5 ms·

> If Microsoft had a clause saying that you had to use Visual Studio Ultimate on Windows 7, they would get demolished. But XCode is free with every copy of OSX

by tvon 17y ago

> If Microsoft had a clause saying that you had to use Visual Studio Ultimate on Windows 7, they would get demolished. But XCode is free with every copy of OSX. If the same were true for Visual Studio Ultimate, I don't think it would be an issue.

ebiester 17y ago
OS X isn't.
- tvon 17y ago
  Neither is Windows.
  - ebiester 17y ago
    Couldn't you concievably develop with Mono, though?
    - tvon 17y ago
      Conceivably, yes, but that's beside the point. My point is that comparing a Visual Studio Ultimate requirement to an XCode requirement is misrepresenting the weight of the XCode requirement. XCode is free and included with every copy of OSX, while Visual Studio Ultimate will set you back $3,800 (the cost of a well equipped Mac Pro). Requiring VS Ultimate would no doubt cause angry mobs to storm One Microsoft Way, but it is not a fair comparison by any means. A more realistic comparison is that if Zune/XBox development required Visual Studio Express[1], which is a free download. And really, I can't imagine there being much backlash out of that. I wouldn't be surprised if it was currently the case. [1] That's still a bit off since there is no up-sell from XCode, but for the sake of argument, say they are equivalent.
- jasongullickson 17y ago
  OS X is less expensive than Visual Studio, in fact you could probably get the operating system and a mac mini to go along with it for less than Visual Studio Ultimate...
  - Auzy83 17y ago
    That's the ultimate version.. Microsoft not only has much cheaper versions, but they also have free express compilers these days too (and have for years). But sure, pretend its 2008 still (at least the best video card available for the Mac Pro was slightly competitive at that time). Regardless, Mac's are heavily overpriced too. You have to own a mac to develop for the iPhone's. And you must use Apple software to develop for the iPhone. And then you need Apple to censor your app (since they obviously know better than anyone what people should be allowed to buy). And even after all that, Apple are using all of these, to kill Adobe (because that's what it's all about, since adobe is a competitor to Apple). Remember, when Aperture was first released, people were much more impressed with Lightroom, and Adobe hasn't lost much traction. Anyway, Apple are treating developers like crap. Even if this is only a rumor, it is only a matter of time until antitrust trials get underway (for any number of things). In fact, I'm surprised they didn't happen sooner for the iPod's (which surprise surprise, use protocols to limit them to Apple's own software, which doesn't allow foreign music stores to be integrated).
- jamesbritt 17y ago
  And you have to buy Apple hardware to run it.
dchest 17y ago
[Ignoring the context of this discussion] The fact that something is free doesn't automatically make it non-issue.
- tvon 17y ago
  It just seems like a contrived comparison. If the same situation involving Microsoft is so obviously outlandish, why embellish?

by tvon 17y ago

ebiester 17y ago

OS X isn't.

tvon 17y ago
Neither is Windows.
- ebiester 17y ago
  Couldn't you concievably develop with Mono, though?
  - tvon 17y ago
    Conceivably, yes, but that's beside the point. My point is that comparing a Visual Studio Ultimate requirement to an XCode requirement is misrepresenting the weight of the XCode requirement. XCode is free and included with every copy of OSX, while Visual Studio Ultimate will set you back $3,800 (the cost of a well equipped Mac Pro). Requiring VS Ultimate would no doubt cause angry mobs to storm One Microsoft Way, but it is not a fair comparison by any means. A more realistic comparison is that if Zune/XBox development required Visual Studio Express[1], which is a free download. And really, I can't imagine there being much backlash out of that. I wouldn't be surprised if it was currently the case. [1] That's still a bit off since there is no up-sell from XCode, but for the sake of argument, say they are equivalent.
jasongullickson 17y ago
OS X is less expensive than Visual Studio, in fact you could probably get the operating system and a mac mini to go along with it for less than Visual Studio Ultimate...
- Auzy83 17y ago
  That's the ultimate version.. Microsoft not only has much cheaper versions, but they also have free express compilers these days too (and have for years). But sure, pretend its 2008 still (at least the best video card available for the Mac Pro was slightly competitive at that time). Regardless, Mac's are heavily overpriced too. You have to own a mac to develop for the iPhone's. And you must use Apple software to develop for the iPhone. And then you need Apple to censor your app (since they obviously know better than anyone what people should be allowed to buy). And even after all that, Apple are using all of these, to kill Adobe (because that's what it's all about, since adobe is a competitor to Apple). Remember, when Aperture was first released, people were much more impressed with Lightroom, and Adobe hasn't lost much traction. Anyway, Apple are treating developers like crap. Even if this is only a rumor, it is only a matter of time until antitrust trials get underway (for any number of things). In fact, I'm surprised they didn't happen sooner for the iPod's (which surprise surprise, use protocols to limit them to Apple's own software, which doesn't allow foreign music stores to be integrated).
jamesbritt 17y ago
And you have to buy Apple hardware to run it.

dchest 17y ago

[Ignoring the context of this discussion] The fact that something is free doesn't automatically make it non-issue.

tvon 17y ago
It just seems like a contrived comparison. If the same situation involving Microsoft is so obviously outlandish, why embellish?