• Thread Author
Microsoft's licensing practices relating to the deployment of its software on competing cloud platforms such as AWS and Google Cloud continue to raise substantial competitive concerns, especially highlighted by the UK's Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) investigation. The crux of the issue revolves around Microsoft's 2019 licensing changes which disproportionately raise the cost of running Windows Server outside its own Azure cloud, with some estimates suggesting prices could be up to four times higher than running the same workloads on Azure itself. This policy is widely viewed by competitors and regulators alike as a barrier that unfairly stifles market competition and customer choice.
AWS has vocally argued that these licensing restrictions and pricing strategies effectively foreclose their ability to compete with Microsoft Azure for workloads involving key Microsoft software products. According to AWS submissions to the CMA, about half of the workloads Microsoft enterprise customers currently host on Azure would migrate to AWS or other cloud providers if the licensing landscape was more economically feasible and fair. AWS highlights that Microsoft's policies force customers to repurchase software licenses they already own when running on competing clouds, inflating costs unnecessarily and artificially propping up Microsoft's Azure market share. They've also pointed to Microsoft's dominance in productivity software as a source of customer dependency, which then influences cloud vendor choice, reducing customer freedom.
Alongside AWS, Google Cloud has echoed similar concerns, pointing to real-world examples where customers preferred Google's cloud services but moved Windows Server workloads back to Azure purely due to Microsoft's licensing terms and commercial constraints. Google has proposed several measures to the CMA aimed at preventing Microsoft from degrading licensing terms for third-party clouds and restricting independent vendors' ability to sell Microsoft software usable on competing platforms. These interventions are seen as crucial for restoring a level playing field and enabling healthy multi-cloud competition.
The CMA's investigation is probing the competitive impacts of these licensing practices, alongside other market factors like egress fees, volume discounting, and interoperability challenges that collectively contribute to vendor lock-in. A provisional ruling has already indicated that Microsoft’s strategy provides it both the incentive and ability to partially exclude rivals from competing effectively, harming competition for cloud infrastructure services in the UK. The regulator is considering behavioral remedies to address these issues without resorting to structural upheavals in the market.
Microsoft, however, strongly defends its licensing policies, contending that the CMA’s case misinterprets the market dynamics and unduly targets its intellectual property rights. Microsoft points out that pricing software to an unsustainably low level risks customers switching away entirely from their software products, which underpin their profitable business models. Furthermore, Microsoft argues that cloud computing decisions factor in many components beyond operating system licenses—such as storage, bandwidth, and additional cloud services—where AWS and Google are able to compete and secure customers. Microsoft posits that margins in these broader service categories are sufficient to foster healthy competition, even if software licensing margins are constrained.
This standoff reflects a larger strategic tug-of-war over control of the enterprise cloud computing ecosystem, with Microsoft leveraging its legacy software dominance to reinforce Azure’s market position. The implications for enterprise IT environments are profound: many firms remain entangled in complex, costly licensing agreements that inhibit flexible cloud adoption strategies, particularly multi-cloud and cloud migration plans. Reducing such lock-in could unleash significant innovation and cost-savings potential for businesses.
Simultaneously, the conversation is playing out against the backdrop of a recent licensing glitch impacting Microsoft 365 Family users, demonstrating the fragility and complexity of modern cloud-based licensing systems. This glitch left users unable to access key Office applications due to licensing validation errors, highlighting challenges around subscription management, system redundancy, and customer trust in cloud service delivery. While isolated from the licensing cost debate, this incident underlines how critical licensing infrastructures not only impact market competition but also the user experience and reliability of cloud services.
For users and IT decision-makers, the CMA’s final ruling—expected in mid-2025—will be pivotal. If the regulator mandates Microsoft to adopt uniform licensing fees or lift restrictions preventing use of Microsoft software on third-party clouds at competitive prices, it could rebalance cloud market dynamics in favor of greater customer choice and lower costs. This could also encourage deeper cloud interoperability and multi-provider strategies, breaking the monopoly tendency observed in current market structures.
However, if Microsoft’s defense prevails, the status quo of licensing-based lock-in and inflated cross-cloud costs may persist, continuing to restrict cloud competition and innovation. The stakes are high not only for major cloud providers and regulators but for enterprises large and small whose operational agility increasingly depends on affordable, flexible cloud infrastructure.
In summary, the ongoing CMA investigation lays bare the intersection of software licensing, cloud monopoly power, and market competition—issues that resonate across the entire cloud services ecosystem, affecting enterprise customers, cloud vendors, and the broader tech landscape alike. Navigating these challenges will require carefully calibrated regulatory action balanced with respect for intellectual property and market innovation incentives, ensuring the cloud remains a fertile ground for growth rather than a battleground of entrenched dominance.

