Breaking Free from Microsoft: The Challenges of Cloud Switching and Licensing Lock-In

The Hidden Chains: Why Swapping Microsoft for Linux in the Cloud Remains a Steep Climb​

Cloud computing has come to define the modern enterprise, offering a tantalizing promise: flexibility, scalability, and innovation, all at the click of a button. In this digital paradise, organizations are meant to be able to choose their cloud platforms based on their evolving needs, competitive pricing, and the freedom to shape their destiny. But as a recent investigation by the UK's Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) and strongly worded submissions from Amazon and Google show, the reality is both more complicated and, for some enterprise customers, far more limiting.

Microsoft’s Licensing Maze: Trapping Customers As They Rise​

For decades, Microsoft built its empire on the backs of on-premises Windows Server and SQL Server deployments. Microsoft rightly boasts a massive user base – one that has powered business-critical apps and enterprise backbones for a generation. But in the shifting tectonics of the cloud, that legacy has morphed from an asset into a labyrinthine set of chains.
This is the core puzzle at the heart of the submissions made by cloud rivals AWS and Google to the CMA’s ongoing probe into UK cloud market competition. According to both companies, Microsoft’s licensing policy changes – especially those rolled out in 2019 – have effectively corralled customers deeply invested in Microsoft infrastructure into Azure, with escape routes either blocked or lined with prohibitive tolls.
Originally, customers could use their existing server software licenses on third-party cloud infrastructure. That changed abruptly when Microsoft moved to require separate licenses for running virtualized Microsoft workloads on clouds like AWS, Google Cloud, and Alibaba—clouds explicitly labeled as “listed providers.” The result? Costs for running Windows Server virtual machines outside of Azure soared, in some instances reaching up to four times the price charged on Azure itself.
Microsoft’s strategic repositioning is bold, calculated, and—according to its critics—an act of anti-competitive brinkmanship.

The Porting Fallacy: Why “Just Move to Linux” Falls Flat​

Those outside the trenches might ask: why not simply rewrite those core apps to Linux, seeking refuge in the openness and cost-effectiveness so often celebrated by the open-source faithful?
Both AWS and Google delivered a powerful reality check in their statements to the CMA. The tangled truth is that very few traditional enterprises can simply “port” their environments to Linux with ease. As Google’s testimony succinctly put it, businesses’ massive investments in Windows-based environments mean that moving to the cloud is rarely a blank-slate exercise. Decades’ worth of legacy apps, internal tools, and customized workflows have left the enterprise landscape highly dependent on Microsoft’s software ecosystem.
The cost and complexity of rewriting these Windows-reliant workloads is “very challenging for most enterprises,” Google’s submission underscores. The few customers who did attempt such overhauls—according to examples shared by Google—found the journey lengthy and laced with staggering expenses. Most organizations, Google suggested, simply lack the in-house engineering firepower needed to successfully modernize everything for Linux.
Amazon, for its part, echoed this sentiment, noting that while some workloads can theoretically be re-architected for Linux, it’s “relatively rare” in practice. The investment is daunting, takes years, and is often economically unjustifiable, especially when proprietary business logic and workflow depend on the peculiarities of Windows-only applications.

The Arithmetics of Lock-in: How Pricing Became a Weapon​

The upshot: customers are denied meaningful competitive choice when shifting to the cloud. They must either bite the bullet and migrate to Azure, or face the devil’s bargain of paying several times more to run the same Microsoft-backed workloads on AWS or Google Cloud.
Google’s figures are startling: as much as 70–80 percent of Azure’s revenue comes from customers relying on Windows Server and SQL Server. That’s not just a figure—that’s a fortress. By contrast, AWS estimated that some 50 percent of customers would seriously consider migration to non-Microsoft clouds if a level licensing playing field existed.
For the legions of enterprises who have gone all-in on on-premises Windows Server deployments, escaping that gravitational pull isn’t just difficult—it borders on impossible without restructuring budgets, business models, and tech headaches for years.

Microsoft’s Reply: The Tightrope Act​

Microsoft, confronted with these accusations, doesn’t admit fault. The company asserts that it must balance its pricing strategy with care. On one side, it must avoid making its software so cheap that providers gleefully lift their customers off Microsoft entirely. On the other, driving prices sky-high risks fostering customer exodus to alternative platforms.
That’s the official line: a tightrope between protecting revenue and appearing fair in a suddenly scrutinized sector.

What’s at Stake: The Wider Cloud Landscape​

The arguments now in play before the CMA go well beyond technical licensing minutiae. In a practical sense, this is about whether legacy technology should be allowed to dictate the future shape of digital infrastructure in the UK—and by extension, globally.
If Microsoft’s market power is cemented not just by product superiority or brand loyalty, but by cost barriers and migration inertia, is it fostering innovation or stifling it? The CMA’s preliminary findings hint at the latter, arguing that Microsoft’s policies may well have harmed competition.
And there’s even more at stake than immediate pricing. Related issues like egress fees (the cost incurred when moving data out of a cloud provider), and technical barriers that make switching clouds arduous, have also sparked debate. Smaller cloud providers argue that the combined effect of financial and operational obstacles entrenches the hyperscalers, making it almost impossible for new or smaller players to gain traction.

