VMware Doesn’t Want to Be Compared to Hypervisors Anymore

VMware Doesn’t Want to Be Compared to Hypervisors Anymore

Jun 29, 2026 | Nutanix Cloud Platform, Sovereign Cloud, VMware Cloud Foundation

Over the past year, VMware by Broadcom has been remarkably consistent in its messaging. I am talking about VMware Cloud Foundation, which is no longer positioned as a virtualization platform or a hypervisor with additional features. It is presented as a complete private and hybrid cloud stack, an integrated operating model that combines infrastructure, automation, networking, Kubernetes and cloud management capabilities into a single platform.

From Broadcom’s perspective, comparing VMware Cloud Foundation to products such as Nutanix AHV, Microsoft Hyper-V, Citrix XenServer, Proxmox or KVM apparently misses the point entirely. The company increasingly argues that these are no longer the real competitors. The comparison, they say, should be between cloud operating models rather than between hypervisors.

Yes, at a strategic level, this argument is hard to dispute.

The days when enterprises selected a platform solely because one hypervisor could run a few more virtual machines or offered a marginally better feature set are largely behind us. Infrastructure has matured and virtualization has become increasingly commoditized. Today, many of the strategic discussions revolve around operational efficiency, automation, application modernization, Kubernetes and hybrid cloud integration.

The hypervisor itself is no longer the star of the show. Based on my conversations with existing VMware customers, I have to say, that this is only one side of the story.

The Reality in Most Data Centers

The reality in many data centers looks very different from the vision that vendors present on stage. Most organizations do not necessarily need a fully integrated cloud operating platform and they do not require every component of VMware Cloud Foundation (VCF), nor do they intend to consume the entire stack.

Many simply need a stable, secure, and performant virtualization platform.

They need a platform that reliably runs their business applications, integrates with their existing operational processes and supports the storage and networking architectures they have already invested in. In many enterprises, particularly in regulated industries and the public sector, traditional three-tier architectures remain highly relevant. Large investments in external storage platforms, backup solutions, and networking infrastructure are not replaced overnight simply because a vendor changes its strategic narrative. But yes, VCF and other platforms could co-exist and integrate.

Anyway, the market reality is therefore much more diverse than the messaging sometimes suggests.

Over the past decade, the industry experienced a strong trend towards hyperconverged infrastructure (HCI). Why? Because HCI promised operational simplicity and an integrated experience, and for many organizations, it delivered exactly that.

At the same time, something else happened. In my opinion, the most successful infrastructure platforms and VMware alternatives today are often those that offer choice, modularity and flexibility.

Customers increasingly want the ability to adopt only the components they need – they want to decide whether they run hyperconverged storage or external storage (or both). They want to choose between different Kubernetes platforms, networking solutions, or operational models, and they want the freedom to evolve their architecture gradually rather than committing to a full platform adoption approach.

In many ways, the market is rediscovering the value of optionality.

The Sovereignty Lesson

There is another dimension that has fundamentally changed the way customers think about infrastructure platforms. Yes, sovereignty.

For years, infrastructure decisions were primarily driven by technical capabilities, operational efficiency and cost. The Broadcom acquisition of VMware has added a new consideration to the equation. It has reminded many organizations that technical dependencies eventually become commercial dependencies as well.

The past two years have been an eye-opening experience for many customers. Organizations that considered themselves highly mature and technologically independent suddenly realized how difficult it can be to move away from a platform that has become deeply embedded in their operations. Licensing changes, product packaging and new commercial models have forced many IT leaders to ask uncomfortable but important questions about flexibility, choice and long-term strategic control.

I am not saying that vendor lock-in is inherently bad.

Every infrastructure decision creates dependencies. Choosing a cloud provider, a storage platform, a Kubernetes distribution or even an operating system introduces some degree of lock-in. The important distinction is whether these dependencies are intentional or not.

Customers increasingly want to understand which dependencies they are accepting and why. They want to preserve the ability to adapt, evolve and, if necessary, change direction in the future. Sovereignty, in this context, is less about achieving complete independence – which is almost impossible in modern IT – and more about maintaining optionality.

The market is therefore moving towards architectures that provide greater flexibility and reduce unnecessary constraints.

This is one of the reasons modularity has become such an important topic in the private cloud market. Organizations are increasingly favoring platforms that allow them to consume only the components they need and to integrate with technologies they already own and trust.

Nutanix has been moving steadily in this direction.

While the company built its success around HCI, its strategy today is increasingly focused on providing choice. For more than a year, Nutanix has supported external storage integrations, enabling customers to preserve existing investments and design architectures that fit their operational requirements rather than forcing them into a predefined model.

The company continues to expand this ecosystem through additional partnerships and integrations, with further announcements expected throughout 2027. Perhaps the most significant milestone is the upcoming general availability of NetApp integration later this year. For many enterprises that have heavily invested in NetApp over the past decade, this represents an important step towards greater architectural flexibility and investment protection.

The same philosophy extends into the service provider market.

Through the Nutanix Elevate Service Provider Program (NESPP), Nutanix offers an alternative for existing VMware Cloud Service Providers (VCSP) that are (still) reassessing their long-term strategy. By combining the Nutanix platform with a multi-tenant layer designed specifically for service providers, Nutanix enables partners to build cloud platforms that are often economically more attractive while maintaining a high degree of operational flexibility and independence.

Ultimately, the lesson many organizations have taken from the VMware acquisition is not that lock-in should be avoided at all costs. Such a goal is unrealistic. Again, the lesson is that dependencies should be intentional.

Customers should consciously decide where they want to standardize, where they are willing to commit to a vendor, and where they want to preserve optionality. The ability to move, or at least the possibility of moving, has become a strategic capability in itself.

And that may well become one of the defining characteristics of sovereign infrastructure in the years ahead.

Licensing Models Matter Too

Comparing hypervisors is not only about technical capabilities, but also about commercial models.

One of the lessons many organizations have learned over the past two years is that licensing metrics can have a significant impact on long-term economics and architectural flexibility. A platform may be technically sound, but if its commercial model does not align with the way a customer consumes infrastructure, it can quickly become difficult to justify. This is another reason why hypervisor comparisons remain relevant.

Different vendors increasingly offer different licensing approaches that can be better suited for specific use cases. Nutanix, for example, does not exclusively rely on a per-core licensing model. For edge deployments, the company licenses its platform based on the number of virtual machines. For virtual desktop environments, licensing can be based on concurrent users through a CCU model.

For customers running hundreds or even thousands of virtual desktops, or operating large numbers of small edge locations, these models can provide a significantly fairer and more predictable economic framework than licensing purely based on CPU cores.

The same philosophy can be seen in the Kubernetes space.

Nutanix Kubernetes Platform (NKP) does not require customers to commit to an entire infrastructure stack from day one. Organizations can start small, deploy NKP on existing or dedicated infrastructure, and license the platform based only on the vCPUs and worker nodes (even baremetal) they actually consume.

This allows customers to gradually build their cloud-native capabilities without first having to adopt or license an entire private cloud platform.

In many ways, licensing has become another dimension of (economic) sovereignty.

Technical flexibility without commercial flexibility is only half the story. Customers increasingly want the ability to scale incrementally, adopt new technologies selectively and align commercial models with actual consumption patterns.

This is precisely where modularity an economic and strategic capability.

And ultimately, this is also why comparing hypervisors, and the licensing models that come with them, remains a perfectly valid exercise, even in a world where virtualization itself is increasingly considered a commodity.

VMware vSphere Foundation “is back”?

Perhaps the most interesting development over the past two years is that the market itself has pushed back against some of the industry’s narratives.

Broadcom has repeatedly positioned VCF as the strategic destination and has encouraged customers to think in terms of complete cloud platforms rather than individual infrastructure components. Yet reality has proven to be more nuanced.

The reintroduction of VMware vSphere Foundation (VVF) in several regions where it had previously become unavailable suggests that a significant part of the market still demands simpler and more modular consumption models. If every customer truly wanted or needed the entire VCF stack, there would have been little reason to bring additional options back to the portfolio.

Broadcom presents this as increased flexibility and customer choice. At the same time, many customers observe that the pricing model makes VCF the economically more attractive option, while VVF has become comparatively more expensive (apparently it went from $135 to $190 list price) and, in certain scenarios, financially less appealing (because of higher discounts for VCF). As a result, the decision to adopt VCF is often driven by commercial considerations rather than by a genuine desire to consume every component/feature of the platform.

Seeing strong adoption of VCF subscriptions does not necessarily mean that customers have embraced the complete VMware Cloud Foundation vision. In many cases, organizations continue to operate largely decoupled environments with external storage, traditional networking architectures and established operational models. The subscription may have changed, but the architecture often has not.

VMware is right that the industry is moving towards platforms and cloud operating models. However, the market is equally clear in communicating that not every organization is ready (or willing) to consume an integrated stack in its entirety.

So, Does Comparing Hypervisors Still Matter?

Even if virtualization itself has become something of a commodity, the hypervisor is still the foundation upon which every private cloud strategy is built. It still has implications for licensing, operational complexity, ecosystem integration, skills requirements and long-term flexibility.