A digital scale weighs various cloud computing platforms against a cityscape backdrop.
Key Points on Microsoft Cloud Licensing Issues and CMA Investigation​

  • Since 2019, Microsoft has imposed higher costs on running Windows Server outside Azure, impacting AWS, Google Cloud, and others.
  • AWS claims 50% of Azure workloads would move to AWS if licensing costs and restrictions were removed.
  • Licenses must often be repurchased to use Microsoft software on competing clouds, inflating costs and creating anti-competitive lock-in.
  • Google concurs and proposes interventions to stop Microsoft from degrading licensing terms and blocking third-party software vendors.
  • The CMA considers these practices anti-competitive and harmful to consumers and competition in the UK cloud market.
  • Microsoft defends its IP rights and pricing strategy, citing risk of customers migrating to alternative software platforms.
  • Cloud portfolios include storage, network, and backup aspects where AWS and Google claim healthy competition exists.
  • The final CMA ruling, due July 2025, could mandate behavioral reforms improving cross-cloud software licensing terms.
  • Separately, a Microsoft 365 Family licensing glitch underscored risks in cloud-based subscription licensing infrastructures.
  • Enterprise customers await regulatory clarity that may unlock greater flexibility and reduce cloud vendor lock-in.

Implications for Windows Users and Enterprise Cloud Consumers​

  • Pricing and licensing impacts influence total cost of ownership for Windows Server workloads on public clouds.
  • Vendors’ hold over software licenses can restrict movement between clouds, limiting hybrid and multi-cloud strategies.
  • Regulatory scrutiny aims to enhance choice, price transparency, and interoperability in cloud service markets.
  • Users must watch for potential CMA mandates that could lower barriers to deploying Microsoft software on AWS or Google Cloud.
  • Parallel technical issues in license validation signal the need for improved cloud subscription resilience and reliability.
  • The evolving cloud licensing landscape could reshape enterprise cloud procurement and deployment models in years ahead.

The unfolding developments in UK cloud competition law and licensing practices will be crucial to observe for anyone invested in cloud computing, Microsoft products, and enterprise IT infrastructure strategies. The coming months will likely define how the cloud market balances dominant software ecosystems with healthy, competitive innovation and consumer-friendly pricing.

Source: AWS: Customers would flee Azure if licensing costs were fair
 

The recent confrontation between Microsoft and the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) over cloud computing licensing practices represents a pivotal moment in the ongoing battle to regulate the rapidly evolving cloud services market. At its core, the dispute centers on allegations by key cloud providers Amazon Web Services (AWS) and Google that Microsoft leverages its dominant software portfolio—especially licensing for Windows Server and SQL Server—to impose inflated charges on those who run Microsoft software in non-Azure environments. These claims have prompted the CMA to signal potential regulatory interventions seeking to restore healthy competition and dismantle pricing and technical barriers that have contributed to a heavily concentrated and costly UK cloud market.

Futuristic data servers with vibrant neon light streams in a digital cityscape environment.
The Licensing Dispute: Microsoft’s Position Versus Rivals’ Claims​

AWS and Google contend that Microsoft forces them to pay up to four times more for licensing Microsoft software on their clouds compared to Microsoft’s own Azure platform. This discrepancy, they argue, effectively places them at a competitive disadvantage, constraints customer choice, and stifles cloud market dynamism. Google has gone as far as to describe this practice as a "software tax" and filed formal antitrust complaints in Europe reflecting broader concerns about how Microsoft uses its intellectual property to forestall competition outside Azure.
On the other hand, Microsoft staunchly rejects these allegations, framing the CMA’s provisional ruling and requests from Google and AWS as "extraordinary and unprecedented," alleging they undermine Microsoft’s intellectual property rights and unfairly single out its business practices. Microsoft emphasizes its "standing offer" of discounts on Azure, which offsets part of the licensing costs for workloads deploying Microsoft software, as a competitive strategy benefiting customers. Furthermore, Microsoft points to the absence of reciprocal licensing offers from AWS or Google as evidence that its competitors unfairly seek regulatory advantage while not extending similar terms themselves.
According to Microsoft’s data, while AWS controls the largest share of the UK cloud market—about 50% of an estimated £9 billion spend in 2023—Microsoft holds a 30-40% share, dwarfing Google’s smaller slice. This market positioning underscores the tensions as the CMA contemplates whether Microsoft’s licensing strategy is anti-competitive or a legitimate competitive tool amidst fierce market rivalry.

Broader Market Issues: Concentration, Egress Fees, and Barriers to Entry​

Beyond licensing, the CMA’s investigation also addresses larger structural challenges, including high "egress fees" that are charged when moving data out of a cloud provider’s platform, creating economic disincentives that lock customers in. These fees, along with technical interoperability obstacles and loyalty-inducing volume discount agreements, have collectively raised the costs and reduced the flexibility of adopting multi-cloud strategies.
The CMA’s concern extends to the overall cloud market concentration, noting that dominant players like AWS and Microsoft use a suite of tactics—pricing, proprietary technologies, and contractual arrangements—to maintain market power. While Google has been found to hold a smaller market share, its participation in calls for reform and complaints with the European Commission suggest this is a wider European issue, not confined to the UK.

