Several times I do believe we all get involved in some heated discussions about technology in general be it products or a particular vendor’s strategy. Certainly these may piss you off at times and that is normal. All part of a good discussion.
That leads me to the discussion we all had on Twitter this past week about the whole WVD brokering scenarios I tested. Some people reached out to say they loved it and that even shared the blog post internally to their IT guys so new ways to use WVD would be explored. On the same token, others reached out to say that was insanity, that I should have not done it and so on. All fair game to me. That is the sign a good discussion is going on, when people are polarized about it.
That said, as part of my original post, I did post a message I received privately on Twitter, without mentioning any names, thinking that was harmless and without breaching anyone’s trust and/or privacy.
I was wrong.
And that is the reason of my post. After reflecting on it, I do understand why someone would feel betrayed by my actions and for that reason I must apologize here. It was in no way my intention to cause anyone harm. In my mind it was just part of the heated discussion (where I was called a dick – what is also fine as I am called much worse things at times in the EUC industry). But again, I could have posted pretty much the same thing, relaying the same message but without showing anything received privately from anyone (blog post updated to reflect that).
The worst part is simply the fact I may have lost a good friend that I have known for years and regardless of the fact I do believe he is a bit crazy and blind at times, he is a very sharp guy and always a great resource to have a chat or a drink with.
So for you my friend, my apologies.
Now one thing I must clarify is, no matter what people say, stating that their personal views do not reflect their employer’s view, it not always correct and cannot be used in all situations. Sure, if we are discussing something about your love or hate for cats, I totally get it. It is your personal view.
Now if we are talking about a particular technology or product and you are the VP for that product within a company and your view is the product should be licensed/modified in a certain way, it is clear you do have a ton of leverage internally and that the product will end up the way you probably envisioned. What means that your view is indeed your employer’s view or your team’s view. Otherwise the shipped product would look nothing like what you envisioned for it. Yes, many may not see this but it is indeed a fine line that is very easy to cross and separating your personal thoughts from your employer/team is not that simple and in many cases impossible.
From now on I will certainly try to reflect a bit before posting anything and I swear I will not post anything right after half a bottle of scotch. Damn you COVID-19 for my newly acquired work habits.
Good to see you take some responsibility for your previous posts but the point is still seemingly going over your head. The WVD broker is “free” in that you are paying for the licensing and compute and the broker service is not an added charge. Using the WVD broker with compute provided by other service providers is wrong ethically, regardless of your feelings about Microsoft licensing.
If you disagree would love to hear your thoughts on why.
I guess my view is, many may be doing this for a reason that has nothing to do with costs. Could be a RemotePC like scenario, slowly ramping up or migrate to the cloud, burst to the cloud etc. In all these cases you are dealing with workloads that may not be or that will never be on Azure (i.e. Physical). By leaving this as an Azure only offering you eliminate hybrid scenarios what is the first step you take when considering or moving to the cloud.
In such use cases and assuming they do exist, why not monetize on them? Charge something per user per hour and broker these. Simply blocking these use cases and ignoring them is short sighted IMHO and not a good business decision from a revenue standpoint.
Not to mention it is much better use of engineering resources to monetize on these use cases vs attempting to block this.
Ok I can follow that logic. People want to run Windows everywhere and it seems to make sense to try and make that easier for customers to do. Thanks for explaining.