For many organizations, the question is not which complete cloud stack they want to buy, but rather which virtualization platform best aligns with their existing architecture and future ambitions. Some organizations are ready to embrace fully integrated cloud platforms and consume as many services as possible from a single vendor. Others choose a more modular approach, assembling their own private cloud architecture from best-of-breed components.

Both approaches are valid.

VMware is correct in saying that infrastructure discussions should increasingly focus on cloud operating models rather than individual hypervisor features. But customers are equally justified when they continue to compare hypervisors, especially if their operational requirements are centered around virtualization rather than the consumption of an entire cloud stack.

The hypervisor may no longer be the most exciting component of the data center, but it remains one of the most important architectural decisions an organization makes.

Comparing hypervisors is therefore not outdated. It is simply a recognition that, despite all the talk about cloud platforms and integrated stacks, many enterprises still value flexibility, modularity and the freedom to build infrastructure on their own terms.

The hypervisor may have become a commodity, choice has not.

The Irony of Sovereignty – Why Many Organizations Still Depend on VMware

The Irony of Sovereignty – Why Many Organizations Still Depend on VMware

Jun 12, 2026 | Nutanix Cloud Platform, VMware Cloud Foundation

Over the last months, the infrastructure industry has been dominated by discussions around VMware, Broadcom, sovereignty, and the search for alternatives. Nearly every enterprise infrastructure conversation now touches the same topics: licensing costs, vendor lock-in, operational independence, workload portability, and long-term strategic flexibility. Public sector organizations, healthcare providers, financial institutions, and critical infrastructure operators across Europe are all reassessing infrastructure decisions that, for many years, were considered relatively stable and predictable.

At the same time, the market narrative surrounding VMware alternatives has become increasingly simplified. Many discussions focus heavily on hypervisors, licensing models, or migration scenarios, as if organizations could simply swap one virtualization platform for another and continue operating as before. But after speaking with many customers and observing infrastructure discussions across different sectors, I increasingly believe the real issue is something entirely different.

The uncomfortable reality is that many organizations are staying with VMware today not because they strategically evaluated the market and concluded that VMware is unquestionably the best long-term choice for their future, but because they failed to properly prepare themselves for having realistic alternatives in the first place.

This is a critical distinction, and one that is often missing from public discussions.

The Market Had Time

By mid-2026, it is honestly surprising how many organizations still have not seriously evaluated alternative infrastructure platforms. Some enterprises are only now beginning structured assessments. Others are still in early validation phases. Some have not even started identifying which workloads could potentially move elsewhere or what their operational dependencies actually look like. Yet at the same time, many of these same organizations are already publishing tenders for Broadcom renewals because they no longer have enough time left to realistically execute a transition.

The industry has known for years that the VMware ecosystem was entering a period of significant change. Broadcom’s acquisition was announced in 2022. The market understood early that licensing, packaging, commercial models, and vendor dynamics would likely change substantially. Concerns around concentration risk, operational dependency, and economic sovereignty have been discussed continuously since then.

And yet many organizations continued operating as if nothing fundamental had changed.

Instead of reassessing infrastructure strategy holistically, many enterprises simply continued lifecycle management as usual. Storage environments were renewed independently from virtualization strategy discussions. Server hardware refreshes were executed without evaluating future platform flexibility. Procurement cycles continued in silos. Infrastructure teams optimized for short-term operational continuity instead of long-term optionality. Operational dependencies accumulated quietly over years while most organizations postponed the uncomfortable strategic discussions surrounding their future infrastructure direction.

The Problem of Asymmetrical Infrastructure Lifecycles

Now many enterprises suddenly realize that their infrastructure lifecycles are completely asymmetrical.

The VMware contract expires today, but the storage platform was only recently renewed for another five years. The server fleet was replaced twelve months ago. Networking follows an entirely different procurement cycle. Operational teams remain heavily specialized around a single ecosystem. Existing backup, disaster recovery, security, and automation frameworks are deeply integrated into the current platform architecture. And suddenly organizations discover that moving away from VMware is operationally, financially, and technically far more difficult than anticipated.

This is perhaps one of the most important realities currently missing in the broader market discussion. Infrastructure transformation cannot happen reactively. Organizations cannot suddenly demand flexibility and sovereignty during a contract renewal crisis if they failed to architect for optionality years earlier. Sovereignty is not something vendors can magically deliver retroactively. Operational independence, workload portability, and economic flexibility must be designed intentionally over time.

And this is where many organizations now face an uncomfortable truth: They are not trapped because no alternatives exist in the market. They are trapped because they failed to prepare themselves technically, operationally, and economically for having real choices.

Sovereignty Requires Preparation

Ironically, many of the current limitations are entirely self-inflicted. Not intentionally, but structurally. Organizations optimized for stability and lifecycle continuity while underestimating how tightly coupled their infrastructure decisions had become over time. As long as costs remained acceptable and operations remained stable, these dependencies were tolerated or simply ignored. But infrastructure decisions accumulate over years, and eventually those accumulated decisions start limiting future flexibility.

This is why many organizations are currently making infrastructure decisions under constraints they never fully anticipated themselves. The problem is often no longer purely technical. It is operational and organizational. A recently renewed storage platform limits architectural flexibility. A newly acquired server fleet creates pressure to maximize depreciation cycles. Procurement timelines reduce room for strategic maneuvering, existing operational processes are deeply aligned around current tooling, and internal skillsets are concentrated around existing ecosystems. And now, at the exact moment organizations suddenly demand sovereignty and optionality, they have the least amount of leverage.

The irony is difficult to ignore. Nearly every enterprise now talks about sovereignty:

  • Operational sovereignty
  • Economic sovereignty
  • Technological sovereignty
  • Vendor independence
  • Workload portability

Yet many of these same organizations spent years building infrastructure strategies without seriously preparing for exit strategies, interoperability, or architectural flexibility. In many cases, organizations became operationally dependent on a single ecosystem while simultaneously assuming they could easily move away later if necessary.

Now they are discovering how difficult that actually is.

Why Many Organizations Still Renew VMware

This does not mean organizations made irrational decisions in the past. For many enterprises, VMware became the operational foundation of the datacenter over nearly two decades. Entire operational models evolved around it, like security controls, disaster recovery procedures, backup architectures, monitoring frameworks, and governance processes. Organizational expertise was all built incrementally over many years. Operational familiarity itself became a strategic asset. In highly regulated or mission-critical environments, stability and predictability often matter more than architectural idealism.

This is also why many organizations are renewing with Broadcom today despite significant pricing increases. No, not necessarily because they are fully satisfied with the commercial changes, but because rebuilding operational maturity around a new infrastructure platform could take years. Retraining operational teams, validating workloads, and redesigning automation frameworks takes time. Infrastructure transformations at enterprise scale are never simple platform replacements, they are operational transformations.

The Infrastructure Market Has Changed

At the same time, the current situation should also not be misunderstood as proof that alternatives are irrelevant or immature. It’s quite the opposite. The infrastructure market has changed significantly over the last two years, and many organizations are still evaluating the market based on outdated assumptions from 2023 or earlier.

This is particularly visible around disaggregated infrastructure architectures and external storage integrations. Many enterprises still assume that moving toward platforms like Nutanix automatically requires replacing the entire datacenter stack simultaneously, but this perception is outdated. The upcoming integration with NetApp, for example, has the potential to fundamentally reshape discussions for organizations that already invested heavily into enterprise storage platforms and cannot simply discard those investments overnight. At the same time, a significant amount of existing server hardware has been recertified and can now potentially be repurposed instead of being replaced prematurely. Roadmaps around external storage integrations, compute-only architectures, and flexible infrastructure models are evolving much faster than many organizations realize.

Tthe infrastructure discussion is no longer simply about replacing one hypervisor with another. The future discussion is increasingly about regaining flexibility and about aligning infrastructure lifecycles more intelligently. It is also about reducing operational coupling and creating optionality over time instead of forcing massive forklift migrations under pressure.

And for many organizations, this is where Nutanix may realistically become part of the longer-term strategy, because the ecosystem is evolving toward architectures that may finally allow organizations to transition more incrementally and pragmatically.

However, solving years of accumulated infrastructure dependencies requires time. Especially when organizations themselves delayed the strategic preparation work for too long.

Optionality Becomes the Real Strategic Advantage

This is ultimately the most important lesson today. The organizations with the strongest negotiating position today are not necessarily the ones that already migrated away from VMware. Often, they are simply the organizations that started doing their homework early enough to create real optionality. They evaluated alternatives and workloads, and they aligned infrastructure lifecycles more strategically. They also understood where operational dependencies existed and where flexibility could realistically be introduced. Because of that preparation, they can now make decisions from a position of control instead of reacting under pressure.

Infrastructure strategy can no longer be treated as isolated lifecycle management exercises executed independently across compute, storage, virtualization, and operations. The future belongs to organizations that architect for flexibility before they urgently need it.

Because the worst possible outcome now would be making another long-term infrastructure decision based purely on the consequences of not having prepared properly for the last one.

