It looks a lot like VMware just lost a 24,000-VM customer

Broadcom / VMware Pricing Strategy

• Broadcom is described as “laser-focused” on high-revenue, high-margin customers, willing to hike VMware prices dramatically and shed smaller accounts.
• Some argue this is rational: VMware is now just one business unit inside a much larger company; concentrating on Fortune 500/1000 and government simplifies sales/support and raises margins.
• Others see it as extreme short‑termism: huge hikes (10–15x cited) turn customers into “hostages,” destroy trust, and push them to competitors; any upside may be temporary.
• Concern that revenue could initially look fine (due to inertia and contracts) but fall off sharply in years 2–5 as migrations complete and mindshare shifts.

Vendor Lock‑in vs Hypervisor Consolidation

• One camp: consolidating on a single hypervisor is financially and operationally sensible; infra is a cost center, and running two stacks doubles licensing, SME headcount, and negotiation overhead.
• Opposing view: single‑vendor dependence is a major risk. Some advocate maintaining at least a small secondary platform as an escape hatch.
• Debate over “risk management”: some say you formally document and accept single‑vendor risk; others say Broadcom’s behavior shows why that’s dangerous.

Multi‑Cloud vs Multi‑Hypervisor

• One side argues multi‑cloud is more acceptable than multi‑hypervisor: better‑developed migration practices, more flexible billing, and budgets often tied to R&D rather than tight IT/finance lines.
• Critics note multi‑cloud has the same issues of multiple skills, tools, and contracts, and dispute the idea that it’s inherently easier or cheaper.

Alternatives: Nutanix, Proxmox, and Others

• Many expect Nutanix, Citrix, and other established vendors (including OpenStack/Red Hat/IBM and hyperscalers) to benefit more than Proxmox in the enterprise.
• Higher education and other cost‑sensitive but technically strong orgs are seen as likely Proxmox adopters.
• Several anecdotes of real‑world VMware→Nutanix migrations, with reports of strong performance, but some skepticism about marketing claims (e.g., “1000% better”).

Nutanix: Technical and Commercial Views

• Positives: works well in hyperconverged deployments; some report smooth operations at scale.
• Negatives: locked into hyperconverged design; very expensive; limited hardware choices; historically weaker APIs/Terraform and visible “glue” around open‑source components; lack of external storage support noted as a blocker.

Migration Complexity and Staffing

• Some assert competent orgs should be able to migrate all servers in a few months as part of normal patching/refresh cycles.
• Others counter that full hypervisor/DC migrations for large enterprises are inherently multi‑year, high‑risk efforts; most orgs are not staffed or structured for constant large‑scale moves, and many barely keep systems patched.

Tech Media and The Register

• Split views on The Register’s snarky tone: some find it a welcome contrast to sanitized corporate PR; others describe it as selectively hostile and tied to sponsorship and conference relationships.
• Historical note: originally a practitioner‑driven, tabloid‑style outlet critical of vendors; now seen by some as just another marketing‑dependent publisher, though still valued by others as a partial counterweight to pure press‑release journalism.