• Thread Author
When enterprises consider migrating their IT infrastructure to the cloud, those heavily invested in Microsoft technologies face a uniquely complex challenge. The expectation that migrating Microsoft server applications—such as Windows Server and SQL Server—to cloud platforms other than Microsoft's Azure would be straightforward has been complicated by Microsoft’s change in licensing policies introduced around 2019. This shift has created a significant cost barrier that effectively locks customers into Azure or forces them to pay considerably higher fees to run their Microsoft-based workloads on competing clouds like Amazon Web Services (AWS) or Google Cloud Platform (GCP).

A businessman in a suit sits at a desk with multiple screens displaying cloud computing data in a modern office.
The Licensing Challenge​

Historically, customers with existing Microsoft software licenses could run Microsoft server software on outsourced or cloud infrastructure through their own licenses, a flexibility that facilitated multi-cloud deployments or migrations. However, Microsoft’s 2019 policy revision classified AWS, Google, and Alibaba as “listed providers,” requiring customers to purchase specialized, additional licenses (often at a much higher cost) to run Microsoft server software virtually on these competitor clouds.
The practical upshot is stark: customers can incur up to four times the licensing cost if they attempt to deploy Windows Server virtual machines on AWS or GCP compared to Azure. Google has explicitly stressed that this differential makes its cloud offerings less competitive for customers reliant on Microsoft software, reinforcing Azure's stronghold in this market sector.

Why Not Simply Switch to Linux?​

An intuitive solution might appear to be porting applications from Windows Server to Linux. Linux’s open-source nature and widespread adoption in cloud environments often make it the cheaper, more flexible alternative. But the reality for traditional enterprise customers is considerably more complex.
These organizations often have an extensive and mature portfolio of Microsoft-dependent applications developed over many years. Migrating these applications wholesale from Windows to Linux is no trivial task—it can require years of redevelopment, significant financial investment, and deep technical resources. Google’s submission to the UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) underscores that such modernization efforts are infeasible for most enterprises due to the scale of change and lack of in-house capabilities.
AWS concurs with this view, emphasizing that while migrating some workloads to Linux is technically possible, the process is costly, time-consuming, and impractical for many scenarios. Applications developed exclusively for the Windows platform remain incapable of running on Linux, locking customers into Microsoft’s environment or penalizing them with exorbitant licensing fees on alternative clouds.

Market Impact and Competitive Concerns​

This licensing-driven vendor lock-in fundamentally restricts competition in the cloud infrastructure market. Customers with extensive Microsoft software investments are effectively denied competitive choice when selecting a cloud provider. Instead, they face a forced trade-off: migrate to Azure, possibly at the risk of vendor lock-in, or accept steep licensing premiums elsewhere.
Microsoft claims its pricing strategy is a "precise tightrope," aiming not to undercharge for its software to avoid incentivizing wholesale customer migration away from its ecosystem, while also not pricing itself out of the market. From Microsoft’s perspective, it leverages its dominant installed base to maintain a cloud revenue stream tied closely to Windows Server and SQL Server usage—a strategy visibly successful as 70-80% of Azure's revenues reportedly come from these workloads.
Regulators like the CMA are scrutinizing this arrangement, suspecting anti-competitive behaviors that could harm market health and consumer interests. While Microsoft appears to have a firm grip on pricing power, customers and cloud rivals alike argue for regulatory intervention to lower these barriers and foster a more open, competitive cloud market.

Broader Barriers to Cloud Migration​

Beyond licensing, the CMA investigation touches on other impediments to cloud mobility such as data egress fees and interoperability challenges. These factors can also reinforce vendor lock-in and restrict customers’ ability to shift workloads or adopt multi-cloud strategies. Although some regulators and critics highlight egress fees as a costly burden for customers wishing to move data between clouds, the CMA has downplayed this as a currently less problematic issue, notably under the umbrella of large providers' volume discounting.
Independently, smaller cloud vendors claim these discounts and technical lock-ins skew competition in favor of the hyperscalers—Amazon, Microsoft, and Google—further concentrating market power.

The Cost of Migration Complexity​

The cost and complexity of migrating away from Microsoft to Linux or another platform extend well beyond licensing. They encompass retraining, rewriting software, and often re-architecting business processes. Migration timelines extending several years are not unusual for enterprises bound by legacy dependencies and limited software engineering resources.
One expert example includes customers invested heavily in custom Microsoft applications, which would require extensive redevelopment—a process that demands investment few enterprises can manage. Such transitions are more than purely technical; they are strategic decisions with significant business continuity implications.

The Cloud Market Monopoly Dilemma​

This Microsoft licensing-induced lock-in scenario reveals a broader dilemma in cloud computing: pervasive platform dependence combined with prohibitive switching costs curtails true market competition. Enterprises, especially those deeply embedded in Microsoft ecosystems, face locked marketplaces where the choice to switch providers hinges on prohibitive financial and organizational costs.
In this light, cloud computing's promise of flexibility and vendor diversity runs counter to real-world practicalities for many businesses.

Regulatory Outlook and Industry Implications​

The UK's Competition and Markets Authority is actively investigating Microsoft’s conduct with a preliminary view that its licensing practices may have hindered competition. The final ruling expected in mid-2025 could propose remedies aimed at leveling the playing field, such as enforcing uniform licensing prices regardless of cloud provider or setting limits on licensing surcharges.
For Windows users and IT decision-makers, the regulatory outcome could signal a shift in cloud economics, enabling more competitive pricing across platforms and possibly encouraging multi-cloud and hybrid cloud adoption among enterprises.

Conclusion: Navigating the Future of Microsoft Licensing in the Cloud​

For enterprises whose IT landscape is tightly interwoven with Microsoft software, the path to cloud adoption is fraught with financial and technical hurdles. Microsoft’s licensing changes make moving away from Azure economically punitive, yet shifting to Linux alternatives is laborious and costly due to entrenched Windows dependencies.
The resulting environment is one where traditional enterprise customers endure constrained cloud choices, strained budgets, and prolonged migration timelines. Regulatory intervention by bodies such as the CMA may recalibrate these dynamics, but for now, the cloud market remains tilted in favor of Microsoft’s sprawling ecosystem.
Windows users planning cloud strategies must weigh licensing costs against migration complexity, carefully considering the trade-offs between innovation, cost containment, and operational continuity. The evolving landscape will demand savvy management of Microsoft’s licensing frameworks alongside strategic investments in modernization or hybrid cloud architectures.
As the cloud market matures, one hopes for solutions that preserve enterprise flexibility without compromising the economics of cloud adoption—fostering an open, competitive environment where innovation can truly thrive across platforms.

This analysis draws on perspectives from Amazon, Google, Microsoft, and the UK Competition and Markets Authority, supplemented by insights on enterprise cloud migration challenges and platform lock-in issues raised in community discussions and regulatory reports .

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

Back
Top