Digitale Souveränität und der Broadcom-Wendepunkt – Warum Oktober 2027 für den Public Sector kritisch wird

Digitale Souveränität und der Broadcom-Wendepunkt – Warum Oktober 2027 für den Public Sector kritisch wird

Mar 26, 2026 | Nutanix Cloud Platform, Sovereign Cloud, VMware Cloud Foundation

English Version: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/broadcoms-october-2027-turning-point-why-public-sector-rebmann-t3vme/

Digitale Souveränität ist in den letzten Jahren zu einem zentralen Begriff geworden, insbesondere im öffentlichen Sektor. Dennoch wird die Diskussion häufig an der Oberfläche geführt. Oft geht es um Datenstandorte, um europäische Cloud-Initiativen oder um zusätzliche Sicherheitsmechanismen. Was dabei übersehen wird, ist die eigentliche Ebene, auf der Souveränität entsteht oder verloren geht. Nämlich bei Architektur der Plattformen, auf denen unsere IT basiert.

Über viele Jahre hinweg haben Organisationen ihre Infrastruktur auf VMware aufgebaut. Virtualisierung war der stabile Kern, auf dem sich moderne Rechenzentren und später auch Private-Cloud-Umgebungen entwickelt haben. Diese Umgebungen waren in ihrer ursprünglichen Form modular. Compute, Storage und Netzwerk inkl. Management konnten unabhängig voneinander betrieben und weiterentwickelt werden. Diese Modularität war ein entscheidender Erfolgsfaktor – vor allem im KMU-Segment. Sie ermöglichte es Organisationen, ihre Architektur schrittweise anzupassen, Technologien auszutauschen oder zu ergänzen und Betriebsmodelle weiterzuentwickeln, ohne jedes Mal das gesamte Fundament neu bauen zu müssen.

Gleichzeitig hat sich über die Jahre eine starke Marktkonzentration aufgebaut. Es ist realistisch davon auszugehen, dass heute rund 80 Prozent des Public Sectors auf VMware-Technologie basieren. Diese breite Verbreitung war lange ein Vorteil, weil sie Standardisierung, Know-how-Aufbau und ein starkes Partner-Ökosystem ermöglicht hat. Heute wird genau diese Konzentration jedoch zu einem strukturellen Risiko. Denn wenn ein einzelner Anbieter seine Strategie grundlegend verändert, betrifft das nicht einzelne Organisationen, sondern einen Grossteil des gesamten Ökosystems. Ja, sogar einen Grossteil von Schweizer Rechenzentren.

Mit der Übernahme von VMware durch Broadcom hat sich diese Ausgangslage grundlegend verändert. Die Transformation erfolgt dabei nicht in einem Schritt, sondern in mehreren, klar erkennbaren Phasen.

Phase 1

Der erste Einschnitt war wirtschaftlicher Natur. Neue Lizenzmodelle und Bündelungen haben die Kostenstruktur verändert und in vielen Fällen deutlich erhöht. Damit wurde die wirtschaftliche Souveränität vieler Organisationen bereits spürbar eingeschränkt. Entscheidungen konnten nicht mehr allein auf Basis des tatsächlichen Bedarfs getroffen werden, sondern mussten sich zunehmend an vorgegebenen Lizenzmodellen orientieren.

Phase 2

Parallel dazu hat sich das Partner-Ökosystem verändert. Viele VMware-Partner sind verschwunden oder haben ihre Rolle angepasst. Für Kunden bedeutet das eine reduzierte Auswahl an Integratoren und Dienstleistern, weniger Wettbewerb und damit indirekt auch weniger Einflussmöglichkeiten. Souveränität zeigt sich nicht nur in Technologie, sondern auch in der Fähigkeit, zwischen verschiedenen Partnern und Betriebsmodellen wählen zu können. Wenn diese Auswahl kleiner wird, sinkt auch die Handlungsfreiheit.

Phase 3

Die dritte Phase, die sich aktuell abzeichnet, ist die technisch-strukturelle. Mit der strategischen Ausrichtung auf VMware Cloud Foundation 9 (VCF) als dominierendes Zielmodell wird die Architektur selbst zum Steuerungsinstrument. Was früher ein flexibler Baukasten war, entwickelt sich zunehmend zu einem integrierten Gesamtstack, in dem einzelne Komponenten nicht mehr unabhängig voneinander betrachtet werden können.

Technisch betrachtet bringt ein solcher Ansatz Vorteile mit sich. Standardisierung reduziert Komplexität, integrierte Betriebsmodelle können Effizienzgewinne ermöglichen, und ein klar definierter Stack vereinfacht den Betrieb. Doch diese Integration hat eine Konsequenz, die in der aktuellen Diskussion oft unterschätzt wird. Sie verändert die grundlegende Beziehung zwischen Kunde und Plattform.

Man kann die digitale Souveränität anhand von drei zentralen Fähigkeiten messen:

  1. Der Möglichkeit zu wechseln,
  2. der Fähigkeit zur Gestaltung und
  3. der Fähigkeit zur Einflussnahme

Diese drei Dimensionen sind entscheidend, weil sie darüber bestimmen, ob eine Organisation ihre IT aktiv steuern kann oder ob sie zunehmend in ein vorgegebenes Modell hineinwächst.

Genau diese Fähigkeiten werden durch die aktuelle Entwicklung schrittweise reduziert. Die Wechselmöglichkeit bleibt formal bestehen, wird aber faktisch deutlich erschwert, weil ein Wechsel nicht mehr den Austausch einzelner Komponenten bedeutet, sondern die Transformation eines gesamten Systems. Die Gestaltungsfähigkeit nimmt ab, weil Architekturentscheidungen zunehmend durch den Anbieter (Broadcom) definiert werden. Und auch die Einflussnahme sinkt, da die Verhandlungsmacht mit wachsender Abhängigkeit vom integrierten Stack strukturell abnimmt. Ähnlich wie bei der Public Cloud.

Viele Organisationen haben auf die ersten Veränderungen reagiert. Zum Beispiel haben grössere Spitäler und Kantone ihre Verträge mit Broadcom verlängert, um kurzfristig Planungssicherheit zu gewinnen und operative Ruhe zu schaffen. Diese Entscheidung ist nachvollziehbar. Sie verschafft Zeit, stabilisiert Budgets und vermeidet kurzfristige Risiken.

VCF9 zwingend ab Oktober 2027

Doch genau hier liegt ein Missverständnis, das in vielen Gesprächen sichtbar wird. Diese Verlängerungen haben keine zusätzliche Zeit geschaffen.

Die eigentliche Entwicklung läuft unabhängig davon weiter. Die strategische Ausrichtung auf VCF (VCF9) und die damit verbundene Transformation der Architektur bleiben bestehen. Der relevante Zeitpunkt verschiebt sich nicht durch ein Vertrags-Renewal.

Der eigentliche Wendepunkt bleibt bestehen. Oktober 2027.

Wie VCF Operations das Zielmodell erzwingt

Mit Version 9 von VMware Cloud Foundation verändert sich nicht nur die Architektur, sondern auch die Art und Weise, wie Compliance im Betrieb umgesetzt wird. Gemäss den aktuellen Lizenz- und Nutzungsbedingungen wird für Umgebungen ab Version 9 ein verpflichtendes Compliance Reporting eingeführt.

VCF is sold as a single product; the included components and capabilities can only be utilized on, or for the same physical Cores where the vSphere in VCF Core license is deployed.

Organisationen, die VCF einsetzen, sind demnach verpflichtet, regelmässig Compliance-Berichte zu erstellen und bereitzustellen – initial nach 180 Tagen und danach in wiederkehrenden Intervallen.

Das Compliance Reporting wird über VCF Operations abgewickelt. Damit wird diese Komponente faktisch zur Voraussetzung (VCF9 is also Voraussetzung) für den regelkonformen Betrieb. Ohne entsprechende Integration ist die Einhaltung der Vorgaben nicht mehr vollständig gewährleistet.

VCF9 Compliance Reporting

Damit entsteht ein zusätzlicher Mechanismus, der die Nutzung des vollständigen VCF-Stacks verstärkt.

In Kombination mit Lizenzmodellen, Architekturvorgaben und integrierten Betriebsfunktionen ergibt sich ein konsistentes Muster. Der Weg in das Zielmodell wird nicht nur empfohlen, sondern zunehmend strukturell abgesichert.

Quelle: https://ftpdocs.broadcom.com/cadocs/0/contentimages/VCF_SPD_July2025.pdf

Was mit VCF 9 tatsächlich installiert wird

Beim Deployment einer VCF-Umgebung wird nicht nur eine Virtualisierungsplattform (ESX Hypervisor) installiert. Vielmehr wird ein vollständiger, integrierter Stack aus Infrastruktur-, Netzwerk- und Betriebskomponenten bereitgestellt.

