Cloud Competition at a Crossroads: Dissecting the Microsoft Licensing Conundrum
The landscape of the cloud services market in the UK is currently undergoing a high-stakes review with ramifications that extend far beyond British shores. At the crux of debate is Microsoft’s approach to licensing, and the claims, counterclaims, and investigations spinning out of its cloud business practices. This deep dive examines the arguments, regulatory scrutiny, competitive dynamics, and the broader implications for enterprise customers, competitors like AWS and Google, and the future of the public cloud ecosystem.The State of Play: Microsoft, Licensing, and the Cloud
It began innocuously enough—a software maker updates its licensing terms. But since 2019, Microsoft’s changes to the licensing of Windows Server and related products have sent ripples through the cloud market, drawing formal complaints from rivals, scrutiny from regulators, and frustration among enterprise buyers.At issue are rules that make it dramatically more expensive—by AWS's estimate, sometimes up to four times as much—to operate Microsoft software on cloud providers other than Microsoft Azure. In practical terms, this means AWS, Google Cloud, Alibaba Cloud, and others face substantial cost barriers when their customers wish to "bring their own license" (BYOL) for Microsoft products.
AWS, as the market’s largest cloud player, claims that half of enterprise workloads running Microsoft software in Azure would move elsewhere if licensing costs were not such a deterrent. That statistic comes from their submission to the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), the body currently investigating whether the UK’s public cloud services market is fit for purpose, competitive, and serving the best interests of customers.
Historical Context: How Licensing Became a Battleground
Microsoft’s grip on enterprise software is near-legendary. Its Windows Server ecosystem, SQL Server database, and especially its productivity suite (Microsoft 365) are deeply embedded in most large organizations. Historically, customers could buy a perpetual software license and run it wherever needed—on-premises, on their hardware, or, as cloud became mainstream, on third-party providers’ infrastructure.That flexibility changed with the 2019 licensing update. Customers moving their Microsoft software to non-Azure public clouds now faced steep new costs. The fine print meant that only Azure remained economically advantageous, effectively removing much of the cost benefit of competitive cloud migration. This, AWS and Google contend, is by design.
For Microsoft, managing software in an era of cloud services presented challenges—piracy, misuse, and the economics of hosted services are more complex than the boxed software era. However, the consequence has been a unique fusion of technical and commercial lock-in, where even companies otherwise happy with alternate cloud providers elect to remain with Azure due to licensing overheads.
The CMA Investigation: Regulatory Spotlight
The UK’s CMA began scrutinizing the cloud market in 2023, focusing on whether Amazon Web Services and Azure wield excessive power. Early findings painted Azure in an unflattering light regarding software portability and cost fairness.AWS’s core complaint is that Microsoft’s licensing discourages, if not outright prevents, fair competition. By making it uneconomical to use Windows Server, SQL Server, or Office on AWS, Google Cloud, or other platforms, Microsoft allegedly “artificially” raises prices, leaving competitors unable to offer deals attractive enough to lure away existing Microsoft customers.
Between 70 and 80 percent of enterprise customers still run Windows Server on-premises, according to the CMA. AWS and Google believe these customers are being commercially pressured toward Azure, limiting customer choice and stifling competitive pricing. There are accusations that Microsoft “forecloses” meaningful competition—not simply through price mechanisms, but also through contractual restrictions (such as limiting BYOL programs or imposing feature limitations outside Azure).
The CMA has taken such claims seriously. Its provisional findings suggest that Microsoft has both “the ability and incentive” to harm rivals by leveraging its dominant position in enterprise software and cloud services. Regulators note that this lack of true competition likely drives up costs for customers, and may ultimately dampen innovation and service quality.
The Economics: AWS and Google’s Dilemma
From AWS's vantage point, the implicit surcharge on running Microsoft workloads outside Azure distorts the market. Customers, they say, are functionally locked into Azure simply due to higher costs elsewhere—many would move if the financial penalty disappeared.Google echoes these sentiments, highlighting anecdotes where happy Google Cloud customers have been forced back to Azure, not for technical reasons but for financial ones. Both companies assert that Microsoft's restrictions not only affect their margins but often push customers to essentially "repurchase" Windows licenses even when they already own them.
The mathematics become clear in the context of hyperscale cloud providers’ profit margins. AWS globally reported a jaw-dropping $39.84 billion operating income in 2024—yet says UK-specific margins on Microsoft workloads are slim to none due to licensing overheads. Google points to similar commercial dead-ends, where even with optimized infrastructure and aggressive pricing, Microsoft’s licensing tactics create a “ceiling” that rivals cannot crack without running at a loss.
AWS claims that after offsetting the costs imposed by Microsoft’s rules—buying new licenses, paying for specific features disabled outside Azure, etc.—there is often no profitable way to compete for certain workloads. Microsoft's cloud profitability, meantime, has soared, with its Intelligent Cloud division recording almost $50 billion in operating income in fiscal 2024. The competitive imbalance, critics argue, is embedded in the rules of engagement.
Microsoft’s Defense: IP Rights and Commercial Realities
Microsoft rejects its rivals'—and the CMA’s—accusations. Its defense is multi-layered and pivots on key intellectual property arguments. The company insists that aggressive regulatory intervention would “ride roughshod” over its IP rights, and that no other software maker is being asked to give up similar control.Microsoft further suggests that its rivals are using licensing as a scapegoat for failing to compete more effectively. It posits that by the time all cloud services (compute, storage, networking, managed support) are bundled, both AWS and Google retain the capacity to offer compelling margins and competitive deals.