The Human Capital Crunch: Not Enough Engineers in the Room​

Buried within these business arguments are very real resource limitations. Both Google and AWS underline that “porting” to Linux or restructuring legacy Microsoft applications is a challenge not only of economics, but of talent. The modern IT landscape, stretched thin by overlapping priorities, does not have armies of spare developers and architects standing by to undertake years-long migrations.
Many organizations are already struggling to keep up with regular maintenance, cybersecurity threats, and constant cloud cost optimization. To expect them to commit vast human capital to a ground-up rebuild is, for many, simply unrealistic.
This skills deficit cements Microsoft’s competitive position. With every year that businesses remain anchored to Windows and SQL Server, the option to move away becomes increasingly distant.

The Commoditization of Cloud—or Its Absence​

The very architecture of the cloud was meant to commoditize infrastructure. In theory, infrastructure-as-a-service (IaaS) workloads should run wherever compute, storage, and bandwidth are available at the best price and best performance. This is a reality in some corners of the cloud, but not when Windows Server licensing is at the center.
Instead, Microsoft’s licensing approach preserves the vendor’s dominance from the on-prem world into the cloud-centric future, undermining the sort of cloud-agnostic agility that was the selling point for cloud computing in the first place.
For smaller cloud providers and customers who long for flexibility, the picture is bleak unless regulators intervene or Microsoft shifts course under pressure.

The Regulator Steps In: What Might Change?​

All eyes are now on the CMA, whose final decision report is due on July 4. It is expected to propose a set of hotly contested remedies aimed at prying open competition in the UK’s cloud sector.
The outcome will have significant knock-on effects. Remedies aimed at rebalancing licensing costs could force Microsoft to abandon its walled-garden approach, opening new competitive dynamics and giving customers genuine choice.
Alternatively, if no effective action is taken, the window to migrate away from proprietary lock-in may close further, entrenching today’s giants well into the next decade.

The Customer’s Dilemma: Cost, Complexity, and Cloud Futures​

The business impacts of these licensing controversies ripple across the entire enterprise IT ecosystem. Organizations must weigh the significant sunk costs in Microsoft technology against a future that demands flexibility and multi-cloud resilience.
For now, the numbers favor inertia. The cost of running Microsoft workloads on AWS or Google is too high for many to justify, and the cost—and risk—of refactoring everything for Linux is even greater. As a result, customers’ ability to exert competitive pressure is blunted.
Innovation stalls. Pricing power remains in the hands of a few. And the original promise of the cloud—unfettered choice—remains just out of reach for the majority of enterprises shackled to decades of Microsoft investment.

Real-World Impact: Case Studies and Absence Thereof​

Tellingly, neither AWS nor Google provided specific examples of successful, large-scale transitions from entrenched Microsoft stacks to Linux in the enterprise sector—a tacit admission of just how rare and laborious those journeys are.
The examples that do exist are reportedly exceptional: multi-year, multimillion-pound odysseys, requiring leadership buy-in, aggressive recruitment or outsourcing of cloud-native engineering talent, and a willingness to accept operational disruption along the way. For the average business, these stories offer little comfort or realistic guidance.

Strategic Implications for Cloud Players​

For AWS and Google, the current dynamic isn’t just about lost revenue—it’s about strategic constraint. If enterprise customers cannot freely choose cloud platforms due to licensing traps, genuine competition becomes impossible. This stifles ecosystem innovation, narrows the addressable market, and distorts investment incentives.
For smaller and specialist cloud providers, the barriers are existential. If they cannot credibly offer Microsoft-based solutions at competitive rates, their target markets—and, by extension, their survival—are severely restricted.

Looking Ahead: The Ticking Clock of Technical Debt​

The longer customers remain locked into legacy Microsoft ecosystems, the deeper the technical debt becomes. Legacy code accrues ‘interest’ in the form of mounting support costs, shrinking talent pools, and growing vulnerability to software end-of-life milestones. Every year spent locked into a non-portable stack is a year spent deferring the wider IT modernization that digital transformation demands.
Meanwhile, each iteration of Microsoft’s licensing regime has the potential to shift the terms of trade further in its own favor. Unless meaningful regulatory or industry-wide counterbalances are established, the power asymmetry will persist.

Conclusion: Will Cloud Ever Be the Commoditized Utility We Were Promised?​

For now, the Microsoft licensing debate serves as a stark cautionary tale. Cloud computing is only as flexible, interoperable, and competitive as the incentives and constraints shaped by its biggest players.
The pressure applied by AWS and Google in the UK market could yet force major change—if the CMA prescribes effective remedies and other regulators around the globe follow suit. But in the absence of such action, the reality will be one of “lock-in by design”: an enterprise landscape where technological history, not customer choice or cost-effectiveness, dictates its future.
The coming months will reveal whether the chains binding enterprise customers to their legacy Microsoft investments can finally be loosened—or whether the public cloud’s most lucrative market segment will remain a fortress surrounded by licensing moats and steep, unscalable walls.

---

Source: Google and AWS: Linux too hard, so customers move to Azure