Konkret umfasst eine Standardinstallation mehrere zentrale Bausteine:

  • vSphere (ESX & vCenter) als Compute- und Management-Layer
  • NSX für Netzwerk und Security
  • vSAN oder alternative Storage-Integrationen
  • SDDC Manager und Fleet Management
  • sowie VCF Operations und VCF Automation als zentrale Betriebs- und Steuerungsschicht

Die einzelnen Komponenten sind nicht mehr unabhängig voneinander sinnvoll betreibbar. Sie werden zu einem zusammenhängenden System, das nur im Gesamtmodell seine volle Funktionalität entfaltet.

Quelle: https://blogs.vmware.com/cloud-foundation/2025/07/03/vcf-9-0-deployment-pathways

Neue Anforderungen an Architektur und Betrieb

Diese Veränderung bleibt nicht auf der technischen Ebene stehen. Sie hat direkte Auswirkungen auf die Leute, die diese Plattformen planen und betreiben.

Architekten und Betriebsteams müssen sich in ein deutlich breiteres und komplexeres System einarbeiten. Während sich viele Organisationen bisher stark auf den Hypervisor und klassische Virtualisierungskomponenten konzentriert haben, kommen nun zusätzliche Schichten hinzu, die zwingend Teil des Betriebsmodells sind.

Organisationen müssen neue Kompetenzen aufbauen, Prozesse anpassen und ein tieferes Verständnis für das Zusammenspiel der einzelnen Komponenten entwickeln.

Der Fokus verschiebt sich weg vom Betrieb einzelner Technologien hin zum Betrieb eines integrierten Systems. Entscheidungen in einem Bereich wirken sich unmittelbar auf andere Bereiche aus. Architektur, Betrieb und Automatisierung sind enger miteinander verknüpft als je zuvor.

Diese Entwicklung ist nicht ungewöhnlich. Sie entspricht dem generellen Trend in Richtung Plattformisierung. Doch sie hat eine klare Konsequenz. Und dieser muss man sich bewusst sein.

Informationsdefizit

Was die Situation zusätzlich verschärft, ist ein strukturelles Informationsdefizit. Viele Kunden und auch viele Partner sind sich der Tragweite dieser Veränderung noch nicht bewusst. Die Entwicklung hin zu einem integrierten, erzwungenen Plattformmodell wird oft als schrittweise Evolution wahrgenommen, nicht als fundamentaler Architekturbruch.

In der Praxis bedeutet das, dass sich ein Grossteil des Marktes heute in einer Phase scheinbarer Stabilität befindet, während sich gleichzeitig eine strukturelle Veränderung vorbereitet, die in etwa 18 Monaten ihre volle Wirkung entfalten wird.

Souveränität grossflächig in Gefahr

Bis dahin werden viele Organisationen gezwungen sein, ihre bestehenden Umgebungen zu transformieren oder neu auszurichten. Supportzyklen laufen aus, technologische Abhängigkeiten verstärken sich, und die Migration in integrierte Modelle wird zunehmend zur Voraussetzung für den Weiterbetrieb. Was heute wie eine temporäre Stabilisierung wirkt, ist in Wirklichkeit eine Phase vor einer strukturellen Entscheidung.

Anmerkung: Die VMware-Technologie ist nach wie vor exzellent. Jedoch ist VMware nicht mehr “VMware”, sondern nun Broadcom.

Digitale Souveränität geht nicht verloren, weil die Technologie schlecht ist.

Sie geht verloren, wenn Entscheidungen an Reversibilität verlieren. Wenn Architektur, Betrieb und Lizenzmodell so eng miteinander verknüpft sind, dass Alternativen zwar existieren, aber praktisch kaum mehr realistisch umsetzbar sind, verschiebt sich die Kontrolle nachhaltig.

Für den Public Sector in der Schweiz bedeutet das, dass sich die Ausgangslage fundamental verändert. Viele Organisationen betreiben heute VMware-basierte Private Clouds, haben über Jahre Know-How aufgebaut und ihre Betriebsmodelle darauf ausgerichtet. Der Übergang zu einem integrierten Modell wie VCF9 ist deshalb kein einfacher Technologieschritt, sondern eine strategische Weichenstellung.

Es ist nicht unrealistisch anzunehmen, dass ein grosser Teil der öffentlichen IT-Landschaft ab Oktober 2027 nicht mehr den zentralen Kriterien digitaler Souveränität entsprechen wird.

Nutanix als Alternative – Zurück zur Modularität

In diesem Kontext wird Nutanix häufig als Alternative genannt. Interessant ist dabei weniger die Positionierung als “Private-Cloud-Anbieter”, sondern die zugrunde liegende Architekturphilosophie.

Auch Nutanix bietet heute eine vollständige Private-Cloud-Plattform. Infrastruktur, Automatisierung, Datenservices und moderne Plattformdienste können integriert bereitgestellt werden. Auf den ersten Blick ähnelt dieses Modell dem, was auch VMware Cloud Foundation verfolgt. Der entscheidende Unterschied liegt jedoch nicht im Funktionsumfang, sondern in der Art und Weise, wie dieser bereitgestellt wird.

Während sich VMware (by Broadcom) zunehmend in Richtung eines verpflichtenden, eng integrierten Gesamtstacks entwickelt, folgt Nutanix weiterhin einem modularen Ansatz. Funktionen können kombiniert werden, müssen es aber nicht. Organisationen können entscheiden, welche Komponenten sie tatsächlich benötigen und in welchem Umfang sie diese einsetzen.

Genau diese Eigenschaft war auch ein wesentlicher Grund für den Erfolg von VMware in der Zeit vor der Broadcom-Übernahme.

Nutanix knüpft in gewisser Weise an dieses Prinzip an. Die Plattform kann als vollständige Private Cloud betrieben werden, ohne dass sie zu einem starren Zielmodell wird. Gleichzeitig ermöglicht sie unterschiedliche Betriebsmodelle, vom klassischen Rechenzentrum über Service-Provider-Umgebungen bis hin zu hybriden Szenarien. Entscheidend ist dabei, dass die operative Logik konsistent bleibt. Workloads und Betriebsprozesse sind nicht an ein einzelnes Modell gebunden, sondern können sich entlang der Anforderungen entwickeln.

Die Einordnung von Nutanix als Alternative sollte dennoch differenziert erfolgen. Auch hier handelt es sich um eine kommerzielle Plattform mit eigener Roadmap, eigenem (breiten) Ökosystem und eigenen Abhängigkeiten. Digitale Souveränität entsteht durch das Zusammenspiel von Technologie, Governance, Kompetenzen und strategischen Entscheidungen.

Eine Frage, die bisher zu selten gestellt wird

Die Risiken der Public Cloud sind im öffentlichen Sektor seit Jahren Gegenstand intensiver Diskussionen. Fragen zu Abhängigkeiten, Preisentwicklung, geopolitischem Einfluss und fehlender Kontrolle gehören heute zur Standardbewertung jeder grösseren Cloud-Entscheidung. Im Private-Cloud-Umfeld hingegen wird eine vergleichbare Debatte bisher gar nicht geführt.

Dabei deutet sich eine strukturell ähnliche Entwicklung an.

Aus einer Souveränitätsperspektive stellt sich jedoch noch eine andere Frage.

Welche Konsequenzen hat es, wenn ein grosser Teil des Public Sectors auf eine einheitliche Plattformarchitektur standardisiert, deren Betriebsmodell, Lizenzstruktur und Weiterentwicklung massgeblich von einem Anbieter bestimmt werden?

Ein Vergleich mit der Public Cloud hilft, diese Fragestellung zu beantworten.

Würde heute ein Grossteil der öffentlichen Verwaltung seine IT vollständig auf Plattformen wie Microsoft Azure, Amazon Web Services oder Google Cloud Platform betreiben und in der Folge eine signifikante Preissteigerung im Bereich von 50 bis 100 Prozent erfolgen, wäre die Reaktion absehbar. Die Diskussion über Abhängigkeiten, Alternativen und strategische Steuerbarkeit würde unmittelbar an Intensität gewinnen.

Im Private-Cloud-Umfeld ist eine vergleichbare Dynamik bereits erkennbar, wird jedoch anders wahrgenommen.

Während Risiken in der Public Cloud frühzeitig adressiert wurden, wird die gleiche Entwicklung im Private-Cloud-Umfeld häufig noch als rein technologische Evolution betrachtet. Die zugrunde liegende Abhängigkeit ist jedoch vergleichbar.

  • Welche Massnahmen werden also heute ergriffen, um diese Form der Abhängigkeit aktiv zu steuern?
  • Welche Strategien existieren, um Wechseloptionen realistisch zu erhalten?
  • Und in welchem Umfang werden Alternativen geprüft, solange diese noch mit vertretbarem Aufwand umsetzbar sind?

Diese Fragen lassen sich nur beantworten, wenn die zugrunde liegenden Veränderungen überhaupt den Kunden und Partnern klar sind.

Ein Blick auf die Beschaffung

Ein Blick auf aktuelle Ausschreibungen auf simap.ch zeigt ein klares Bild. VMware ist im Schweizer Public Sector tief verankert. Zahlreiche Organisationen haben in den Jahren 2024 und 2025 ihre bestehenden Umgebungen verlängert oder weiter ausgebaut. Die Vertragsvolumen bewegen sich im Millionenbereich und sind in vielen Fällen über mehrere Jahre ausgelegt – häufig bis 2028, 2029 oder darüber hinaus.

Viele dieser Entscheidungen wurden in einer Phase getroffen, in der Stabilität, Planbarkeit und operative Kontinuität im Vordergrund standen. Vertragsverlängerungen boten kurzfristige Sicherheit, insbesondere vor dem Hintergrund veränderter Lizenzmodelle und steigender Kosten.Wie schon erwähnt, hat man sich hier wohl Planungssicherheit verschaffen möchten, war sich jedoch nicht bewusst, dass ab Oktober 2027 ein neue Architektur und ein neues Betriebsmodell aufgezwungen werden könnte.

Gleichzeitig wurde damit eine bestehende Architektur vorgeschrieben. Die Folge ist kein unmittelbarer Bruch, sondern eine schrittweise Verfestigung.

Über mehrere Jahre hinweg entstehen Bindungen, die technisch und wirtschaftlich zunehmend schwerer zu verändern sind. Der Handlungsspielraum bleibt formal bestehen, wird aber faktisch enger.

Quellen

Nutanix – The Questions Swiss VMware Customers Ask

Nutanix – The Questions Swiss VMware Customers Ask

Mar 22, 2026 | Nutanix AHV, Nutanix Cloud Platform, Sovereign Cloud, VMware Cloud Foundation

In my first five months at Nutanix, I have had dozens of conversations across the Swiss market. From federal organizations to cantonal institutions, from service providers to highly regulated environments. On paper, these discussions look completely different – different architectures, different priorities, and different timelines.

It took me a while to realize it, but there was a clear pattern. Regardless of size or sector, the same underlying questions keep surfacing, no matter if we were talking about a 1’000-, 4’500-, or 20’000-core infrastructure. And more interestingly, most of these questions are not about features or technical capabilities, these questions came later in the discussions.

Most questions are about risk, cost and control, and sometimes about sovereignty. It all has to do with certainty, doubts, stability and predictability.

So, it’s less about the available alternatives per se. Customers are trying to understand what staying actually means, what risk this implies.

1) Isn’t switching too risky?

This is one of the questions that appear very early when meeting prospects. Sometimes even right after the introduction before any real discussion has started.

It’s a natural reaction. For a long time, staying on VMware was the safest choice and there was no real reason to reconsider it.

But VMware is not “VMware” anymore, it is Broadcom now. So, what many organizations are experiencing today is not instability in their infrastructure, but the conditions around it. There is not one single customer that is telling me that “VMware” is not performing as expected and just great technology.

For many customers, especially those in regulated industries, it’s about predictability and control. Therefore staying (with VMware) is no longer automatically the safest option anymore.

What I see in practice is, that IT organizations quickly move away from the idea of a distruptive “big bang” migration. Instead, they start thinking in phases and use cases, and move workloads step by step. Systems run in parallel and confidence builds gradually. The projects that I have won are VDI and edge use cases. Larger projects with larger infrastructure take more time.

So, what’s the learning? While I understand why customers ask “isn’t switching too risky”, it’s just the wrong question.

The better question would be: What’s the risk of staying and how do we move without taking unnecessary risk?

From there, the conversation almost inevitably moves to cost.

2) Is Nutanix really cheaper?

Sounds like simple question, right? A number-to-number comparison, a classic price discussion. It’s anything but simple.

Because what most organizations are comparing is not two equivalent scenarios. They are comparing what they used to pay for VMware with what they might pay for something new. And that creates a distorted baseline from the very beginning. With Broadcom, at least in Switzerland, there is no more VMware vSphere Foundation (VVF) or vSphere Enterprise Plus standalone. You can only get VMware vSphere Standard (VVS) or VMware Cloud Foundation (VCF).

On paper, that sounds like simplification and in practice, it introduces a different kind of complexity. Because suddenly, organizations are not just buying what they need. They are buying what is included.

In many of the discussions I have had, customers admit that they are not using the full breadth of the VCF stack (even they have the VCF subscription. A lot of those VMware customers only use vSphere, some of them vSAN, and the most of them use Aria Operations. No NSX and no Aria Automation. And if you need advanced security features like micro-segmentation, you need an add-on for $200 (list price).

You can compare Nutanix against the entire VCF bundle. In that case, the question becomes “Can Nutanix replace everything that is included?”.

Or you can compare Nutanix against what you are actually using today. And suddenly, the picture changes. Dramatically.

Both perspectives are valid, but they lead to very different conclusions – commercially and strategically.

Let me rephrase the question, which now becomes: Why am I paying for functionality I don’t need?

This is something I explored in more detail in my recent article “Beyond the Price Tag – Why Organizations Choose Nutanix” The core idea is simple. Cost is rarely just about the price per core or the discount level. In the end it is about how closely your investment aligns with your actual requirements.

With Nutanix, you don’t start with everything and try to justify it afterwards, and you can start with what you actually need. And then you expand, step by step, where it creates value.

It sounds like a small difference, but in practice it changes the entire commercial logic.

3) Don’t we end up paying twice during the migration?

It’s a fair concern. Running two environments in parallel is often unavoidable during a transition. Without specific support, that can mean carrying two full licensing models at the same time.

This is exactly where Nutanix has taken a very pragmatic approach. Through its migration programs, customers can receive up to one year of Nutanix licensing at no additional cost during the transition period.

That doesn’t eliminate the complexity of a migration, but it removes a key barrier. It gives organizations time. And most importantly, it allows them to do this without being penalized financially for taking a careful approach.

4) We don’t have Nutanix skills

Over the past months, one pattern has become very clear. Broadcom is not just repositioning VMware commercially, but it is standardizing it architecturally. Everything points in the same direction: VMware Cloud Foundation is no longer an option. It is the only option.

And if you look at the publicly available information, this trajectory becomes even more tangible. Current indications suggest that support for vSphere 8.x and VCF versions not aligned with vSphere 9 will eventually come to an end. Which effectively means that, from around October 2027 onwards, unless Broadcom changes course again, customers will only be able to buy and deploy VCF 9.x.

In other words, the path forward is already being defined.

Now, to be fair, there are customers for whom this aligns well. Organizations that have already embraced VCF, invested in NSX, automation, and the broader stack, for them, this is a continuation of a journey they have consciously chosen.

But they are not the majority.

Most environments I see across Switzerland are still far from a fully adopted VCF architecture. They are running vSphere at scale, often with external storage and networking, established operational models, and teams that are deeply skilled in what they do today.

And this is exactly where the concern about “Nutanix skills” usually comes up. “Do we have the people for this?”

The reality is that Nutanix does not require you to throw away everything your teams have learned over the past 10 or 15 years. Quite the opposite.

The fundamental principles remain the same. You are still running virtual machines, designing clusters, ensuring availability, managing storage policies, operating networks, and securing workloads. Concepts like high availability, lifecycle management, capacity planning, and operational governance don’t disappear.

In fact, many VMware engineers adapt to Nutanix much faster than expected. Why? Because Nutanix deliberately simplified the operational model. Instead of stitching together compute, storage, and networking from different layers and tools, Nutanix brings these capabilities into a single, integrated platform.

cloud13.ch Prism Central

So yes, adopting Nutanix requires learning. But let’s be honest, so does adopting VCF. You need to be aware that moving to VCF is not just a licensing change. It includes an operational transformation. VCF also means new skills, new processes, new dependencies, and a new operational model.

So while Broadcom’s vision is actually quite clear – and, in many ways, understandable – it comes with consequences. The vision is to deliver a private cloud platform and a model where individual product names fade into the background, and what matters are capabilities. Compute, storage, networking, security, and automation are delivered as an integrated service layer, and VMware is becoming more like a public cloud. Conceptually, that makes sense to me.

You are adopting a new operating paradigm. The only real advantage compared to moving to a public cloud like Azure is, that your virtual machine format remains the same. Your VMs don’t need to be converted. But beyond that, the effort is comparable:

  • You still need to redesign your architecture
  • You still need to rethink networking and security
  • You still need to retrain your teams
  • You still need to plan and execute a structured migration

And this is exactly where the conversation reconnects with the themes we discussed earlier (cost, risk, control).

5) Isn’t Nutanix doing the same as Broadcom?

Yes, Nutanix absolutely offers a private cloud platform that can run in the data center, at the edge, or in the public cloud. So, in terms of vision, both VMware (under Broadcom) and Nutanix are heading towards a similar destination: A cloud-like operating model for on-premises environments.

Before the Broadcom era, VMware was known for something very specific: Modularity

With Nutanix, you can absolutely consume the full private cloud platform. But you don’t have to.

Nutanix continues to deliver a modular set of software building blocks that can be used independently or as a complete stack. The Nutanix Cloud Platform (NCP) includes multiple components such as Nutanix Cloud Infrastructure (NCI), Nutanix Cloud Manager (NCM), Unified Storage (NUS), Database Service (NDB), Nutanix Kubernetes Platform (NKP) and more. Each is available as a separate option depending on customer needs: https://www.nutanix.com/products/cloud-platform/software-options

Organizations can pick and choose exactly what they want to deploy:

  • A VDI environment? Use NCI‑VDI
  • An edge cluster with minimal footprint? Use NCI‑Edge for small‑scale, distributed deployments
  • A full enterprise platform spanning multiple sites? Deploy NCI Ultimate, NCM, Unified Storage, and Database Service as needed

6) Is Nutanix enterprise-ready?

A few years ago, that would have been a fair and important concern.

Back then, Nutanix was still perceived by many as a strong challenger. Innovative, yes. Promising, definitely. But not always seen as the default choice for the most critical, large-scale environments.

Is Hyper-V enterprise-ready? Is Azure Local enterprise-ready? What about newer or increasingly popular options like Proxmox?

The answer, in most cases, is simply assumed. And yet, if we take a step back, the question itself is more about perception.

Because Nutanix has been in the market for well over a decade. Its hypervisor, AHV, has been running production workloads for more than ten years. It is not new, it is not experimental, it is not an emerging technology trying to find its place.

It is established!

And that is reflected not only in customer adoption, but also in how the market evaluates the platform. Nutanix has consistently been positioned in the top-right quadrant of the Gartner Magic Quadrant for Distributed Hybrid Infrastructure.

Broadcom (VMware) Named a Leader in the 2025 GartnerⓇ Magic QuadrantTM for Distributed Hybrid Infrastructure for the 3rd Consecutive Year - VMware Cloud Foundation (VCF) Blog

By any objective measure, Nutanix has already crossed the “enterprise-ready” threshold a long time ago.

7) Are we just replacing one dependency with another?

It’s a fair question, and probably one of the most important ones in the entire discussion. Because if the last few years have shown anything, it’s that lock-in is no longer an abstract concept.

No platform is completely free of dependencies. There is no such thing as a truly neutral infrastructure stack. Every decision introduces some form of coupling – to a vendor, to an architecture, to an operating model.

Dependencies exist, always. That’s not the important part. It’s about where they sit and how much control you retain over them. And this is exactly where the conversation becomes more interesting.

As discussed earlier, architectures are becoming more opinionated, more predefined, more aligned to a single operating model. Which means the dependency moves downwards into the foundation.

Nutanix, in contrast, shifts that balance towards the application layer. And this is where Kubernetes becomes important.

Because once applications are containerized and orchestrated through Kubernetes, the underlying infrastructure starts to matter less. Not irrelevant, but less dominant. Workloads become more portable, deployment models become more consistent, and the ability to move between environments becomes an option.

Nutanix Kubernetes Platform (NKP) provides an integrated way to run and manage Kubernetes across environments, without forcing customers into a specific cloud or infrastructure model. It aligns with the broader idea of hybrid and multi-cloud, but in a way that keeps operational control with the customer.

Nutanix Kubernetes Platform Open Source

Replacing one platform with another is not inherently solving lock-in. But repositioning where dependencies sit, that’s ultimately what many organizations are looking for. Again, it’s about having the ability to stay on control. Because NKP is not tied to a single infrastructure backend:

  • It can run on Nutanix
  • It can run on VMware infrastructure
  • It can run in public cloud environments
  • It can even run directly on baremetal

Compare that to more tightly integrated approaches like the vSphere Kubernetes Service (VKS). VKS is deeply embedded into the vSphere ecosystem. It works well as long as you remain within that environment. But it is, by design, not portable beyond it. And that brings us back to the core point.

Lock-in is not eliminated by choosing a different vendor. It is reduced when your most critical layers are no longer restricted to a single environment.

How easily can you change tomorrow?

8) What if Nutanix gets acquired as well?

Another question has started to surface more frequently. It usually comes a bit later in the conversation, once the technical fit is understood, and once the commercial discussion has taken shape.

It’s a question that reflects the current mood in the market, and I have to admit it’s a valid one. Because the last few years have shown that ownership changes can have real consequences. They can reshape pricing models, redefine product strategies, and fundamentally alter the relationship between vendor and customer.

This question often leads to the wrong conclusion. We have to understand that the issue with VMware was not the acquisition itself. Acquisitions happen and they are part of how the technology industry evolves. The real issue was the impact that followed:

  • The shift in pricing
  • The restructuring of packaging
  • The reduced flexibility
  • And, ultimately, the feeling among many customers that control has moved away from them

That is what triggered the current wave of re-evaluation. So, when customers ask whether the same could happen elsewhere, they are not really asking about ownership. They are asking about exposure. If we follow that line of thinking consistently, the question doesn’t stop at Nutanix. You could ask the same about almost any platform in the market. What if Proxmox gets acquired? What if a hyperscaler changes its pricing model or service terms? What if an open source project shifts direction because of new commercial backing?

There is no scenario in which a platform is completely immune to change. And that is exactly my point. Trying to eliminate that risk entirely is not realistic.

9) AHV is not open source, is that a risk?

Nutanix’s Acropolis Hypervisor (AHV) is built on KVM, one of the most widely used open-source hypervisors out there. The foundation is open, and what Nutanix does is take that foundation and turn it into something that is actually operable at scale.

Open source sounds like freedom. And in some cases, it absolutely is. But in many real-world environments, it also means something else:

  • More components
  • More integration work
  • More lifecycle management
  • More responsibility on your own teams
  • Especially at the infrastructure layer

Running a fully open source stack often means you are effectively building your own platform. You are combining a hypervisor, storage, networking, automation, and then making sure everything works together, stays updated, remains secure, and is supported when something breaks. That can be the right approach, but only if you actually want to operate like that.

At the infrastructure layer, especially in virtualization, open source rarely creates meaningful strategic advantage. The hypervisor has become a mature, almost commoditized component. Whether it’s KVM, AHV, Hyper-V, or ESXi. They all solve the same fundamental problem, and they solve it well.

Open source creates the most value where differentiation happens. And that is not at the bottom of the stack. It’s at the top, at the application layer. This could be Kubernetes or building open source applications (think about OpenDesk or Nextcloud).

10) What about sovereignty?

Sovereignty is not a feature you can simply “add” to a platform. And more importantly, it’s not just a hyperscaler problem (anymore). This is something I already explored in a previous article – the idea that dependency doesn’t suddenly disappear just because infrastructure runs on-premises or in a private cloud. You can still be deeply dependent on a vendor’s licensing model, roadmap, and architectural decisions.

There is one dimension of sovereignty that stands out above all others in current customer conversations: Economic sovereignty.

For many existing Broadcom customers, this has become the most immediate and tangible pain point:

  • Not data residency
  • Not compliance
  • Not even technical capability

But cost predictability and the loss of it. And that brings us back to the platform.

The ability to maintain economic sovereignty is directly linked to how flexible your architecture is. If your platform enforces a predefined bundle, a fixed operating model, and limited alternatives, then your room to negotiate and adapt becomes smaller over time. If, on the other hand, your platform allows you to scale components independently, choose where workloads run, and avoid unnecessary dependencies, then you retain leverage.

Nutanix runs on-premises and in service provider environments. It also runs in public clouds (Nutanix NC2).

With the Nutanix Elevate Service Provider Program (NESPP), Nutanix enables managed service providers to build and operate sovereign cloud platforms themselves.

If your platform gives you flexibility, technically and commercially, then sovereignty becomes achievable.

Not VMware versus Nutanix

And this is ultimately where the entire discussion converges. Because despite all the technical arguments, the pricing models, the migration paths, and the architectural considerations, this is not a story about VMware versus Nutanix. What I see in the market right now is something different – a shift in how organizations relate to their infrastructure:

  • Control vs. dependency
  • Predictability vs. uncertainty
  • Choice vs. constraint

As I said before, dependency, in this context, is about exposure. Control, on the other hand, is not about owning everything or building everything yourself. And predictability (like trust), once lost, is difficult to rebuild.

If we help customers to ask different questions, the conversations change. It becomes less about selecting a product and more about defining a direction.

So, is your plan to adapt to change or to shape it?

Multi-cloud is normal in public cloud. Why is “single-cloud” still normal in private cloud?

Multi-cloud is normal in public cloud. Why is “single-cloud” still normal in private cloud?

Dec 18, 2025 | AWS, Azure, Edge Computing, Google Cloud, Multi-Cloud, Nutanix Cloud Platform, Oracle Cloud, Private Cloud, Sovereign Cloud, VMware Cloud Foundation

If you ask most large organizations why they use more than one public cloud, the answers are remarkably consistent. It is not fashion, and it is rarely driven by engineering curiosity. It is risk management and a best of breed approach.

Enterprises distribute workloads across multiple public clouds to reduce concentration risk, comply with regulatory expectations, preserve negotiation leverage, and remain operationally resilient in the face of outages that cannot be mitigated by adding another availability zone. In regulated industries, especially in Europe, this thinking has become mainstream. Supervisors explicitly expect organisations to understand their outsourcing dependencies, to manage exit scenarios, and to avoid structural lock-in where it can reasonably be avoided.

Now apply the same logic one layer down into the private cloud world, and the picture changes dramatically.

Across industries and geographies, a significant majority of private cloud workloads still run on a single private cloud platform. In practice, this platform is often VMware (by Broadcom). Estimates vary, but the dominance itself is not controversial. In many enterprises, approximately 70 to 80 percent of virtualized workloads reside on the same platform, regardless of sector.

If the same concentration existed in the public cloud, the discussion would be very different. Boards would ask questions, regulators would intervene, architects would be tasked with designing alternatives. Yet in private cloud infrastructure, this concentration is often treated as normal, even invisible.

Why?

Organisations deliberately choose multiple public clouds

Public cloud multi-cloud strategies are often oversimplified as “fear of lock-in”, but that misses the point.

The primary driver is concentration risk. When critical workloads depend on a single provider, certain failure modes become existential. Provider-wide control plane outages, identity failures, geopolitical constraints, or contractual disputes cannot be mitigated by technical architecture alone. Multi-cloud does not eliminate risk, but it limits the blast radius.

Regulation reinforces this logic. The European banking supervision, for example, treats cloud as an outsourcing risk and expects institutions to demonstrate governance, exit readiness, and operational resilience. An exit strategy that only exists on paper is increasingly viewed as insufficient. There are also pragmatic reasons. Jurisdictional considerations, data protection regimes, and shifting geopolitical realities make organizations reluctant to anchor everything to a single legal and operational framework. Multi-cloud (or hybrid cloud) becomes a way to keep strategic options open.

And finally, there is negotiation power. A credible alternative changes vendor dynamics. Even if workloads never move, the ability to move matters.

This mindset is widely accepted in the public cloud. It is almost uncontroversial.

How the private cloud monoculture emerged

The dominance of a single private cloud platform did not happen by accident, and it did not happen because enterprises were careless.

VMware earned its position over two decades by solving real problems early and building an ecosystem that reinforced itself. Skills became widely available, tooling matured, and operational processes stabilized. Backup, disaster recovery, monitoring, security controls, and audit practices are all aligned around a common platform. Over time, the private cloud platform evolved into more than just software. It became the operating model.

And once that happens, switching becomes an organizational transformation.

Private cloud decisions are also structurally centralized. Unlike public cloud consumption, which is often decentralized across business units, private cloud infrastructure is intentionally standardized. One platform, one set of guardrails, one way of operating. From an efficiency and governance perspective, this makes sense. From a dependency perspective, it creates a monoculture.

For years, this trade-off was acceptable because the environment was stable, licensing was predictable, and the ecosystem was broad. The rules of the game did not change dramatically.

That assumption is now being tested.

What has changed is not the technology, but the dependency profile

VMware remains a technically strong private cloud platform. That is not in dispute. What has changed under Broadcom is the commercial and ecosystem context in which the platform operates. Infrastructure licensing has shifted from a largely predictable, incremental expense into a strategically sensitive commitment. Renewals are no longer routine events. They become moments of leverage.

At the same time, changes in partner models and go-to-market structures affect how organizations buy, renew, and support their private cloud infrastructure. When the surrounding ecosystem narrows, dependency increases, even if the software itself remains excellent.

This is not a judgment on intent or quality. It is just a structural observation. When one private cloud platform represents the majority of an organization’s infrastructure, any material change in pricing, licensing, or ecosystem access becomes a strategic risk by definition.

The real issue is not lock-in, but the absence of a credible exit

Most decision-makers do not care about hypervisors, they care about exposure. The critical question is not whether an organization plans to leave its existing private cloud platform. The question is whether it could leave, within a timeframe the business could tolerate, if it had to.

In many cases, the honest answer is no.

Economic dependency is the first dimension. When a single vendor defines the majority of your infrastructure cost base, budget flexibility shrinks.

Operational dependency is the second. If tooling, processes, security models, and skills are deeply coupled to one platform, migration timelines stretch into years. That alone is a risk, even if no migration is planned.

Ecosystem dependency is the third. Fewer partners and fewer commercial options reduce competitive pressure and resilience.

Strategic dependency is the fourth. The private cloud platform is increasingly becoming the default landing zone for everything that cannot go to the public cloud. At that point, it is no longer just infrastructure. It is a critical organizational infrastructure.

Public cloud regulators have language for this. They call it outsourcing concentration risk. Private cloud infrastructure rarely receives the same attention, even though the consequences can be comparable.

Concentration risk in the public sector – When dependency is financed by taxpayers

In the public sector, concentration risk is not only a technical or commercial question but also a governance question. Public administrations do not invest their own capital. Infrastructure decisions are financed by taxpayers, justified through public procurement, and expected to remain defensible over long time horizons. This fundamentally changes the risk calculus.

When a public institution concentrates the majority of its private cloud infrastructure on a single platform, it is committing public funds, procurement structures, skills development, and long-term dependency to one vendor’s strategic direction. Now, what does it mean for a nation where 80 or 90% of its public sector is dependent on one single vendor?

That dependency can last longer than political cycles, leadership changes, or even the original architectural assumptions. If costs rise, terms change, or exit options narrow, the consequences are beared by the public. This is why procurement law and public sector governance emphasize competition, supplier diversity, and long-term sustainability. In theory, these principles apply equally to private cloud platforms. In practice, historical standardization decisions often override them.

There is also a practical constraint. Public institutions cannot move quickly. Budget cycles, tender requirements, and legal processes mean that correcting structural dependency is slow and expensive once it is entrenched.

Seen through this lens, private cloud concentration risk in the public sector is not a hypothetical problem. It is a deferred liability.

Why organizations hesitate to introduce a new or second private cloud platform

If concentration risk is real, why do organizations not simply add a second platform?

Because fragmentation is also a risk.

Enterprises do not want five private cloud platforms. They do not want duplicated tooling, fragmented operations, or diluted skills. Running parallel infrastructures without a coherent operating model creates unnecessary cost and complexity, without addressing the underlying problem. This is why most organizations are not looking for “another hypervisor”. They are seeking a second private cloud platform that preserves the VM-centric operating model, integrates lifecycle management, and can coexist without necessitating a redesign of governance and processes.

The main objective here is credible optionality.

A market correction – Diversity returns to private cloud infrastructure

One unintended consequence of Broadcom’s acquisition of VMware is that it has reopened a market that had been largely closed for years. For a long time, the conversation about private cloud infrastructure felt settled. VMware was the default, alternatives were niche, and serious evaluation was rare. That has changed.

Technologies that existed on the margins are being reconsidered. Xen-based platforms are evaluated again, where simplicity and cost control dominate. Proxmox is discussed more seriously in environments that value open-source governance and transparency. Microsoft Hyper-V is re-examined, where deep Microsoft integration already exists.

At the same time, vendors are responding. HPE Morpheus VM Essentials reflects a broader trend toward abstraction and lifecycle management that reduces direct dependency on a single virtualization layer.

Nutanix appears in this context not as a disruptive newcomer, but as an established private cloud platform that fits a diversification narrative. For some organizations, it represents a way to introduce a second platform without abandoning existing operations or retraining entire teams from scratch.

None of these options is a universal replacement. That is not the point. The point is that choice has returned.

This diversity is healthy. It forces vendors to compete on clarity, pricing, ecosystem openness, and operational value. It forces customers to revisit assumptions that have gone unchallenged for years and it reintroduces architectural optionality into a layer of infrastructure that had become remarkably static.

This conversation matters now

For years, private cloud concentration risk was theoretical. Today, it is increasingly tangible.

The combination of high platform concentration, shifting commercial models, and narrowing ecosystems forces organizations to re-examine decisions they have not questioned in over a decade. Not because the technology suddenly failed, but because dependency became visible.

The irony is that enterprises already know how to reason about this problem. They apply the same logic every day in public cloud.

The difference is psychological. Private cloud infrastructure feels “owned”. It runs on-premises and it feels sovereign. That feeling can be partially true, but it can also obscure how much strategic control has quietly shifted elsewhere.

A measured conclusion

This is not a call for mass migration away from VMware. That would be reactive and, in many cases, irresponsible.

It is a call to apply the same discipline to private cloud platforms that organizations already apply to public cloud providers. Concentration risk does not disappear because infrastructure runs in a data center.

So, if the terms change, do you have a credible alternative?

Nutanix should not be viewed primarily as a replacement for VMware

Nutanix should not be viewed primarily as a replacement for VMware

Dec 14, 2025 | Nutanix Cloud Clusters, Nutanix Cloud Platform, VMware Cloud Foundation

Public sector organizations rarely change infrastructure platforms lightly. Stability, continuity, and operational predictability matter more than shiny and modern solutions. Virtual machines became the dominant abstraction because they allowed institutions to standardize operations, separate applications from hardware, and professionalize IT operations over the long term.

For many years, VMware has become synonymous with this VM-centric operating model, as it provided a coherent, mature, and widely adopted implementation of virtualized infrastructure. Choosing VMware was, for a long time, a rational and defensible decision.

Crucially, the platform was modular. Organizations could adopt it incrementally, integrate it with existing tools, and shape their own operating models on top of it. This modularity translated into operational freedom. Institutions retained the ability to decide how far they wanted to go, which components to use, and which parts of their environment should remain under their direct control. These characteristics explain why VMware became the default choice for so many public institutions. It aligned well with the values of stability, proportionality, and long-term accountability.

The strategic question public institutions face today is not whether that decision was wrong. Rather, if they can learn from it. We need to ask ourselves whether the context around that decision has changed and whether continuing along the same platform path still preserves long-term control, optionality, and state capability.

From VM-centric to platform-path dependent

It is important to be precise in terminology. Most public sector IT environments are not VMware-centric by design. They are VM-centric. Virtual machines are the core operational unit, deeply embedded in processes, tooling, skills, and governance models. This distinction is very important. A VM-centric organization can, in principle, operate on different platforms without redefining its entire operating model. A VMware-centric organization, by contrast, has often moved further down a specific architectural path by integrating tightly with proprietary platform services, management layers, and bundled stacks that are difficult to disentangle later.

This is where the strategic divergence begins.

Over time, VMware’s platform has evolved from a modular virtualization layer into an increasingly integrated software-defined data center (SDDC) and VCF-oriented (VMware Cloud Foundation) stack. That evolution is not inherently negative. Integrated platforms can deliver efficiencies and simplified operations, but they also introduce path dependency. Decisions made today shape which options remain viable tomorrow.

So, the decisive factor is not pricing. Prices change. For public institutions, this is a governance issue (not a technical one).

There is a significant difference between organizations that adopted VMware primarily as a hypervisor platform and those that fully embraced the SDDC or VCF vision.

Institutions that did not fully commit to VMware’s integrated SDDC approach often still retain architectural freedom. Their environments are typically characterized by:

  • A strong focus on virtual machines rather than tightly coupled platform services
  • Limited dependency on proprietary automation, networking, or lifecycle tooling
  • Clear separation between infrastructure, operations, and higher-level services

For these organizations, the operational model remains transferable. Skills, processes, and governance structures are not irreversibly bound to a single vendor-defined stack. This has two important consequences.

First, technical lock-in can still be actively managed. The platform does not yet dictate the future architecture. Second, the total cost of change remains realistic. Migration becomes a controlled evolution rather than a disruptive transformation.

In other words, the window for strategic choice is still open.

Why this moment matters for the public sector

Public institutions operate under conditions that differ fundamentally from those of private enterprises. Their mandate is not limited to efficiency, competitiveness, or short-term optimization. Instead, they are entrusted with continuity, legality, and accountability over long time horizons. Infrastructure decisions made today must still be explainable years later, often to different audiences and under very different political circumstances. They must withstand audits, parliamentary inquiries, regulatory reviews, and shifts in leadership without losing their legitimacy.

This requirement fundamentally changes how technology choices must be evaluated. In the public sector, infrastructure is an integral part of the institutional framework that enables the state to function effectively. Decisions are therefore judged not only by their technical benefits and performance, but by their long-term defensibility. A solution that is efficient today but difficult to justify tomorrow represents a latent risk, even if it performs flawlessly in day-to-day operations.

It is within this context that the concept of digital sovereignty has moved from abstraction to obligation. Governments increasingly define digital sovereignty not as isolation or technological nationalism, but as the capacity to maintain control and freedom of an environment. This includes the ability to reassess vendor relationships, adapt sourcing strategies, and respond to geopolitical, legal, or economic shifts without being forced into reactive or crisis-driven decisions.

Digital sovereignty, in this sense, is closely tied to governance and control. It is about ensuring that institutions retain the ability to make informed, deliberate choices over time. That ability depends less on individual technologies and more on the structural properties of the platforms on which those technologies are built. When platforms are designed in ways that limit flexibility, they quietly constrain future options, regardless of their current performance or feature set.

Platform architectures that reduce reversibility are particularly problematic in the public sector. Reversibility does not imply constant change, nor does it require frequent platform switches. It simply means that change remains possible without disproportionate disruption. When an architecture makes it technically or organizationally prohibitive to adjust course, it creates a form of lock-in that extends beyond commercial dependency into the realm of institutional risk.

Even technically advanced platforms can become liabilities if they harden decisions that should remain open. Tight coupling between components, inflexible operational models, or vendor-defined evolution paths may simplify operations in the short term, but they do so at the cost of long-term flexibility. In public institutions, where the ability to adapt is inseparable from democratic accountability and legal responsibility, this trade-off must be examined with particular care.

Ultimately, digital sovereignty in the public sector is about ensuring that those dependencies remain governable. Platforms that preserve reversibility support this goal by allowing institutions to evolve deliberately, rather than react under pressure. Platforms that erode it may function well today, but they quietly accumulate strategic risk that only becomes visible when options have already narrowed.

Seen through this lens, digital sovereignty is a core governance requirement, embedded in the responsibility of public institutions to remain capable, accountable, and in control of their digital future.

Nutanix as a strategic inflection point

This is why Nutanix should not be viewed primarily as a replacement for VMware. Framing it as such immediately steers the discussion in the wrong direction. Replacements imply disruption, sunk costs, and, perhaps most critically in public-sector and enterprise contexts, an implicit critique of past decisions. Infrastructure choices, especially those made years ago, were often rational, well-founded, and appropriate for their time. Suggesting that they now need to be “replaced” risks triggering defensiveness and obscures the real strategic question.

More importantly, the replacement narrative fails to capture what Nutanix actually represents for VM-centric organizations. Nutanix does not demand a wholesale change in operating philosophy. It does not require institutions to abandon virtual machines, rewrite operational playbooks, or dismantle existing governance structures. On the contrary, it deliberately aligns with the VM-centric operating model that many public institutions and enterprises have refined over years of practice.

For this reason, Nutanix is better understood as a strategic inflection point. It marks a moment at which organizations can reassess their platform trajectory without invalidating the past. Virtual machines remain first-class citizens, operational practices remain familiar and roles, responsibilities, and control mechanisms continue to function as before. The day-to-day reality of running infrastructure does not need to change.

What does change is the organization’s strategic posture.

In essence, Nutanix is about restoring the ability to choose. In public-sector (and enterprise environments), that ability is often more valuable than any individual feature or performance metric.

The cost of change versus the cost of waiting

A persistent misconception in infrastructure strategy is the assumption that platform change is, by definition, prohibitively expensive. This belief is understandable. Large-scale IT transformations are often associated with complex migration projects, organizational disruption, and unpredictable outcomes. These associations create a strong incentive to delay any discussion of change for as long as possible.

Yet this intuition is misleading. In practice, the cost of change does not remain constant over time. It increases the longer the architectural lock-in is allowed to deepen.

Platform lock-in rarely occurs as an intentional choice, but it accumulates gradually. Additional services are adopted for convenience, tooling becomes more tightly integrated and operational processes begin to assume the presence of a specific platform. Over time, what was once a flexible foundation hardens into an implicit dependency. At that point, changing direction no longer means replacing a component; it means changing an entire operating model.

Organizations that remain primarily VM-centric and act early are in a very different position. When virtual machines remain the dominant abstraction and higher-level platform services have not yet become deeply embedded, transitions can be managed incrementally. Workloads can be evaluated in stages. Skills can be developed alongside existing operations. Governance and procurement processes can adapt without being forced into emergency decisions.

In these cases, the cost of change is not trivial, but it is proportionate. It reflects the effort required to introduce an alternative (modular) platform, not the effort required to escape a tightly coupled ecosystem.

VMware to Nutanix Windows

By contrast, organizations that postpone evaluation until platform constraints become explicit often find themselves facing a very different reality. When licensing changes, product consolidation, or strategic shifts expose the depth of dependency, the room for change has already narrowed. Timelines become compressed, options shrink, and decisions, that should have been strategic, become reactive.

The cost explosion in these situations is rarely caused by the complexity of the alternative platform. It is caused by the accumulated weight of the existing one. Deep integration, bespoke operational tooling, and platform-specific governance models all add friction to any attempt at change. What might have been a manageable transition years earlier becomes a high-risk transformation project.

This leads to a paradox that many institutions only recognize in hindsight. The best time to evaluate change is precisely when there is no immediate pressure to do so. Early evaluation is a way to preserve choice. It allows organizations to understand their true dependencies, test assumptions, and (perhaps) maintain negotiation leverage.

Waiting, by contrast, does not preserve stability. It often preserves only the illusion of stability, while the cost of future change continues to rise in the background.

For public institutions in particular, this distinction is critical. Their mandate demands foresight, not just reaction. Evaluating platform alternatives before change becomes unavoidable means taking over responsibility.

A window that will not stay open forever

Nutanix should not be framed as a rejection of VMware, nor as a corrective to past decisions. It should be understood as an opportunity for VM-centric public institutions to reassess their strategic position while they still have the flexibility to do so.

Organizations that did not fully adopt VMware’s SDDC approach are in a particularly strong position. Their operational models are portable, their technical lock-in is still manageable and their total cost of change remains proportionate.

For them, the question is whether they want to preserve the ability to decide tomorrow.

And in the public sector, preserving that ability is a governance responsibility.