I'm not trying to be an apologetic for Microsoft here, but as I read back over this thread I've seen a lot of people assert that Microsoft "does not care." I think that it's inaccurate to make that claim. The very presence of
@Elden Christensen - who is a significant part of the Hyper-V effort at Microsoft - in this thread shows that Microsoft does care, is engaging and is listening.
Like many who have posted in this thread over the many months it's been here, I have experienced sadness and frustration at many changes Microsoft has made, on many fronts. I use Windows Server, Hyper-V, and Windows 11. I use Outlook, New Outlook, and Teams. I use Azure, Entra, and many 365 products. And I, too, am a Microsoft Partner, with (now legacy) Silver status. Microsoft has made a lot of changes in all of these areas over time that have saddened me personally. But the reason I've been sad and upset is really because the changes Microsoft has made have inconvenienced me personally or destabilized my world in some way, not because I've been attacked, mistreated, or experienced something significant at Microsoft's "hands."
I put "hands" in quotes because Microsoft isn't a "person", it does not "care" or "not care." It is not some individual out there maliciously taking things away from us and laughing evilly at the result. Nor, we must remember, is Microsoft a charity. Microsoft DOES do many charitable things, but it is not a charity in the sense that it can continue to devote employee time to a free product that literally generates no revenue for them. It has done this for a long time, and we've liked it, but I can't help but wonder what the opportunity cost was. What else might they have done with those person-hours had they been shifted elsewhere? Microsoft has now asked itself that question, and made changes in response. We don't like this change, but that's not because we've been hurt. This thread has made exhaustively clear that we have choices. We can move to the new Microsoft HCI product, we can pay for a Windows Server license. We can use Hyper-V on Windows 11 for free. We can use XCP-NG. I've done them all, I use them all, they all work, they're all good options. We lose nothing here, we're not being cast adrift. We're upset here not because there is any real impact to us, we're upset primarily because our unjustified sense of entitlement is offended.
Instead, we have to remember that Microsoft is a corporation. It is one of the largest corporations in the world, and it's got many different pressures, both internally and externally, that shape and inform its direction. Microsoft's primary job is to grow as a company, to take care of its employees, sell products to its customers, and make money for its shareholders. I'm not an employee, but I am a shareholder, and I want Microsoft to make decisions that will grow the business and the value of my fractional ownership therein. I am a partner, and as a partner, I want the same thing. I'm also a customer, and as a customer I want good products that I can use... and because we live in a global culture, I understand and expect that I will need to pay for those products if I expect them to be good and usable. Only in my role as a smaller business, and/or an individual who likes to tinker with free stuff do I want Microsoft to keep giving us a free Hyper-V.
But just because I want a thing doesn't mean Microsoft can or even should pivot just to give me those things. Microsoft is making decisions based on many factors, and what we in this thread want IS one of them. But what we in this thread want simply isn't a large enough factor to override all the other factors that went into this decision. If Microsoft makes bad decisions, customers will vote with their wallets, and Microsoft will see that, and adjust. They've done so many times in the past, and will do so in the future as well. Their current size and success speaks to the correctness of many decisions they've made, decisions which often seemed wrong or problematic at first.
Here's a fun little example to illustrate this. Most of us here will be familiar with Microsoft 365, and the recently-added "New Outlook for Windows." Did you know that, in a stunning reversal of precedent and in seeming violation of their own policies, someone at Microsoft made the decision that New Outlook for Windows would no longer support Business Basic users? That's right: If you have a Microsoft 365 Business Basic account (or E1, or F1, or EXO P1, or EXO P2, or any of the "small" yet PAID accounts), you cannot use New Outlook for Windows? The program literally and actively blocks you, with a message making clear that the blocking is because of your license. Someone at Microsoft made that decision. You can see the details here, if you like:
https://feedbackportal.microsoft.com/feedback/idea/2f7925cb-3a80-ee11-a81c-000d3ae46fcbImagine the thinking there! Someone actually said, "Let's support free Outlook, let's support our competitors like GMail and Yahoo, let's even support iCloud. But our paying Business Basic users, who give us money each month? Naah." People are going to leave Microsoft 365 over that (as you'll see in the comments in that post) and it's going to hurt MIcrosoft's bottom line. I objected to that change and started that thread because I believe the choice is wrong, and will cause Microsoft losses, and I want to prevent those losses. But Microsoft didn't make that choice to be malicious or because they don't care. They made that choice for a reason, and if they're right, they'll prosper and grow, and if they're wrong, they'll figure it out and adjust.
With Free Hyper-V, the value is less clear. Elden has already explained - several times - that there is a new product out there and, yes, it's not free, but the paying workloads are going to be taken care of. We who are used to getting stuff for free don't like that, but ultimately, if the choice Microsoft has made to stop giving Hyper-V away for free turns out to impact their bottom line, they will figure it out and adjust.
Meanwhile what we have here is a situation where a free product, to which Microsoft has committed countless person-hours in the past, yet which has clearly generated zero direct revenue for them, ever, is being withdrawn, impacting only people who weren't paying for it anyway.
And yet, despite that, we have one of the leaders of the Windows Server team at Microsoft patiently sitting in this thread, month after month, responding to our messages, being present, and engaging. Which is more, I think, than ANY other large corporation would do, under these circumstances.
So while I understand and even to some degree share in the frustration over changes (Don't move MY cheese! Not in MY backyard!), I think that in all of our interactions with Microsoft we should remember the context and the larger picture. The PEOPLE at Microsoft absolutely DO care about what's happening in every part of their company, and DO care about people, including us. But, just as we often have to in our own jobs and lives, they have to sort their priorities and make hard decisions that not everyone is going to like. Reducing that to "they don't care" just doesn't track, and it's not an accurate summation. We need to stay focused on the big picture here. We've provided our opinions about the impact of this decision on us and on Microsoft, to Microsoft, and they have listened and personally acknowledged us, in this thread! Given how many companies don't do that, we should be grateful that Microsoft does! Now we need to move ahead, and trust the process, and adapt if necessary as things continue to change and grow.
Glen
