DE version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.
Advertisement
Advertisement
⚡ Community Insights
Discussion Sentiment
78% Positive
Analyzed from 730 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
#vmware#customers#infrastructure#hpe#cost#money#revenue#fees#broadcom#before

Discussion (14 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
This is just a much worse version of AWS. Obsession with maintaining some degree of physical control over infrastructure drives many organizations to absolute insanity. Skip the hybrid nonsense. Find a CTO with some balls.
It takes a CTO with cojones to actually own your infrastructure.
Not to mention there are many scenarios where cloud connectivity is not an option.
How much was Tottenham using? Did the 85% actually cover the cost of their new CTO coming in and switching platforms?
It's very vague.
A friend of mine is a virtualization SME and from what I can tell you don't really save that much on the alternatives. Also, HPE sell VMware. HPE has a modular solution where you can pick the hypervisor you want to use, including VMware.
At my $dayjob we use Proxmox and it's good enough. I think Proxmox would be good enough for most orgs.
But my friend works with the tax agency and they definitely make use of vSAN, NSX, and all those nice features that puts VMware above the competition.
So only a matter of time until they have to migrate again.
https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/7542593/2026/09/02/tottenha...
($405M in gross transfer spend in this summer's window)
Or else some insider assurance that they'd get so much money from government or some big customer that they could run their products into the ground no matter what. But enterprises are not as locked in as people think.
Let's say that VMware had a $10B revenue with a $9B operating cost. If 0.1% of their megacorp customers is responsible for 20% of that revenue while only being 1% of the support needs, then ditching the other 99.9% of customers reduces revenue to $2B while the operating cost can be reduced to $90M - increasing profit from $1B to $1.91B.
Those huge customers are quite locked in, so you can squeeze them for a couple of years before they leave. They have their own in-house support teams, so you can cut all L1/L2 support people. You're killing the product, so you can cut all developers except a handful to patch CVEs. The smaller customers who are leaving are doing some after a massive price hike, so you get a nice one-time renewal bonus while they desperately try to move to alternatives.
No need to do any shorting when you're generating massive profits for a couple of years. The plan when VMware is dead? Cut up its corpse in tiny parts, sell them off, buy another company, repeat the same strategy. As long as the total money they manage to extract from VMware is more than its acquisition cost, Broadcom has succeeded.
It kind of makes sense, if you're using VMWare, your choice is to pay a ridiculous but fixed/certain sum, or embark on a risky migration project that probably involves hiring a bunch of people, could take longer than expected, might fail, etc.
For the love of god keep Gen AI off of infrastructure...