Much of that list is exaggerated or completely false.
For example, Microsoft actually charges their customers double if they bring their SQL Software Assurance licenses to Azure!
If you read the fine print, you'll discover that SQL Server licensing is either per physical core -- if you license an entire server -- or per virtual CPU if you license a single virtual machine. That is, in typical configurations, they charge per hyperthread on VMs and per core on physical servers!
Most of my customers have 2-4 physical VMware server blades licensed per core, and then they can put as many SQL virtual machines on top as will fit into memory.
Meanwhile SQL Server licensing costs are higher on Azure virtual machines compared to on-prem physical boxes for a given amount of computer power being licensed because you can only license them per hyperthread, and then there's no hardware sharing either. On-prem you can "oversubscribe" and run 128 vCPUs of SQL VMs on a 16-core / 32-thread server and only pay for 16 SQL licenses. In Azure, you have to pay for 128 vCPUs!
Despite all of the above, Microsoft claims that "customers can save up to 80% by using Azure Hybrid Use Benefit"! It's just not true. I've run the numbers with various reseller discounts, enterprise agreements, etc... and it always turns out Azure-hosted SQL ends up being more expensive than on-prem.
Okay, okay, the above is not entirely true: there is also the option of licensing an entire physical server in Azure via "Dedicated Hosts" on a per-core basis. Then (and only then!) you get the original on-prem licensing model. You still can't oversubscribe however, so you're still very unlikely to achieve the same level of consolidation and cost efficiencies as on-prem.
Another issue with dedicated hosts is that the smallest dedicated 'v5' machines now have 60 cores, which is pretty huge, and getting bigger all the time. Utilising AMD's EPYC 9004 series will probably mean licensing 192 to 256 cores, minimum, Enterprise Edition only. Oof.
Similarly, if you compare PaaS offerings like Amazon RDS for SQL vs Azure SQL Database or Azure SQL Managed Instance, you'll find that AWS is cheaper for a given amount of performance. Azure SQL MI especially is ridiculously expensive for what it provides.
If I didn't have to keep working with these people, I would report them to our government's customer protections agency. What Microsoft is doing is very deceptive to the point of being illegal false advertising.
For example, Microsoft actually charges their customers double if they bring their SQL Software Assurance licenses to Azure!
If you read the fine print, you'll discover that SQL Server licensing is either per physical core -- if you license an entire server -- or per virtual CPU if you license a single virtual machine. That is, in typical configurations, they charge per hyperthread on VMs and per core on physical servers!
Most of my customers have 2-4 physical VMware server blades licensed per core, and then they can put as many SQL virtual machines on top as will fit into memory.
Meanwhile SQL Server licensing costs are higher on Azure virtual machines compared to on-prem physical boxes for a given amount of computer power being licensed because you can only license them per hyperthread, and then there's no hardware sharing either. On-prem you can "oversubscribe" and run 128 vCPUs of SQL VMs on a 16-core / 32-thread server and only pay for 16 SQL licenses. In Azure, you have to pay for 128 vCPUs!
Despite all of the above, Microsoft claims that "customers can save up to 80% by using Azure Hybrid Use Benefit"! It's just not true. I've run the numbers with various reseller discounts, enterprise agreements, etc... and it always turns out Azure-hosted SQL ends up being more expensive than on-prem.
Okay, okay, the above is not entirely true: there is also the option of licensing an entire physical server in Azure via "Dedicated Hosts" on a per-core basis. Then (and only then!) you get the original on-prem licensing model. You still can't oversubscribe however, so you're still very unlikely to achieve the same level of consolidation and cost efficiencies as on-prem.
Another issue with dedicated hosts is that the smallest dedicated 'v5' machines now have 60 cores, which is pretty huge, and getting bigger all the time. Utilising AMD's EPYC 9004 series will probably mean licensing 192 to 256 cores, minimum, Enterprise Edition only. Oof.
Similarly, if you compare PaaS offerings like Amazon RDS for SQL vs Azure SQL Database or Azure SQL Managed Instance, you'll find that AWS is cheaper for a given amount of performance. Azure SQL MI especially is ridiculously expensive for what it provides.
If I didn't have to keep working with these people, I would report them to our government's customer protections agency. What Microsoft is doing is very deceptive to the point of being illegal false advertising.