Somebody Explain Windows, Office VDI Licensing for iPad to Me
I’m terribly frustrated. And perhaps that’s Microsoft’s goal. The blogosphere is lit up this week as partners and customers analyze Microsoft’s Windows 8 licensing terms, and the potential implications for Apple iOS (iPad, iPhone) and Google Android users. MSPs and partners want to promote VDI (virtual desktop integration) as a way for iPad and Android users to access Windows and Office applications. But Microsoft is playing favorites with its own Windows RT tablet strategy. Here’s the update, along with some links that can further explain the situation.
In an recent blog, Microsoft describes its Windows 8 Enterprise and Enhanced Software Assurance license strategy. Within all the words, check out this specific paragraph:
“Windows RT Virtual Desktop Access (VDA) Rights: When used as a companion of a Windows Software Assurance licensed PC, Windows RT will automatically receive extended VDA rights. These rights will provide access to a full VDI image running in the datacenter which will make Windows RT a great complementary tablet option for business customers.”
Windows RT is the ARM-based version of Windows 8. Windows RT will only be available pre-installed on PCs and tablets powered by ARM processors. Read between the lines and the Windows RT Virtual Desktop Access (VDA) Rights apparently favor Windows-based tablets over Apple iPad and Google Android tablets that use VDI to access Windows and Office apps.
Cutting to the Chase
BetaNews goes into deep details and analysis, but I’ll cut to the chase: Microsoft apparently is making a short-sighted move by essentially favoring Windows-based tablet customers over iPad and Google Android tablet customers who want VDI access to Office and Windows.
That’s too bad. Apple sold 15.4 million iPads in its quarter ended Dec. 31, 2011. (New quarterly results will surface after the market closes later today.) Instead of fighting iPads, Microsoft should make it as easy as possible to extend Windows and Office across iPad environments. CIOs, small business customers and MSPs would applaud the move…
Here’s the irony of the situation: If Bill Gates was CEO of Microsoft, I suspect he’d bet heavily on iPad application development and VDI support for the iPad — the same way Microsoft was one of the first software companies to bet heavily on Macintosh software development in the early 1980s.
Yes, Microsoft deserves to profit from its hard work and R&D. But why create artificial advantages for Windows tablets when millions of Microsoft customers want better iPad-Office and iPad-Windows integration (and a level playing field on VDI licensing terms)?
Just last week, I credited Microsoft for extending Windows Intune (the cloud-based PC management service) support out to iPad and Android devices. More recently, we’ve credited CEO Steve Ballmer for getting much of Microsoft’s business back on track. Now, I’m left scratching my head as MSPs are continually forced to adjust their VDI and tablet support strategies because of ill-advised licensing strategies.
This isn’t shortsighted at all. Apple sold a lot of iPads and phones etc. whatever. Microsoft sold 400 million copies of Windows 7 in 2011. Apple has never come close to that. Part of the reason why Microsoft was able to do this is that a significant portion of Apple users want access to Direct X 11 for the purpose of gaming. Microsoft loses nothing by havin Windows installed on Apple hardware. They don’t manufacture hardware (aside from the XBox). Microsoft is a software company. Forcing Apple and Google users to install their software will always be a sound alternative.
Kenny,
I appreciate your readership but respectfully disagree. Microsoft should focus more on (A) what customers want rather than (B) an artificial attempt to direct potential VDI customers away from iPads and toward Windows RT tablets.
-jp
This is really quite simple and reasonable.
Scenario 1:
You have a Windows PC and an iPad, and you want to use Windows desktop on the iPad through the virtual desktop access. Such access provides a full Windows desktop experience, with access to all desktop Windows programs on your iPad.
If you own both devices, this is okay. But if you only own the iPad, and someone else have the license to the Windows PC, you have to pay a little extra to access the full Windows desktop on your iPad. This is reasonable since you are using Windows and have not paid for it.
Scenario 2:
Your employer is a major customer for Microsoft, and you bring your private Windows RT tablet to work.
Since the Windows RT desktop can not run legacy x86 programs, you want to connect to a Windows machine on x86-64 hardware to run these programs virtually. This can be done through virtual desktop access. Microsoft grants automatically extended license so you do not have to pay extra for that. This is reasonable, since both devices are already running a licensed version of Windows.
OK Meg, you’ve got my attention (in a big way). I keep re-reading your comment and I do see the logic you’ve outlined. Give me some time to digest your point a little more. Back soon.
-jp
I’m with Meg; if you’ve already paid a Windows licence of any kind, of course it should be cheaper to use it for VDI/VDA than if it’s a device with no Windows licence. Customers would like to get Windows amp; Office for free in a box of cereal; doesn’t mean it’s good business sense for Microsoft to do that.
Meg, Mary:
Let me present the situation in a slightly different way: I’m one user but I want access to all of my Windows desktop apps extended out to all of my personal devices — smart phones, tablets, etc. Isn’t it time for Microsoft to make it incredibly easy to do this across all devices with no additional charge to non-Windows devices?
-jp
” For customers who want to provide full flexibility for how employees access their corporate desktop across devices, we are introducing a new Companion Device License for Windows SA customers. For users of Windows Software Assurance licensed PCs this optional add-on will provide rights to access a corporate desktop either through VDI or Windows To Go on up to four personally owned devices.” That’s easy; why do you think it should be free?
you don’t really get free VDI access with Windows RT; you’re paying Microsoft something for – for Windows RT. why should you (or rather the company you work for) get it free with a device where you’re not paying Microsoft anything? It’s obviously valuable, because you want it; companies are allowed to charge customers for valuable services – that’s capitalism 😉
If you’re talking about remote desktop to your personal PC, then as long as you have a version of Windows that comes with remote desktop host (Pro, Enterprise, Ultimate), your Windows licence ALREADY covers you. “The single primary user of the licensed computer may access a session from any other device using Remote Desktop or similar technologies. A “session” means the experience of interacting with the software, directly or indirectly, through any combination of input, output and display peripherals.”
Joe:
Remember that the new CDI-license applies to Bring-Your-Own-Device (BYOD) scenarios. Microsoft wants to ensure that no one can use Windows without having paid for a license.
If you own a Windows PC at home, and an iPad, and Android device, you can access all of your Windows desktop apps on all devices. This does not cost anything extra.
However, if you bring your own iPad to the office, and your employer gives you access to the Windows desktop on your iPad from your company’s network servers, will this access cost your employer $ 25. You are in such a case using Windows on your private iPad, without having paid a license, so I think it makes sense to charge § 25 for this.
[…] Tablets Like #039;A Toaster and a Refrigerator#039;PC MagazineApple Insidernbsp;-CNET Asianbsp;-MSPmentorall 52 news […]
[…] comboBusinessWeekApple CEO scoffs at tablet-laptop hybridCNNBBC Newsnbsp;-Fast Companynbsp;-MSPmentorall 249 news […]
Joe, Meg and Mary, you all deliver some execelent points. One area you forgot to mention Mary is that for each device remotely accessing an Office product(such as via Remote Desktop Services), the Office MUST be sold via Open license and the user MUST have a seperate full license for each device accessing the Office product. I honestly have no idea how the rule works with consumer owned OEM installs. I get the need to hit desktops from mobile devices wherein you need access to legacy apps should be addressed at a resonable price, but the strategy of attemping to compete for dollars and market share in standard office productivity apps accessed by BYOD doesn’t make sense to me.