rights from any non-corporate endpoint that is the more far reaching change. Aside from the flexibility this change offers the thing that I think is most important is that this is Microsoft’s first step to user based licensing of the desktop operating system. One OS license, one user, and as many (remote) desktops are you want.
Admittedly there are still a few kinks to iron out with the VDA licensing model. Most notably there is a problem with the way that Microsoft handles the difference between “corporate” and “non- corporate” devices. Microsoft defines a corporate device as one that was bought by the organization. Any non-SA eligible endpoint owned by the organization that needs to access a virtual desktop must have its own Windows VDA license. Which, kind of makes sense until you start to move away from desktop devices and down to smart phones; at which point it gets ugly fast. This isn’t anything to do with functionality; you can do a lot with the right smart phone today. It’s more a matter of the intersection of policy and accounting. Looked at from a personal perspective, my iPhone is MY iPhone (so it’s non-corporate), but my colleague’s Blackberry was bought by Gartner (that makes it corporate). They both do the same job more or less; I get better apps, he can type faster. But when we look at using them for remote access it gets very messy. I will be able to take advantage of my laptop’s Windows SA license to access my virtual desktop from my non-corporate device, but my colleague can’t use ‘his’ Blackberry to access that same environment without an additional VDA license. Of course we could avoid this by giving him $100 and telling him to go and buy his own phone but that’s not the point is it? Still, with a couple of months to go before the July 1st launch it’s possible that we will see further changes to address this flaw.
Microsoft is also looking at extending this roaming usage rights policy to MS Office. This is huge and in more ways than one. Microsoft has been slow to act to do anything to acknowledge that its applications will be deployed on desktop virtualization platforms. By acknowledging this, Microsoft would be taking a big step to address concerns about the current lack of support by application vendors for desktop virtualization. If Microsoft licenses Office so that its licensing terms match those used in a desktop virtualization environment, we can reasonably assume that formal support will also be offered, and where Microsoft leads others will follow.
If all that is confusing just remember – Never trust a man who claims to be able to understand Microsoft’s licensing rules, and if you ever meet a man who claims to understand IBM’s licensing rules grab your wallet and RUN!
Update – Microsoft made some changes to the detail of Windows VDA licensing between the time it was announced and the launch on July. Windows VDA revisited looks at these changes and what they mean to enterprise customers.
Can someone clarify a couple of points?
If I’m using a hardware thin client and I buy a VDA license does this mean my Windows (virtual) Guest OS is licensed…i.e. it’s not just an access license that still requires the other licensing on the guest OS?
If so what version of the guest OS can I use…Win7 Ent?
Microsoft gets desktop virtualization right?! Are you kidding? It’s like celebrating that your crap smells slightly less awful today than it did yesterday. I just spent 2 hours on the phone with a MS licensing expert telling me all about VDAs, CALs, devices, users, and all the rest of the MS licensing insanity. One user, one license. That's it! Sorry I'm a bit pissed off since the licensing expert basically told me there is no way to offer W7 desktops in the cloud to our clients. Why do they get to tell me how to use their products? Maytag doesn't get to tell me I can only wash blue shirts on Tuesdays at noon. If I buy a car Ford doesn't get to pick the cities I drive to. If I buy 3 chainsaws Husqvarna can’t stop me from learning how to juggle. I have a user, I buy a license, now get the hell off my lawn! Beyond the licensing nightmare there are the costs. Many people are finding VDI to be basically out of reach since it's so costly. There is the thin client, bandwidth, VMWare, Citrix, then 10 different MS licenses that need to be paid depending if you’re left handed, blue eyed and facing NW. Somehow Microsoft’s legal team thinks they can just write anything into the EULA and it’s perfectly legal and people will follow it blindly. Just for fun they should write a clause in their EULA that states “You are required to build a statue of Bill Gates in your front lawn and dance around it for 45 minutes every day at 9:00am”. Why not? They seem to get away with everything else. My favorite conspiracy theory right now is that vendors like Dell realized that if MS let's cloud vendors like us sell cloud PCs w/Windows it puts them out of business. Cloud vendors can crank out limitless servers and desktops and that scares the hell out of the old guard. MS simply decided to protect their legacy vendors and shut down those crazy cloud punks from providing desktops to clients. I plan to take it up with our Attorney General and hopefully see them sued 3.5 miles into the ground for anti-competitive behavior. I can hear your gasps knowing how Microsoft has never been accused of that before. First thing tomorrow I’m knocking over the statue of Bill and dancing around a giant penguin.
Please remember this post provided coverage of Microsoft's desktop virtualization strategy, not it's strategy for cloud desktops, something that it specifically did not want to talk about at the time this post was released.
But the reality is that Microsoft will not make changes to it's licensing policies until competition or pressure from major customers forces it to do so. Yesterday's launch of Chrome OS might be the spur that is needed for Microsoft to change its licensing rules to a model that is more cloud friendly. Until then you might want to look at cloud based desktop management as a viable business model rather than desktop hosting. Starting here might be worthwhile
http://simonbramfitt.com/2010/12/mokafive-intros-…
I am the one you should not trust…but maybe you should, as I know where and how to read the rules!
