The Register's reporting on the Microsoft Enterprise Agreement (EA) commission collapse has been the most data-rigorous coverage in the trade press. And the trajectory it documented ($2.5 billion in LSP commissions in 2023, $1.67 billion in 2024, $583 million in 2025, zero in 2026) is the financial signature of a structural transition I have seen before, because I designed the original architecture that is now being retired.Between 1998 and 2001, I was the sole designer of the Enterprise Software Advisor (ESA) channel architecture at Microsoft. Working within Worldwide Licensing and Pricing, I built the direct-billing model that converted the EA channel from an indirect, margin-based reseller structure to a direct-billing, advisory-fee structure. The compensation model, fee schedule, three-tier segmentation covering 75,000 accounts across 24 countries, and the geographic rollout sequence were my design. The ESA designation remains named verbatim in Microsoft's FY2025 10-K, twenty-four years after it launched.I'm writing this because the comparison between 2001 and 2026 reveals something the coverage has not yet examined: the 2001 transition included a specific mechanism designed to preserve channel expertise and align partner incentives with the new model. The 2026 transition does not. That difference matters, and it has now drawn regulatory attention.
I designed Microsoft's $5B EA channel architecture in 2001. The 2026 transition is missing what made it work
The man behind Redmond's direct billing model and its geo rollout explains why the new version forgets the channel to its cost













