8 ms·

AT&T Sues Broadcom over VMware Contracts 'Bullying'

58 points by doctorshady 2y ago

shiroiushi 2y ago
I'm not quite sure who to root for here; it's like choosing between Hitler and Stalin.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- up2isomorphism 2y ago
  They are neither Hilter or Stalin, I know just generally believing they are evil make one feel relevant, but in this case it is just incompetence of management of an still incredibly profitable company has no idea what would happen when they drive away technical staff and contact everything to vendors.
  - shiroiushi 2y ago
    Have you ever tried to work with Broadcom as a vendor? Management incompetence is not the problem. I'm happy to assume that AT&T is correct to call Broadcom's behavior "bullying".
- eth0up 2y ago
  If ATT had its way, both of those names would imply little more than ineffective business models.
- al_borland 2y ago
  I’m rooting for ATT, if it means Broadcom will have to stop trying to bleed everyone dry with their new terms. These Broadcom issues impact a lot of companies that aren’t ATT.
modsarepoison 2y ago
[flagged]
chris_wot 2y ago
This looks like Broadcom might need to be investigated by a number of Anti-Trust departments.
mjevans 2y ago
Vendor Lockin is evil, choice and portability should be legally required. Along with open and free to implement specifications for extracting data even without a valid license to the product.
- JackSlateur 2y ago
  This would destroy all innovations. Innovation comes first, and is followed by specifications.
tonetegeatinst 2y ago
The one thing I love about VMware workstation pro is its an app not a web ui....and can be connected to esxi servers. Iv used proxmox way more than VMware so I might be hazy on the details of what I remember. Proxmox, I wish had a desktop application for doing what the web browser UI does but is more clean like the workstations and iirc vsphere application. Might be mixing some names up cuz its been a while since iv used anything other that workstation on uni's labs.
- al_borland 2y ago
  I use VMware in the enterprise. When I started many years ago we used apps to access our VMs. However, it’s all been through the web for several years now. There is a little companion app that the website can launch to view a console. It has a couple features the web console lacks. That said, last time I tried to download it (during the Crowdstike issue) it was locked away behind Broadcom’s walls and needed an account to get it, so we had to use some jump servers where it was already downloaded. We didn’t have time to deal with their nonsense. If memory serves, it used to download from the vCenter, but not anymore.
autoexec 2y ago
> AT&T is suing Broadcom, alleging that the chipmaker seeks to breach its VMware contracts with the telco in a move that puts first responders, other critical government services and national security at risk. If AT&T's software support contracts can put critical government services and national security at risk then either the government needs to abandon its use of AT&T as soon as possible to prevent that possibility, or if that is impossible, then AT&T is itself a risk to national security and they should be taken over by the government and operated as the critical government service that it is.
- tacitusarc 2y ago
  Presumably one of the risk mitigation strategies employed by AT&T is reliance on support contracts, which Broadcom is now changing years ahead of expectations, and contra to the terms of the contract (according to AT&T). Relying on support SLAs is a pretty standard part of infra management… why do you think AT&T should not do that?
  - autoexec 2y ago
    I'm not saying this situation is AT&T's fault, but lots of things can happen to AT&T that aren't its fault. Regardless of fault, AT&T must not be allowed to exist as a single point of failure capable of compromising national security period.
- vanchor3 2y ago
  Abandon its use and switch to what? For example with wireless service I'm pretty sure the only alternative to AT&T FirstNet is Verizon Frontline, and using Frontline exclusively would mean areas without good coverage would suffer.
  - autoexec 2y ago
    There are still four distinct national wireless networks (soon to be consolidated/reduced to three I think), each with their strengths and weaknesses, but if the government needs their own for national security reasons they should get one. No single for-profit company, which could go out of business at any time and for any reason, should be able to put the security of the entire USA and it's critical government services at risk. Too big to fail means too big to exist.
starspangled 2y ago
If a company requires a continued or guaranteed supply of a product or service with only a single provider, they need to sign longer term contracts, accept the risk that conditions will change, or develop alternative plans. I find it extremely hard to have any sympathy for AT&T over "vendor lock-in" (aka signing short-term contracts for a single-source products and making their business critically depend on it). Don't view this through the lens of the common person or small business who absolutely do need particular protections and consideration under the law. That's because people have an extreme disadvantage in negotiating power in many markets, and don't have millions of dollars to spend on lawyers and analysts.
- 3eb7988a1663 2y ago
  Filed in New York County Supreme Court on Aug. 29, AT&T’s lawsuit states that Broadcom is “threatening to withhold essential support services for previously purchased VMware perpetually licensed software unless AT&T capitulates to Broadcom’s demands that AT&T purchase hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of bundled subscription software and services, which AT&T does not want.” ... But many customers, AT&T included, remained on pre-acquisition VMware contracts that featured perpetual licensing. Now, though, things are coming down to the wire. Broadcom’s contractual obligation to provide support services to AT&T applies through Sept. 8 — four days from now. ... And yet, AT&T says, “under an amendment the parties signed in August 2022, AT&T obtained the right to renew the support services for ‘up to’ two more years at its ‘sole option’ as long as it does so prior to the end of the current term.” AT&T is exercising that option for at least one more year but Broadcom, it alleges, “is refusing to honor AT&T’s renewal.” Sounds like AT&T did put in place longer term agreements. It is Broadcom who is altering the deal.
  - starspangled 2y ago
    Right, so it's a contract dispute (sounds like Broadcom found some possible loopholes in when they decided to buy VMWare and burn it down for short term profits), not some ideological battle about vendor lock-in or consumer rights.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
prirun 2y ago
> AT&T obtained the right to renew the support services for ‘up to’ two more years > AT&T is exercising that option for at least one more year > it would “take years” for AT&T to “devise alternative solutions” to its reliance on VMware. If it will "take years", then it seems like a last-minute 1-year extension is pointless, other than saving AT&T some licensing fees, which is all this is really about IMO.

