Never thought I'd be able to say this, but Broadcom has out-CA'd Computer Associates.
For those not familiar with CA, their model was to buy up failed enterprise software companies and milk the s@*t out of the licensing and support contracts, while spending next-to-nothing on development. Broadcom follows much the same model with steroids and protein powder.
CA failed, only after years of profitable rent-seeking. The same may happen to Broadcom, but it will take years. In the meantime the companies who depend on the software they control will pay a heavy price.
I do suspect they'll settle but I doubt it will result in a new contract. They've already made significant investments migrating off VMWare and none of those will snap back with a new contract. Tesco was also cut off from updates and support, and so had to purchase 3rd party support, so they have real damages.
Eh, it's still the least hassle at scale for your own data centers and VCF 9 isn't exactly low tech - it does things no one else really can do to the same level of quality (DRS, HCX, NSX, VSAN all come to mind) , the question is, is it worth the money? Unless you're over 10,000 VMs, probably not.
OpenShift is okay but has quirks unless you have a major Kubernetes staff; Proxmox is good for most but I wouldn't use at massive scale. Azure Stack/ Hyper-V can work but has its own quirks.
They're not the only ones pissed off with VMWare [1].
What I don't understand is what prevents them to shop around for alternatives. What is VMWare's very good moat that prevents the competition from invading their castle?
2. Tesco had a good deal they paid for ahead of time, with the full support cycle detailed in the contract that Broadcom is refusing to honor.
3. Broadcom is arguing that since Tesco is migrating off, they can't sue for damages. Tesco would probably counter argue that the migration is due to Broadcom not honoring the original contract.
20 years ago anyone and everyone had datacenters full of VMware. Now most of it is stuff that a company hasn't bothered to move to cloud yet. There's a few things it's still the best choice for but those are niche things. Like stuff that absolutely needs to be self hosted for privacy or security. The time of VMware being the default is long gone.
Moving from a mainstream to a niche product means a market that's shrinking. No growth potential. No potential for new competitors to start up. Proxmox is good but it's not exactly enterprise.
This is why Broadcom bought it and sucks the most value out of it before it completely disappears.
> There's a few things it's still the best choice for but those are niche things.
That just isn't true. The reality is that being in the cloud is not beneficial for most businesses. They do it because it's trendy, not because it's the best solution. In recent years we've seen more and more recognition of that fact, and it has driven people to host stuff on prem.
because there are no real alternatives. Everything that could be considered an alternative has drawbacks or things that are missing. Proxmox comes close but doesn't offer proper enterprise support contracts, so you'd be stuck with a 3rd party.
Then there's training. you can't easily switch your admins and service desk techs to a different product. That alone takes months, of not years, and costs a lot. Rewrite all processes, etc.
Then there's 3rd party integration. Since VMware was basically the "default", most 3rd party products offered turnkey integration into VMware, and VMware only. Think backup applications or security etc. You don't switch backup vendors easily (for the same reasons - training, features, ...) and if you do consider it, it adds to the cost
This is why, for many companies that don't have 50-100 people or more in their IT department, it's more expensive to switch away from VMware so they grudgingly pay, while trying to move as much workload away from it as possible.
> VMware is essential for the operations of Tesco’s business and its ability to supply groceries
Guess you're fucking it up big time somehow then. Why would you tell people this? "Hey, we managed to make ourselves permanently dependent on some bullshit tech, please partner vendors, fuck as much as you possibly can so we can pass it off to shoppers."
There is always some dependency which would be devastating to lose. Maybe it is VMWare, maybe it is your Oracle database, could be your Visa payment processor. Sometimes you have to accept the risk and move on without owning a copper mine so as to smelt chips.
Never thought I'd be able to say this, but Broadcom has out-CA'd Computer Associates.
For those not familiar with CA, their model was to buy up failed enterprise software companies and milk the s@*t out of the licensing and support contracts, while spending next-to-nothing on development. Broadcom follows much the same model with steroids and protein powder.
CA failed, only after years of profitable rent-seeking. The same may happen to Broadcom, but it will take years. In the meantime the companies who depend on the software they control will pay a heavy price.
