The latest stock market shake-up of Broadcom ($AVGO) has once again focused attention on a tension that has been building for months in the industry: the integration of VMware following the acquisition and, especially, the shift in the business model. The recent drop in share price — reportedly double digits in a single session, as circulated on social media and within the VMware ecosystem — has been interpreted partly as a sign that the market values not only the AI narrative but also how a company manages an acquisition that forms the foundational infrastructure for thousands of organizations.
At the heart of the debate is licensing. Since VMware became dependent on Broadcom, the shift toward packages and subscriptions has been seen as a simplification “from the top” (fewer SKUs, more bundles) and a complication “from below” (less flexibility for those who don’t fit the package). In practice, what irritates system administrators and IT leaders most isn’t the existence of a new offer but the actual degree of choice: when a product or a component of the stack becomes nearly mandatory to continue receiving support, patches, and operational continuity, any sense of coercion turns into a reputational problem.
The Conflict: It’s Not Just Price, It’s Operational Control
Within the discussions that have erupted recently, there are two intertwined levels:
- The economic: reports of cost increases “far above expectations.” On social media, extreme hikes (even up to 1,500%) have been mentioned, but these figures should be viewed as part of market noise: they may depend on the starting point, previous contract types, organization size, historical discounts, and what is considered comparable. Still, the core message is consistent: many organizations perceive their future bills as more uncertain and less flexible.
- The technical-operations: where dissatisfaction becomes more serious. When the licensing model of a hypervisor is touched, it’s not “just an app”: it’s the foundation on which business applications, backups, disaster recovery, virtual networks, storage, automation, and emergency procedures run. For a systems team, any change affecting renewal, compliance, audits, or support is directly a risk.
The almost automatic consequence is that where inertia once prevailed (“we keep using VMware because it works”), now contingency meetings appear (“what real alternatives do we have if things change again in six months?”).
Market Response and the Shift Towards Alternatives
The stock market decline of Broadcom — beyond whether the trigger was earnings guidance, margins, or AI expectations — has amplified an ongoing phenomenon: the marketplace of alternatives to VMware has become mainstream. And that, in 2025, means two things:
- It’s no longer just about replacing a hypervisor, but about replacing an entire set: virtualization, management, high availability, storage, backup, monitoring, and daily operations.
- Adoption depends less on “software” and more on “migration pathways” (tools, professional services, experience, coexistence plans, and rollback options).
Within this landscape, Proxmox VE is appearing more frequently, thanks to a compelling combination: open-source model, KVM-based virtualization for VMs, LXC containers, unified management, and real possibilities of operating with ZFS or Ceph depending on the case. Additionally, Proxmox maintains a consistent release cadence and a focus on infrastructure management (not just end-user “experiences”), which often appeals to sysadmin teams.
Proxmox as an Alternative: Why It’s Coming into the Conversation
By 2025, the typical argument isn’t “Proxmox is cheap,” but “Proxmox reduces dependency and restores maneuverability.” Practically, what many sysadmins value when considering it as a migration destination is:
- Familiar architecture: KVM, Linux, manageable storage with standard tools.
- Layered flexibility: VMs and containers in the same interface, but with granular control (and APIs for automation).
- More integrated backup strategies when combined with Proxmox Backup Server, especially in environments where RPO/RTO matter.
- Ecosystem of integrators: increasingly, MSPs and infrastructure providers offer “migration + operation” packages, which help unlock projects when internal teams can’t handle everything alone.
That said, honesty is crucial: migrating isn’t “just installing Proxmox.” It’s redesigning (or at least reviewing) networks, storage, templates, backups, maintenance windows, support requirements, and documentation. And that effort is exactly what was previously avoided… until rule changes make it unavoidable.
What Systems Administrators Should Review Before Moving
To separate emotional reactions from the technical plan, a short checklist often clarifies the landscape:
- Actual inventory: number of VMs, OS types, dependencies, drivers, critical appliances.
- Network model: VLANs, routing, firewalls, load balancing, dependencies with NSX or other components.
- Storage and performance: IOPS, latencies, snapshots, growth, and whether ZFS, Ceph, or external storage makes sense.
- Backup and DR: whether current backups depend on specific APIs, need redesigning, and how restore validation is handled.
- Coexistence plan: phased migration with clear rollback strategies and service acceptance criteria.
The key point here is that the “licensing shock” is accelerating decisions that might otherwise have been postponed for another year. When cost uncertainty combines with unclear roadmaps, the industry tends to do what it always does: diversify.
A Message to the Rest of the Infrastructure Software Industry
The VMware-Broadcom case offers a lesson that transcends specific products: if your technology is “core,” your business model should also appear “core.” That is, predictable, auditable, gradual, and aligned with the real pace of data centers. If not, the market may take time… but it will respond eventually. When it does, it often entails plans B, pilot tests, and migrations.
Frequently Asked Questions
What alternatives to VMware are gaining traction in enterprises in 2025?
Besides Proxmox VE, many environments are evaluating options like Hyper-V (especially if there’s existing investment in Microsoft), Nutanix AHV for integrated stacks, or KVM-based platforms in various formats (including more cloud-native approaches).
When does it make sense to migrate from VMware to Proxmox VE, and when does it not?
It generally makes sense when aiming to reduce license dependency, simplify costs, and operate directly on KVM/LXC. It may not be ideal if the environment relies heavily on specific VMware ecosystem features (like certain advanced integrations) and there’s no window or team to redesign accordingly.
What technical risks are involved in migrating hypervisors in production?
Common risks include driver or appliance compatibility issues, virtual network differences, storage performance changes, and recovery failures if backup/restore validations aren’t performed on the target environment.
What should a serious on-premise migration project to Proxmox include?
An inventory and criticality prioritization, pilot testing, automation (templates, networks, storage), backup and disaster recovery planning, and phased migration with documented, measurable rollback strategies.
Source: Broadcom, VMware and the “price” of a purchase: why Wall Street is getting nervous