Over the past few years, Microsoft has steadily expanded the capabilities included within Microsoft 365. Every release has introduced another feature, another security enhancement or another management capability. Most of these have been evolutionary rather than revolutionary. The latest licensing changes feel different. With Microsoft bringing Remote Help, Enterprise Application Management, Advanced Analytics, Cloud PKI, Endpoint Privilege Management and additional security capabilities into Microsoft 365 E3 and E5, we’re no longer talking about incremental improvements.

We’re seeing a shift in Microsoft’s strategy. The conversation is changing from:

“What additional Microsoft products should we buy?” to “How much of our existing tooling do we actually still need?”

For organisations already investing heavily in Microsoft 365, that’s a significant question.

Individually, none of these are major obstacles. Collectively, they create complexity. Complexity has a cost.

The rise of platform consolidation

Over the years, many organisations have built endpoint management platforms by selecting the “best” product in each category. A typical environment might include:

• Microsoft Configuration Manager, Microsoft Intune or a combination of both
• TeamViewer or ConnectWise ScreenConnect for remote support
• Patch My PC for third-party application updates
• BeyondTrust or Ivanti for privilege management
• Active Directory Certificate Services for device certificates
• Nexthink or ControlUp for endpoint analytics

Each product solves a genuine problem. Each product may still be the market leader in its category. But each also represents another platform to manage and crucially, additional cost. On top of this, some products that are installed into an environment, can actually be a blocker for moving forward and staying “modern”.

In the last five years or so, I’ve spent my time consulting with clients who want to simplify, and unify. This desire often means forgoing some of the functions and features offered by these “best in class” products, BUT clients have been and continue to make those decisions in spite of these recent M365 changes, so Microsoft’s recent licensing changes only supports these decisions to have a single, well-integrated platform deliver enough value while reducing operational complexity.

“Good enough” is often good enough

Specialist vendors shouldn’t be concerned simply because Microsoft has entered their market. In many areas, they still offer richer functionality. Patch My PC supports a broader catalogue of third-party applications. BeyondTrust provides deeper privilege management capabilities. ScreenConnect remains one of the most capable remote support platforms available. Nexthink delivers an exceptional digital employee experience platform with levels of visibility that Microsoft doesn’t yet match.

If your organisation depends on those advanced capabilities, those products continue to justify their place. However, not every organisation needs every advanced capability. For many businesses, particularly those standardising on Microsoft, Microsoft’s native solutions may now satisfy 80–90% of everyday requirements. That remaining 10–20% comes at a cost. The question becomes whether that additional capability is worth another licensing agreement, another management console and another operational dependency. To some it will, to some it wont.

Cost is only part of the equation

I’ve learnt over the past few years that cost does not equal value. And it’s tempting to view these licensing changes purely through the lens of cost savings. That’s certainly part of the story. If Remote Help, Enterprise Application Management or Endpoint Privilege Management are already included in a licence you’re paying for, reviewing existing third-party contracts makes obvious financial sense. But I don’t think the biggest benefit is financial. I think it’s operational. These changes mean fewer agents. Fewer consoles. Fewer identity providers. Less duplicated administration. More consistent policy. Simpler onboarding and simpler BAU processes for support engineers and less cost (potentially).

The operational benefits are much harder to quantify, but they often have a greater long-term impact than cost savings alone.

Does this mean specialist vendors are in trouble?

Not necessarily. History suggests otherwise. Microsoft has entered established markets many times before, yet specialist vendors continue to thrive by innovating faster and solving more complex problems. I don’t expect that to change. Instead, I think we’ll see vendors continue to differentiate through:

The competitive landscape will change and become more interesting rather than less.

What should organisations do next?

If you’re responsible for endpoint management or workplace transformation, now is a good time to review your current tooling. Ask some straightforward questions:

• Which third-party tools duplicate capabilities now included in Microsoft 365?
• Which products deliver functionality that Microsoft genuinely cannot?
• How many separate management agents are deployed to every endpoint?
• How much operational effort is spent maintaining overlapping platforms?
• When do existing contracts renew?
• Could future procurements be simplified?

This isn’t about replacing every specialist product. It’s about making informed decisions based on today’s licensing landscape rather than yesterday’s.

My thoughts

As someone who spends much of my time helping organisations modernise endpoint management, I don’t see these changes as Microsoft trying to replace every third-party product. I see them as raising the baseline. Capabilities that were considered premium only a few years ago are rapidly becoming standard features of the Microsoft 365 platform.

That changes expectations.

It changes procurement conversations.

It changes architecture decisions.

Most importantly, it gives organisations genuine choice. Some will continue to invest in specialist tools because they need the additional capability. Others will discover that Microsoft 365 already provides everything they need. Neither approach is inherently right or wrong. The important thing is that the decision is made deliberately, based on technical requirements, operational complexity and total cost of ownership and not simply because “that’s the way we’ve always done it.”

For Microsoft, this feels like another step towards a single, integrated endpoint management platform.

For clients, it’s an excellent opportunity to reassess the tools they already own, the licences they already pay for, and whether their endpoint management strategy is ready for the next phase.