58 points by doctorshady 2y ago

shiroiushi 2y ago

I'm not quite sure who to root for here; it's like choosing between Hitler and Stalin.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
up2isomorphism 2y ago
They are neither Hilter or Stalin, I know just generally believing they are evil make one feel relevant, but in this case it is just incompetence of management of an still incredibly profitable company has no idea what would happen when they drive away technical staff and contact everything to vendors.
- shiroiushi 2y ago
  Have you ever tried to work with Broadcom as a vendor? Management incompetence is not the problem. I'm happy to assume that AT&T is correct to call Broadcom's behavior "bullying".
eth0up 2y ago
If ATT had its way, both of those names would imply little more than ineffective business models.
al_borland 2y ago
I’m rooting for ATT, if it means Broadcom will have to stop trying to bleed everyone dry with their new terms. These Broadcom issues impact a lot of companies that aren’t ATT.

modsarepoison 2y ago

[flagged]

chris_wot 2y ago

This looks like Broadcom might need to be investigated by a number of Anti-Trust departments.

mjevans 2y ago

Vendor Lockin is evil, choice and portability should be legally required. Along with open and free to implement specifications for extracting data even without a valid license to the product.

JackSlateur 2y ago
This would destroy all innovations. Innovation comes first, and is followed by specifications.

tonetegeatinst 2y ago

The one thing I love about VMware workstation pro is its an app not a web ui....and can be connected to esxi servers. Iv used proxmox way more than VMware so I might be hazy on the details of what I remember. Proxmox, I wish had a desktop application for doing what the web browser UI does but is more clean like the workstations and iirc vsphere application. Might be mixing some names up cuz its been a while since iv used anything other that workstation on uni's labs.

