The overall comment about complexity is accurate but the supporting details are wrong many places.

You miss the main point of their licensing until the last paragraph of the article,

"Elop said it's important to keep in mind that Microsoft's reason for having a variety of licensing options is to give customers choice."

Microsoft has a ton of products with different licensing modules and some products with multiple licensing models to fix customers choice to find a less expensive option. The article is inaccurate many places as a result, such as the comment that all products require CALs. For example, customers have a choice to license SQL "Per Processor" OR "Per Server + CALs," and one option is usually much less expensive depending on how the customer is using SQL.

Even the assertion about hybrid Exchange environments requiring extra CALs is misleading, because Microsoft provides a credit (lower cost) for Exchange Online to not overcharge customers.

The above comment actually emphasizes how complicated the situation is. Any number of people can analyze MS licensing models and come up with a different answer to the same question. And all of them will likely be right to an extent. Microsoft products per-se are not horrifically expensive or difficult. Figuring out which CALs you need is a trying process. Not only do you have CALs, you have Enterprise CALs as well.

The worst part of the whole licensing thing is that Microsoft does not have a methodology to train customers on how to manage licensing. They offer a myriad of technical certifications, and nothing to help a user maintain compliance.

To add insult to injury, their sales staff and, frequently, their VARs are ill prepared to advise customers and the reliance is on a small group of licensing experts who are spread thin.

Microsoft does not necessarily need to make the models less complex. That complexity does offer very high levels of flexibility. What they should do is offer the tools to allow customers to make sure they are in compliance.