> Makes me wonder why enterprises still flock there
Well, when you're already paying Microsoft $/user/month for Intune, Teams&co. you might as well use Azure too.
Only one vendor relationship to manage, and I suspect you probably have to spend far less money than you do with AWS to get some personal attention.
> one vendor relationship to manage
Anyone that's had to deal with Microsoft will tell you this means nothing
If you can even get attention from someone, you'll be bounced between teams and people who barely know the products they are "supporting"
Don't get me started on the Azure and O365 management portals
The only worse support experience I've had was with Oracle where it could take days just to get the boilerplate "send us your logs" response on a Sev1 issue, despite the logs already being provided in the initial ticket
In both cases, this is while at F100 companies with millions of dollars of licensed software and premium support contracts
Managing a vendor relationship is the act of distributing license usage through your people, reviewing contracts, having somebody that knows when and where you have to send money so that the software keeps working, and making sure you are not doing something against the contract.
With Microsoft that takes several people working full time. Corporations tend to not want more of those relationships to manage.
I'm convinced all engineers in the O365 org are call center techs in disguise
What do you mean "even get attention from someone"? Enterprise contracts have support included. You can get an engineer on the phone within 24 hours. As long as you are competent enough to answer their questions, their support has been fairly good in my experience.
The initial support tech is typically outsourced and responds with: “Yes, it is broken… by design.”
Attention means an engineer who can fix the problem, not an off shore phone jockey paid to make you quietly go away.
Yes, it's triage. They do the basic steps, get relevant info, and try to figure out the right team to send it to. This is how support everywhere works.
> Anyone that's had to deal with Microsoft will tell you this means nothing...
In relation to everything you said in your post, let's just say "trust me, I know".
But you missed the point I was making.
The GP said "Makes me wonder why enterprises still flock there".
And anyone who's had to deal with enterprise procurement knows if you've got a vendor on the list then its easier to deal with that one than push for multiple.
And then there's the whole budgeting thing. If management can see you're already buying every single employee in the org a Teams license, then getting extra budget for some Azure toys will probably be an easier sell then "yeah, I know we're paying Microsoft a lot of money, but can we have some AWS too". Since in their eyes Azure and Teams licenses is the same thing, "money for Microsoft".
Sadly the tech desk experience in enterprises tends to fall low down the list, if it is considered at all.
Sure, in theory, if you've got a good CTO to fight your corner then YMMV, but not everyone does.
The management portals are something special. Hunting through 365, exchange, and azure to find policies that apply elsewhere.
> Anyone that's had to deal with Microsoft will tell you this means nothing
If anything, having only one vendor to choose from is a disadvantage.
Must be convenient to get all your security bugs from one vendor...