Negotiating tactic. Never really makes it to court.
I do suspect they'll settle but I doubt it will result in a new contract. They've already made significant investments migrating off VMWare and none of those will snap back with a new contract. Tesco was also cut off from updates and support, and so had to purchase 3rd party support, so they have real damages.
Having VMware in 2026 is a sign of low tech.
Eh, it's still the least hassle at scale for your own data centers and VCF 9 isn't exactly low tech - it does things no one else really can do to the same level of quality (DRS, HCX, NSX, VSAN all come to mind) , the question is, is it worth the money? Unless you're over 10,000 VMs, probably not.
OpenShift is okay but has quirks unless you have a major Kubernetes staff; Proxmox is good for most but I wouldn't use at massive scale. Azure Stack/ Hyper-V can work but has its own quirks.
Compared to something like proxmox? Sure.
It takes a long time to change corporate mindset.
Compared to something like openstack.
Comments like this are a sign of someone living in a bubble.
VMware really damaged their business longterm, as anyone that can transition off, is doing so, and anyone else is planning on it.
Broadcom doesn't care. They just want to milk VMware for all it's worth to goose their short-term profits.
Yeah this was clearly willingly and knowingly done.
They did the same rugpull to PLX customers. This is Broadcoms business model. Never ever do business with Broadcom.
They're not the only ones pissed off with VMWare [1].
What I don't understand is what prevents them to shop around for alternatives. What is VMWare's very good moat that prevents the competition from invading their castle?
https://www.theregister.com/software/2026/03/24/half-of-vmwa...
1. Tesco is migrating off
2. Tesco had a good deal they paid for ahead of time, with the full support cycle detailed in the contract that Broadcom is refusing to honor.
3. Broadcom is arguing that since Tesco is migrating off, they can't sue for damages. Tesco would probably counter argue that the migration is due to Broadcom not honoring the original contract.
Because there's no business potential.
20 years ago anyone and everyone had datacenters full of VMware. Now most of it is stuff that a company hasn't bothered to move to cloud yet. There's a few things it's still the best choice for but those are niche things. Like stuff that absolutely needs to be self hosted for privacy or security. The time of VMware being the default is long gone.
Moving from a mainstream to a niche product means a market that's shrinking. No growth potential. No potential for new competitors to start up. Proxmox is good but it's not exactly enterprise.
This is why Broadcom bought it and sucks the most value out of it before it completely disappears.
> There's a few things it's still the best choice for but those are niche things.
That just isn't true. The reality is that being in the cloud is not beneficial for most businesses. They do it because it's trendy, not because it's the best solution. In recent years we've seen more and more recognition of that fact, and it has driven people to host stuff on prem.
Big ships turn slowly is all. It’s no easy feat to move away from something like that.
because there are no real alternatives. Everything that could be considered an alternative has drawbacks or things that are missing. Proxmox comes close but doesn't offer proper enterprise support contracts, so you'd be stuck with a 3rd party.
Then there's training. you can't easily switch your admins and service desk techs to a different product. That alone takes months, of not years, and costs a lot. Rewrite all processes, etc.
Then there's 3rd party integration. Since VMware was basically the "default", most 3rd party products offered turnkey integration into VMware, and VMware only. Think backup applications or security etc. You don't switch backup vendors easily (for the same reasons - training, features, ...) and if you do consider it, it adds to the cost
This is why, for many companies that don't have 50-100 people or more in their IT department, it's more expensive to switch away from VMware so they grudgingly pay, while trying to move as much workload away from it as possible.
dupe
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48576838
> VMware is essential for the operations of Tesco’s business and its ability to supply groceries
Guess you're fucking it up big time somehow then. Why would you tell people this? "Hey, we managed to make ourselves permanently dependent on some bullshit tech, please partner vendors, fuck as much as you possibly can so we can pass it off to shoppers."
There is always some dependency which would be devastating to lose. Maybe it is VMWare, maybe it is your Oracle database, could be your Visa payment processor. Sometimes you have to accept the risk and move on without owning a copper mine so as to smelt chips.