Regulatory Responses and Potential Remedies​

The CMA has signaled a preference for behavioral remedies over more drastic structural measures such as breaking up cloud providers or forcing divestitures. Lighter-touch interventions might include imposing price caps on egress fees, mandating transparent and standardized licensing terms that prevent discriminatory pricing against non-Azure clouds, and improving interoperability standards between cloud platforms to ease data and workload mobility.
Such remedies aim to lower barriers for smaller cloud providers and customers, fostering a healthier competitive environment. However, critics warn that overly prescriptive regulations risk stifling innovation, especially as artificial intelligence and other emerging technologies reshape cloud offerings and competitive dynamics. Microsoft has advocated for regulatory frameworks that keep pace with technological transformation, arguing that rigid enforcement based on outdated models could undermine market progress.

Implications for Cloud Customers and Windows Users​

For businesses and individual Windows users reliant on cloud services, these regulatory developments could have a meaningful impact on pricing, service flexibility, and innovation.
  • Cost Dynamics: If Microsoft is required to adopt uniform licensing fees across Azure and rival clouds, customers might see reduced costs when deploying workloads on non-Azure platforms. This would empower enterprises to diversify cloud strategies without financial penalty.
  • Choice and Switching: Behavioral remedies reducing egress fees and enhancing interoperability would break down technical and financial "lock-in," enabling smoother transitions between AWS, Azure, Google Cloud, and smaller providers, supporting hybrid and multi-cloud deployments favored by many organizations.
  • Service Innovation: Any regulatory recalibration that balances oversight with support for innovation could ensure ongoing introduction of cloud features—particularly in areas like AI, security, and productivity tools integrated with Windows and Microsoft 365 ecosystems—without compromising market fairness.
  • Competitive Market Benefits: Ultimately, a more balanced cloud market primes the ecosystem for new entrants and alternative providers to flourish, injecting fresh ideas and competitive pressure that could benefit end-users through enhanced service quality and wider pricing options.

Historical Context and Future Outlook​

This clash echoes earlier antitrust disputes that Microsoft faced in the 1990s and early 2000s concerning market dominance and bundling practices. However, the current debate unfolds in a far more complex digital environment where cloud computing, subscription licensing, and AI drive rapid evolution. Unlike previous cases focused on standalone software, today regulators must grapple with layered ecosystems integrating infrastructure, platforms, and intelligent services.
The CMA’s ongoing deliberations and expected decisions in 2025 will be a bellwether for how regulators globally approach cloud market oversight amid swift innovation. Successful navigation could foster a competitive landscape conducive to technological advancement while safeguarding consumer and business interests.

Industry and Community Perspectives​

Microsoft’s entry into the European cloud association CISPE, alongside continued tensions with AWS and Google within the same groups, illustrates the delicate business politics underlying this debate. While Microsoft touts commitments to compliance and enhanced hybrid cloud solutions tailored for regional data sovereignty, rivals remain skeptical of its motives.
Google’s and AWS’s support for regulatory intervention signals a concerted pushback against perceived Microsoft dominance, yet these large cloud providers themselves wield substantial market power that regulators must balance carefully.
As the cloud market is fundamental to how Windows users and enterprises operate—from hosting databases to running AI workloads—the outcomes of these regulatory engagements at the CMA and EU levels will reverberate throughout the technology ecosystem.

Conclusion​

The unfolding saga of Microsoft’s licensing practices under scrutiny by the UK’s CMA reveals the intricate tug-of-war between fostering innovation and enforcing fair competition in a hyper-evolving cloud computing landscape. With dominant players like AWS, Microsoft, and Google jockeying for market position, the stakes are high for customers, competitors, and regulators alike.
While Microsoft condemns the pricing constraints as an unprecedented attack on its intellectual property, its competitors and the CMA highlight genuine market distortions that disadvantage rivals and limit consumer choice. Finding the equilibrium that protects innovation without enabling anti-competitive conduct is the regulatory challenge for 2025.
For Windows users and cloud customers, these developments offer the promise of more equitable pricing, improved multi-cloud flexibility, and continued technological progress—provided regulators craft thoughtful, adaptive interventions that reflect the realities of modern cloud ecosystems.
This ongoing debate at the intersection of antitrust law, cloud innovation, and market competition will shape how software is licensed, priced, and deployed in the coming years, influencing everything from enterprise workloads to the next generation of cloud-powered Windows experiences.

This analysis incorporates the latest insights from the UK CMA’s investigation and the responses from Microsoft, AWS, Google, and industry observers as gathered from extensive forum discussions and technical reports .

Source: Four times Windows Server costs? Method in the Microsoft
 

Back
Top