SAP has been doing something similar for years now. They call it indirect use. If a system integrates with SAP and accesses data you have to pay licensing fees. Even if you host the SAP system yourself.
What the hell? If a company gets more efficient and uses fewer people - Microsoft's immediate reaction is to figure out how to invent some kind of digital seats so they can keep taxing the headcount. Lol
To that makes perfect sense. You get charged for usage of their service and they chose to do that by assuming an average usage per license / person and charging that. When you get to cram in more usage/person by using a third party, they either charge you for access via that third-party or that could also just increase prices per personal license. I guess they figured the latter would be less popular or they can't do it, because they have existing contracts.
They don't care about your headcount, but you do use more service.
It doesn't make any sense. Humans are non-fungible AI is not, they are just arbitrarily imposing such limitations, which can impact the workflows of businesses.
You go to an all you can eat restaurant. Would you find it, that it wouldn't make sense to charge for each bag you start stuffing with food? You are doing the same, using a tool to extract more value out in the same time. Of course they are gonna charge more.
You can be against licenses, because you think it should be possible to own software. (I agree somewhat with that.) But when you accept a fee for usage (aka. a license), the vendor gets to tell you the pricing units in which the usage is determined. Expecting the same cost while changing the pricing unit, isn't likely to be accepted by the seller.
Your society and your status within it are predisposed on making money. They are taxing your ability to leverage them for a leg up through new tooling. Their interests are to maximize or maintain the relative disparity between their value extraction capabilities, and yours. Otherwise they lose at the game of Money. Isn't the society we've built that we like to say is about goods and services, but is actually only about power and influence accretion through relative disparity in money extraction grand?
Don't like it? Build your own transnational ERP. /s to be clear.
Totally makes sense IMHO. Even subscriptions are essentially a simplified/averaged "pay for what you use".
The question is rather whether a single type of subscription license makes sense (e.g. when AI burns through more resources than the average human, should the subscription go up for everybody? - as a human I would be pissed to subsidise heavy AI usage by other users).
E.g. there should probably be special 'AI licenses' similar to how some products have special 'CI licenses'.
From the we-accidentally-nuked-our-business-strategy department.
Bravo, Microsoft, for finally noticing the entailment of replacing workers with AI most critical for a company whose proven revenues come from selling "seats"
https://www.techradar.com/pro/microsoft-is-reportedly-planni...
They don't care about your headcount, but you do use more service.
You can be against licenses, because you think it should be possible to own software. (I agree somewhat with that.) But when you accept a fee for usage (aka. a license), the vendor gets to tell you the pricing units in which the usage is determined. Expecting the same cost while changing the pricing unit, isn't likely to be accepted by the seller.
Don't like it? Build your own transnational ERP. /s to be clear.
The question is rather whether a single type of subscription license makes sense (e.g. when AI burns through more resources than the average human, should the subscription go up for everybody? - as a human I would be pissed to subsidise heavy AI usage by other users).
E.g. there should probably be special 'AI licenses' similar to how some products have special 'CI licenses'.
Bravo, Microsoft, for finally noticing the entailment of replacing workers with AI most critical for a company whose proven revenues come from selling "seats"