Doug's Mailbag: Pay Per Core
Readers react to the news that the next SQL Server will charge per core:
Microsoft is actually late to the game with this. It was inevitable that SQL would be priced per core. Software vendors who charge only by processor are losing millions due to the proliferation of servers with so many fewer processors and so much more computing potential with all of their cores. If they didn't price per core, then the overall price would still have to go up to keep the revenue stream at its previous levels. I'm not defending the practice, I'm just saying...
OK, so doing the math, my 2008 R2 Enterprise server that cost me (about) $30K for 2 CPUs will now cost me $168,000 for 2012 because each CPU has 12 cores. Microsoft can't really be serious, can it? There is NO WAY I can talk my management into that. Thanks, Microsoft, for killing my career.
Mainframes have always, to my knowledge, been priced in a similarly ridiculous model, yet everyone always paid it. VMware more recently tried to follow the same bandwagon with the vSphere 5 release, which, without relenting, was at least lowered. Why would anyone expect Microsoft NOT to follow that trend, especially when it does nothing but increase profits? Is it right? Of course not, but then again, software has always been priced to take a piece of the value it provides, not to cover the cost of production and reasonable markup. That is why as you try to cut costs without cutting profits, vendors usually try to take a cut of those profits.
Share your thoughts with the editors of this newsletter! Write to firstname.lastname@example.org. Letters printed in this newsletter may be edited for length and clarity, and will be credited by first name only (we do NOT print last names or e-mail addresses).
Posted by Doug Barney on 03/28/2012 at 1:19 PM