VECD (or the requirements to cover server based client OS) will not go away in July. What will happen is two points:
Clients with their Windows OS covered with SA (either purchased with in 90 Days of OEM purchase or after 90 days via the Upgrade with SA option) – will have VDA rights in the SA rights (along with other SA Benefits for Windows 7 Enterprise, BitBlocker, Branch Cache, Virtual rights locally, multilanguage support).
Thin clients (embedded) and/or PC's with no SA you will purchase the new VDA license (currenlty purchase VECD).
VDA licensing pricing is similiar to VECD, but will be less expensive (currenlty $120 per device per year; VDA $100 per device per year). There will be a saving for future VDI clients, but current VECD clients will see no price discount till renewal of their VDA licensing.
VDA will only give you the rights to access the Virtual Personal PC on the server, you still need all the underlying Infrastructure CALs, MS Application licenses (Office/Visio/etc), as well as supporting application/desktop virtualization layer (MS VMM/Citrix/VMware).
VDI users have been required to cover all virtual machines for years, Citrix and VMWare did very little in the past to help educate the masses (drive to sell their products with no concern for MS). Microsoft did not help the marketing either by the use of their archaic licensing rules (anyone remember compliant desktop instalations via Ghost years ago…the rules could byte on both sides of MS/Symantec). The real difference in solution is a Shared/Pooled virtual desktop (RDS/TS) vs Personal Virtual Desktop (VDI). Clients have a hard time understanding the differences due to all the solutions they are bombarded with these days.
It is nice to see MS opening up access from non company machines under the VDA licensing. This is somethign currently lacking and limiting to deploying a full accessible, compliant (MS) solution.
If you are large enterprise (250 seats or more), Microsoft will work with you to recieve VDA/VECD rights for your Windows desktop/Laptops, via SA. You will need to work with your LAR/ESA partner and your local Microsoft team.
Microsoft offers MCP and MCTS certifications to help the channel better sell and understand licensing. On a personal note, if you are not willing to take the trainings/certifications, please refer licensing to the LAR/ESA specialist out there who have the knowledge.
Hope that helps.
How do you think organizations that purchased and paid up front for 3 years of VECD feel right now? I spoke with a distributor who said there would be no refunds. If you paid for 3 years of VECD as of this year, you've paid 3 years for something that will no longer even be required in 3 months.
I suppose this isn't all that surprising, but definitely frustrating for the "early adopters" of VDI technology.
Nice article.
I'm very curious to see how the VDA licensing affects the soon-to-be-released solutions based on the Type 1 client hypervisor. If we're going to have a user's virtual desktop running in the datacenter and on a laptop will it require 1 or 2 O/S licenses? I wouldn't be surprised if licensing creates a "tax" for running an offline virtual desktop that syncs back to the data center.
When this new technology hits the market, I would expect to see further revisions to VECD/VDA/tbd.
Donald (Don) Petry III
http://www.linkedin.com/in/donaldpetryiii
http://donaldpetryiii.com/
I thought I was being the very model of restraint
Seriously though, I don't think that there's any technology gap to address here. Microsoft's licensing changes are licensing changes and no more. They enable a growing technology to grow faster and that is all. This is true regardless of who provides the desktop virtualization layer.
Regards
Simon
this seems to be heavily overstated. While all of this is great strides toward a working model. Microsoft still has a long way to go to close the gap with it's technology. the title should read " the sleeping giant got up in the middle of the night to pee, then went back to sleep"
Hi Doug
Well I did say 'Never trust a man who claims to be able to understand Microsoft’s licensing rules"
VDA and VECD are both client licenses, they get assigned to a physical device, and the primary user of that device has the right to then connect from one or more (with VDA) remote endpoints.
VDA is new, it's primary benefits over VECD is the degree of flexibility afforded around remote connection and the addition Software Assurance rights.
<< Disclaimer – Total speculation on my part >>
As of now VECD is effectively dead. Even though it doesn't get withdrawn until June, I expect Microsoft to already have informed the channel to stop selling it and to turn a blind eye to customers deploying desktop virtualization between now and June 1st.
<< Disclaimer – Total speculation on my part >>
Excellent post. Questions:
Does VECD basically go away starting July 1, 2010? OR
Do customers still have to buy VECD license for non-SA licensed Windows running inside a VM?
VDA is new and it allows people to legally connect to a hosted virtual desktop from many more devices, right?
What I didn't consider until your blog post that VDA is a client-side license not a server-side (i.e. "Windows OS inside the Virtual Machine")license, correct?
To restate, is it accurate to say VECD is a server-side license for Windows running inside a VM on a virtualized server? Whereas, VDA is a client-side license for devices that wish to access VDI (Windows desktops hosted on a virtual server)?
As you can tell, I don't fully grasp all the nuances in the new licensing.