[thaumasiotes]

> Except Microsoft now feels they’re such the dominant player in the market that they can handle billing outright, relegating partners solely to advisors and consultants in an era where Microsoft sells the very services partners used to make bank on. This is cutting out the middleman (channel partners), but also exposed Microsoft to a litany of government regulation as a result. This is because the SA model concentrates pricing in Microsoft’s hands, and thus gives them outsized power and influence in the market.

This seems incompatible with the description in the article:

>> The model split the EA channel into three tiers covering 75,000+ addressable accounts and an $11.5B opportunity envelope: 1,150 Microsoft-led global strategic accounts at a 4% ESA fee, 14,000 channel-assisted corporate accounts at 9%, and 60,000 channel-led medium enterprise accounts at 15%. Microsoft billed the customer directly across all three tiers. What changed was who led the sale, what role the partner played, and how the partner got paid. The channel was converting from a margin model, where partners set end price through discounts, to an advisory fee model, where Microsoft set price and partners earned fees for services delivered. An ESA was required on every deal.

Emphasis mine in both cases.

That said, I can't really be sure what's going on, because the author hasn't bothered to explain any of it. There is clearly some set of material that he assumes I know, but he hasn't even stated what that is.