The company argues that it must be careful with license pricing: too high, and providers will start pushing customers to non-Microsoft alternatives; too low, and its own IP value is degraded. Microsoft notes that running software on public clouds is more complex than “just” a license—it involves a basket of services where customers always pay more than simply the license cost, allowing for healthy competition on elements like storage and bandwidth.
Microsoft concedes there could be scenarios where its policies deliver “foreclosure with a positive margin,” but adds that the margins of its competitors are too high to warrant a regulatory solution. In this vision, tighter pricing is simply the market at work, not a scheme to choke off rivals.
The Reality for Enterprise Buyers
For enterprise IT buyers and architects, Microsoft’s licensing labyrinth presents a fundamentally frustrating paradox. The freedom to place workloads where it makes sense—be that AWS, Google, Alibaba, or private infrastructure—is an often-voiced principle in cloud strategies. Yet, the licensing terrain adds friction, complexity, and direct cost that steer many back to (or keep them within) Azure, sometimes against their stated preferences.Google’s regulatory submission spotlights a large Windows Server customer who, “happy” with Google’s services, nevertheless migrated their entire estate to Azure purely for licensing and commercial relief. This scenario is replayed, according to AWS and Google, with daunting regularity.
The economic and operational impact isn’t limited to large enterprises. Managed service providers (MSPs), independent software vendors (ISVs), and customers attempting to build multi-cloud or hybrid strategies all face unanticipated costs or outright technical impediments. The concern is that working with Microsoft software can mean either double-paying or sacrificing modern cloud flexibility.
Three specific interventions suggested by Google to break this cycle are worth noting:
- Prevent Microsoft from further degrading rivals’ licensing terms.
- Stop Microsoft from actions that “lock in” new customers through changing terms or technical limitations.
- Block restrictions on the rights of MSPs and ISVs to offer Microsoft software in the cloud of their choice.
What Is at Stake? Competition, Innovation, and Customer Choice
This struggle is not merely about a few extra dollars on a Windows Server bill—it is about the very nature of cloud competition. If a single vendor can script the rules not only through technological merit but also via restrictive licensing, the market tilts toward monopoly even as it presents a façade of choice.The impacts stretch farther than pricing. Reduced competition could slow innovation, deter new entrants, and limit the global reach of cloud-native ISVs. A fragmented, gated cloud ecosystem stifles the interoperability and risk-diversification enterprises rely on to safeguard business continuity and harness new technologies.
There are also broader geopolitical and economic implications. Dominance over productivity and infrastructure software translates into influence over the digital economy more widely. Cloud markets, currently dominated by US tech giants, wield outsized importance for AI, data sovereignty, cybersecurity, and national digital strategies.
Regulatory Precedent and Global Trends
The UK’s investigation is being watched closely far beyond British shores. Europe’s antitrust authorities are already examining similar claims, following Google’s formal complaints to the EU. In the US, regulators have repeatedly signaled growing unease with alleged digital market practices that favor incumbents at the expense of innovation and choice.A finding against Microsoft in the UK could set a powerful precedent, emboldening regulators elsewhere to push for more transparent, portable, and customer-centered licensing. Conversely, a weak or ambiguous outcome may entrench the status quo, strengthening the market power of entrenched players and discouraging upstarts.
Balancing Act: Intellectual Property vs. Market Access
One cannot dismiss Microsoft’s IP arguments outright. The company has invested billions in research, security, and support, and is under reasonable pressure to avoid commoditization of its proprietary software. Open licensing could erode its business model if abused.Yet, the challenge for regulators is to tease apart legitimate IP protection from anti-competitive leveraging. Where is the line between sensible business control and market foreclosure? How can licensing be modernized to reflect a cloud-native world, while ensuring that innovation and fair competition thrive?
Looking Forward: The July 2025 Deadline
The CMA plans to publish its final findings in July. The result could rewrite the rulebook for cloud licensing, portability, and market access in the UK and potentially inspire similar moves internationally.The current uncertainty leaves both industry leaders and customers in limbo. Should regulators force Microsoft to loosen its licensing, the hyperscale cloud market could see a wave of workload migrations, price wars, and perhaps an acceleration of cloud-native software innovation outside Azure. Alternatively, if Microsoft’s defense prevails, rivals will need to find inventive new ways to chip away at Azure’s market share while advocating for gradual regulatory reform.
Final Thoughts: What Cloud Customers and Providers Should Do Now
For now, the best advice for enterprise buyers is simple: stay informed, ask specifically about licensing implications when negotiating with Microsoft or any cloud provider, and demand transparency—both in cost and in technical flexibility. Where possible, use your collective bargaining power to encourage open standards, clear licensing, and the portability that cloud computing was supposed to deliver.Cloud service providers—large and small—must keep up the pressure for fair access, providing evidence to regulators, working on interoperability, and innovating in ways that make staying “locked in” less compelling even within the current rules.
The debate over Microsoft’s licensing policies encapsulates the broader tensions of the modern cloud: between incumbent control and open opportunity, between protecting innovation and stifling it, and between the letter of intellectual property law and the spirit of competitive fairness.
All eyes will be on the CMA’s July decision. The outcome could either entrench familiar market hierarchies, or mark a significant turning point in the evolution of open, competitive cloud computing. Either way, the next few months promise to redefine what “choice” in the cloud really means—for vendors, enterprises, and the millions of users their software enables every day.
Source: AWS: Customers would flee Azure if licensing costs were fair
Last edited:
