Tiago Deretti.
deretti.net / writing / broadcom-vmware-vendor-trust Vendor Risk & Cloud Dependency · Analysis
Vendor Risk & Cloud Dependency Analysis · Migrated v1

Rethinking vendor trust: what Broadcom's VMware move means for enterprise IT.

Imagine purchasing a product with the understanding that you can maintain and service it for years. Then imagine the company that sold it to you changes the rules — telling you that you can only keep using it if you pay for a more expensive ongoing service you didn't agree to when you bought it. That is, in plain terms, what Broadcom has done to enterprises running VMware.

PublishedJanuary 10, 2025
CategoryVendor Risk & Cloud Dependency
Read7 minutes
URL/writing/broadcom-vmware-vendor-trust

What changed

Broadcom's decision to discontinue Support and Subscription Services (SNS) for VMware perpetual licenses was framed as a transition to a subscription model. In practice, it functions as a retroactive devaluation of investments organizations made under different assumptions.

Perpetual licenses, as a category, have been a foundation of enterprise IT planning for decades. The model worked because it was predictable: a substantial upfront cost in exchange for stability, with the assurance of renewable support to keep the software functional, secure, and compliant.

When Broadcom unilaterally ended SNS for those licenses, it did not simply change a future pricing structure. It changed the value of investments organizations had already made — investments that, in many cases, were specifically chosen because the perpetual model offered protection against this kind of move.

Why this matters beyond VMware

The specific situation involves Broadcom and VMware. The pattern it establishes is bigger than either.

  1. Pattern 01
    Long-term vendor commitments may not survive ownership changes.
    When a company is acquired, the original buyer loses any practical recourse against the new owner's interpretation of legacy agreements. Broadcom did not write the original VMware contracts. It is now the entity enforcing them — or declining to.
  2. Pattern 02
    It creates a template other vendors will study.
    If retroactive licensing changes are tolerated in the market, the precedent will be tested again. Software is the obvious next target, but the same logic applies to hardware support contracts, cloud committed-use discounts, and any long-term agreement built on the assumption that the vendor's interests will remain stable.
  3. Pattern 03
    It changes how enterprises should evaluate vendor agreements going forward.
    "Perpetual" is now a word that requires legal scrutiny rather than a description that buyers can rely on. Renewal protections, change-of-control clauses, and exit terms are no longer optional language for enterprise contracts. They are the contract.

The AT&T case

AT&T was the first major customer to make this fight visible. The lawsuit, filed in August 2024 in New York Supreme Court, alleged that Broadcom breached its VMware contracts by refusing to renew support services unless AT&T agreed to purchase additional bundled subscription services it had not originally contracted for.

AT&T's complaint emphasized the operational stakes: VMware software supported approximately 75,000 virtual machines across 8,600 servers, including infrastructure used for first-responder communications and national security systems. The argument was not abstract. Losing support meant operational risk to services with broad public consequence.

Broadcom's defense relied on an "End of Availability" provision that, in Broadcom's reading, allowed VMware to retire products and services upon notice. The company argued AT&T had been aware of the subscription transition and had time to adapt.

In October 2024, the parties reached a settlement. The terms were not disclosed.

The lawsuit's most important contribution wasn't the legal outcome — undisclosed settlements set no precedent — but the visibility. It made clear that even very large customers, with significant legal resources and operationally critical dependencies, were exposed to the same retroactive shift.

What enterprise buyers should be watching for

The Broadcom-VMware situation is now a case study. The questions worth asking about every long-term vendor relationship have changed:

Change-of-control
Does the contract have meaningful change-of-control protection? If the vendor is acquired, what — if anything — survives? Most pre-2024 enterprise contracts have weak language here because the scenario felt remote. It is no longer remote.
Support vs. licensing
What does "support" actually mean in the contract, and is it severable from licensing? Broadcom's argument relied on treating support as an optional service that could be withdrawn. Contracts that conflate support with licensing — or that rely on implied promises of continued support — are weaker than they appear.
Hard dependencies
Where are your hard dependencies, and what would migration cost? This is the question most organizations cannot answer quickly, which is itself the answer. If you don't know what it would take to leave a vendor, you've already lost negotiating position.
Concentration risk
What is your concentration risk in any one vendor's stack? The deeper an enterprise is into a vendor's full product family, the harder a unilateral terms change becomes to refuse. Diversification at the architecture layer is now a vendor-risk control, not just a technical preference.

The right response to this situation isn't outrage. Outrage is loud and ineffective. The right response is to treat vendor agreements as the legal instruments they are, to build technical optionality where it's affordable, and to recognize that the trust model that underwrote enterprise IT for two decades has weakened. Whether it weakens further depends on what buyers tolerate next.

What you can do

The situation can also be addressed through advocacy. The toolkit below is provided for organizations and individuals who want to engage on the policy and regulatory side.

Petition
The Change.org petition calling on Broadcom to reinstate SNS for perpetual licenses is available. Signatures help bring the issue to the attention of regulators and policymakers.
Letter to agencies
A template letter outlining the concerns — breach of trust, unfair trade practices, impact on critical infrastructure, potential legal violations — is available for use with the agencies and committees listed below.

Key contacts

Industry advocacy groups

The advocacy effort matters less for any single outcome than for the precedent it tries to set. If retroactive licensing changes are met with organized regulatory engagement, future vendors considering similar moves will weigh that response. If they're met with silence, the pattern will repeat.