al_borland 2y ago
I use VMware in the enterprise. When I started many years ago we used apps to access our VMs. However, it’s all been through the web for several years now. There is a little companion app that the website can launch to view a console. It has a couple features the web console lacks. That said, last time I tried to download it (during the Crowdstike issue) it was locked away behind Broadcom’s walls and needed an account to get it, so we had to use some jump servers where it was already downloaded. We didn’t have time to deal with their nonsense. If memory serves, it used to download from the vCenter, but not anymore.

autoexec 2y ago

> AT&T is suing Broadcom, alleging that the chipmaker seeks to breach its VMware contracts with the telco in a move that puts first responders, other critical government services and national security at risk. If AT&T's software support contracts can put critical government services and national security at risk then either the government needs to abandon its use of AT&T as soon as possible to prevent that possibility, or if that is impossible, then AT&T is itself a risk to national security and they should be taken over by the government and operated as the critical government service that it is.

tacitusarc 2y ago
Presumably one of the risk mitigation strategies employed by AT&T is reliance on support contracts, which Broadcom is now changing years ahead of expectations, and contra to the terms of the contract (according to AT&T). Relying on support SLAs is a pretty standard part of infra management… why do you think AT&T should not do that?
- autoexec 2y ago
  I'm not saying this situation is AT&T's fault, but lots of things can happen to AT&T that aren't its fault. Regardless of fault, AT&T must not be allowed to exist as a single point of failure capable of compromising national security period.
vanchor3 2y ago
Abandon its use and switch to what? For example with wireless service I'm pretty sure the only alternative to AT&T FirstNet is Verizon Frontline, and using Frontline exclusively would mean areas without good coverage would suffer.
- autoexec 2y ago
  There are still four distinct national wireless networks (soon to be consolidated/reduced to three I think), each with their strengths and weaknesses, but if the government needs their own for national security reasons they should get one. No single for-profit company, which could go out of business at any time and for any reason, should be able to put the security of the entire USA and it's critical government services at risk. Too big to fail means too big to exist.

starspangled 2y ago

If a company requires a continued or guaranteed supply of a product or service with only a single provider, they need to sign longer term contracts, accept the risk that conditions will change, or develop alternative plans. I find it extremely hard to have any sympathy for AT&T over "vendor lock-in" (aka signing short-term contracts for a single-source products and making their business critically depend on it). Don't view this through the lens of the common person or small business who absolutely do need particular protections and consideration under the law. That's because people have an extreme disadvantage in negotiating power in many markets, and don't have millions of dollars to spend on lawyers and analysts.

3eb7988a1663 2y ago
Filed in New York County Supreme Court on Aug. 29, AT&T’s lawsuit states that Broadcom is “threatening to withhold essential support services for previously purchased VMware perpetually licensed software unless AT&T capitulates to Broadcom’s demands that AT&T purchase hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of bundled subscription software and services, which AT&T does not want.” ... But many customers, AT&T included, remained on pre-acquisition VMware contracts that featured perpetual licensing. Now, though, things are coming down to the wire. Broadcom’s contractual obligation to provide support services to AT&T applies through Sept. 8 — four days from now. ... And yet, AT&T says, “under an amendment the parties signed in August 2022, AT&T obtained the right to renew the support services for ‘up to’ two more years at its ‘sole option’ as long as it does so prior to the end of the current term.” AT&T is exercising that option for at least one more year but Broadcom, it alleges, “is refusing to honor AT&T’s renewal.” Sounds like AT&T did put in place longer term agreements. It is Broadcom who is altering the deal.
- starspangled 2y ago
  Right, so it's a contract dispute (sounds like Broadcom found some possible loopholes in when they decided to buy VMWare and burn it down for short term profits), not some ideological battle about vendor lock-in or consumer rights.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

prirun 2y ago

> AT&T obtained the right to renew the support services for ‘up to’ two more years > AT&T is exercising that option for at least one more year > it would “take years” for AT&T to “devise alternative solutions” to its reliance on VMware. If it will "take years", then it seems like a last-minute 1-year extension is pointless, other than saving AT&T some licensing fees, which is all this is really about IMO.