[SunRay-Users] VDA licenses hurting VDI
ijanmaat at xs4all.nl
Sat Mar 19 01:39:28 EET 2011
"Remote FX requires Hyper-V"
It looks like Microsoft is licensing Remote FX to chip manufacturers for
server and client side graphic accelerator boards.
So wouldn't it also be possible to license this technology as a plugin
for Virtualbox and Sun Ray firmware?
That would be something to negotiate between Oracle and Microsoft.
The alternative for Oracle would be to build some competing technology
with the same functionality.
Although I think the former Sun people would be capable of doing this, I
don't think Oracle would be capable of marketing this technology more
effective than Microsoft is marketing Remote FX.
Or might I be wrong here?
Although there is no correlation between Remote FX and WVDA at this
moment, I can not imagine that it will stay this way.
If clients with Remote FX licensed chip designs are available it would
be beneficial for Microsoft to drop VDA licenses for these clients.
We might see a change in the VDA license structure by that time.
I worry a bit about the statement that large sites will tend to use
Windows based clients because of SA advantages and small sites are
better of with VDA.
Oracle VDI works best for large scale deployments. Small scale
deployments are quite expensive because of the unified storage 7120 and
This would mean that the Sun Ray suffers indeed the most from the
Microsoft SA and VDA licensing model.
VMware is indeed not on the list. Their PCoIP is a competing approach.
The problem with all the protocol options is that it is hard for people
to choose. Not only for the professionals but especially for the customers.
So customers tend to go with what they know...Microsoft, Citrix.
A lot of Oracle marketing budget is needed to counter this if Oracle
wants to compete with their own Windows 3D and HD software/hardware
But if Oracle chooses to develop their own solution, there also much be
an answer to the WVDA license disruption of the market.
Maybe even some legal steps.
Nice piece from Brian ;-)
Craig Bender schreef:
> Hi Ivar,
> I'm relaxed. Nothing but happy thoughts over here. ;)
> The EULA is not pushing Hyper-V. RemoteFX requires Hyper-V , so I
> guess that would be a no to your Virtualbox question.
> I'm not sure I get the correlation between WVDA and RemoteFX and
> roadmaps though. There's zero tie in between licensing the RemoteFX
> spec from Microsoft and not having to pay the WVDA. That's only
> possible by running Windows 7. But you do have to pay SA.
> Since the price of SA is going to be determined by what your licensing
> agreement is with MS (those who buy more copies of Win7 will get lower
> SA prices), WVDA actually favors smaller companies because the delta
> between the yearly SA cost and the full yearly WVDA license will be
> less. IMO this is intentional. The biggest MS customers who may be
> interested in VDI on non-Windows 7 devices will see such a huge
> difference between SA and WVDA, they'll either not do VDI, or if they
> still really believe in it, they'll buy Win 7 SA capable device.
> Win/Win for MS.
> I do wonder how many Citrix customers run the XD VMs on Hyper-V? I'd
> guess not many. Citrix wants you to run on XenServer, Citrix
> customers seem to want to run on Vmware. Citrix doesn't sell client
> devices, but they do want to keep MS happy so XenApp can continue to
> be an upgrade to WTS/RDS.
> What you have left is companies that do not have protocols (RGS
> doesn't count), though they do sell (or want to sell) a lot of PCs
> (Wyse Cloud PCs are Windows 7 SA capable PCs). No big surprises on
> that list who have signed up. Where is Vmware?
> I've tried to illustrate why MS does not like VDI and why they like
> Windows on PCs. Remember the stats I shared on the thin client market
> on whole compared to the PC market on whole. They want they bigger
> piece of the pie, and they want keep it as big a possible.
> Here is Brian Madden's take on the subject:
More information about the SunRay-Users