Understand able any reputable VM provider will let you get it inclusive or pay like ~$20/month on top of the rental fee at check out. So for example if a VM costs $10 then your total would be ~$30/month.
I just want a combined bill that doesn’t have to deal with the cost of a license.
While the rules of economics states that what you’re saying is true, it’s just the fact that sometimes people don’t want to deal with that or think about it and want someone else to think about it and all they have to do is look at the total calculated number. It just makes the decision that much easier for the decision maker.
I meant I believe HyperV is/was the only legit way to issue “unmetered” licenses. So before per CPU and per core billing were a thing a host could in theory have a big butt dual processor server or what not and split the costs of data center licensing fee. Thus resulting in a deal both to the provider and to the client in question if x amount of Windows VMs were provisioned.
However now that per core billing is in place I don’t think the same could be said now of days.
It’s per physical core, the only change is that instead of per CPU you’re now billed per core, there’s still no limit on the number of VMs on a Datacentre edition regardless of virtualisation used. Whether it is or was Hyper-V it’s simply irrelevant. You don’t license virtual cores - never. It’s always all physical cores in the machine.