Licensing models and the real challenge of extracting value from Observability
Change in SolarWinds licensing: price, context and the real challenge of extracting value from Observability.
In recent months, the change in the SolarWinds licensing model to subscription only has been widely discussed in technical articles, specialized blogs and community forums.
Most of that content focuses almost exclusively on the financial impact of the transition, treating the subject as a simple price increase.
That debate is legitimate, but incomplete.
Over more than two decades working on monitoring, observability and critical environment management projects, I have learned that the real problem is rarely only the licensing price.
Most of the time it lies in how the platforms are used, governed and integrated into the operation.
The financial impact exists and has to be handled transparently
There is no denying it: for many clients there was a nominal increase in the annual value compared with the old perpetual model with maintenance. That appears both in analyses published by third parties and in open discussions within the SolarWinds community itself.
Ignoring that point would be dishonest.
What has to be put in perspective is that the previous model hid relevant costs that did not show up in the contract, but were diluted across the operation. Excessive technical hours, multiple parallel tools, proprietary scripts and manual processes were always part of that bill.
The old model was comfortable, but not sustainable in the long run
Perpetual licensing was conceived in a very different scenario from today: mostly on premises infrastructure, predictable growth, low data volume and little demand for correlation and automation.
As hybrid and multicloud environments evolved, that model began to generate a dangerous side effect: robust platforms being used only as reactive basic alerting tools.
In practice, many companies came to use only a small fraction of the available capacity, while compensating for gaps with additional solutions and growing operational effort.
Subscription is not only a commercial change, it is a change of scope
A point rarely explored in external debates is that SolarWinds did not change only the way it charges. There was a clear expansion of the functional scope delivered to the client.
The current model includes greater licensing flexibility, resource pooling, expanded coverage across layers, native correlation, advanced anomaly detection features, capacity planning and operational automation.
Even organizations that do not yet use advanced artificial intelligence features benefit from concrete gains in standardization, scalability, financial predictability and reduced operational noise.
There is no absolute obligation to contract everything.
Another point frequently misinterpreted is the idea that the client is now required to contract a complete observability suite.
In practice, what changed was the end of the perpetual model. The client can still discuss scope, architecture and sizing within the subscription model, as long as that conversation happens in a structured, strategic way.
The historical mistake was treating renewal as an automatic process rather than a real review of technical and operational needs.
Community criticism reflects real experiences, but not universal ones. The discussions seen in forums and technical communities reflect legitimate frustration, especially in scenarios where the transition was conducted without context, without diagnosis and without follow-up.
Generalizing those experiences as the rule, however, ignores projects where there was planning, governance and alignment between teams.
It is exactly in those projects that we observe tool consolidation, less rework, greater engagement between areas and a real gain in operational efficiency.
The biggest bottleneck I see today is maturity, not technology
In recent visits to large clients in our base, a pattern repeats. Many companies use between 10 and 30 per cent of the real capacity of the SolarWinds platform they already own.
That does not happen because of a tool limitation, but because of the absence of methodology, lack of engagement between teams and a narrow view of the role of monitoring within the IT strategy.
When the platform is seen only as an alerting system, any additional investment looks unjustifiable.
Aken Observability Journey (AOJ): connecting licensing, value and maturity
It was exactly to address that scenario that AKEN developed the AOJ.
AOJ is a structured framework that guides organizations in evolving their maturity from monitoring to full observability and operational automation.
The journey starts with governance, clear definition of objectives, alignment between teams and correct use of the platform basic capabilities. It evolves into correlation across layers, contextual incident analysis, noise reduction and, finally, automation of operational actions.
When that journey is applied, the debate stops being about cost and starts being about return. The same platform delivers more value, reduces incidents, speeds up decisions and frees technical team time.
Subscription without a journey becomes cost. Subscription with method becomes efficiency.
The mistake is not the licensing model itself, but adopting subscription without a clear strategy for operational evolution.
With method, governance and a well defined journey such as AOJ, the platform stops being just a recurring budget line and becomes an enabler of efficiency, predictability and sustainable growth.
The right question is still a strategic one
The correct question technology leaders should ask is not whether it got more expensive, but whether the organization is prepared to extract real value from the platform it already owns and whether it has a clear plan to evolve its operational maturity.
The market has changed. Complexity has increased. Reactive monitoring no longer keeps up with that reality.
Subscription, when connected to a structured maturity journey such as the Aken Observability Journey, stops being a financial debate and becomes a strategic business decision.