9 ms·

The $49 developer membership is less exciting when you consider that MS charges $479 for the least expensive version of Visual Studio and more for an MSDN membe

The $49 developer membership is less exciting when you consider that MS charges $479 for the least expensive version of Visual Studio and more for an MSDN membership. And while I'm aware the the express version is free it seems odd to me to charge for developer tools used by hobbyists and individuals at all.

dpark 15y ago
Why shouldn't hobbyists pay for tools? As you said, the Express versions are free. But if you want to play with the same toys as professionals, why shouldn't you pay for them? Last I checked, Photoshop wasn't free to me just because I'm not a professional artist. Neither is anything else, really. There's not a lot of software licensed under a CC-noncommercial-style license. Disclaimer: Microsoft employee here
- king_magic 15y ago
  Well, why should I shell out $479 for VS when I can get Xcode for $4? If a paid membership came with a VS install, that'd be one thing, but I've seen no indications of that yet. Now, I personally see no problem with charging for tools, but if Microsoft wants to drive adoption at the same (or higher) rate as iOS/OSX/Android, they are going to have to make the tools free or very cheap. And BizSpark just isn't enough. Developers are going to ignore the platform, end of story. This shouldn't be surprising. No offense, but this just strikes me as another instance of Microsoft "not getting it".
  - dpark 15y ago
    So don't buy Visual Studio. You don't have to spend $479 to develop for Windows 7, and you won't have to spend $479 to develop Metro apps for Windows 8, either. You can use the express edition for free, and until that's available, you can use the developer preview for free. (That's $4 less than Xcode!) This is kind of like saying "I'll never edit a picture because Photoshop costs $600!" Yeah, you can edit a picture in Photoshop, or you can do the same thing with a free tool.
    - king_magic 15y ago
      I would buy Visual Studio (in fact I own a copy), but the average developer who develops for iOS/OSX/Android is going to say something like this to themselves: "You're right. I won't buy Visual Studio. And I won't use the Express Edition, because it is seriously limited when compared to even the low-end paid version of Visual Studio. And the Express Edition is seriously limited when compared to the functionality found in Xcode/Instruments. And as a result, you won't get revenue from any apps I develop, because I'll happily ignore your platform". Microsoft is free to shoot themselves in the foot. They've already done it with the Zune and with their fixation on stylus-based tablets this century. Do you really want to add this to the list? It just strikes me as silly on Microsoft's part. If you want to get developers interested in your platform again, you need to make concessions to sweeten the deal.
      - dpark 15y ago
        Out of curiosity, what's so limited about the Express Edition? I haven't used it in a while, but last time I did it seemed quite capable. As for your claim that developers will ignore Windows, I think that's at best unlikely. Developers have embraced Windows with the same toolset split for a long time. And iOS with its $100 signup + 30/70 split has proven that developers will pay to develop for a platform if they believe it's worthwhile.
        king_magic 15y ago
        Just off the top of my head: no extensions (no ReSharper, for example, no Nuget), no integrated source control, no memory/performance profiling, basic UX as compared to full VS - things like that. Xcode is a full-fledged development environment. Those things come standard in Xcode. VS Express, by comparison, is a kids toy. It is not a serious development environment. Microsoft also thought huge iPhone/iPad adoption rates was "at best unlikely". Yes, developers had embraced Windows over the past two decades, but that all started to change with iOS/Android. You cannot seriously believe that the world is the same, and that developer's attitudes towards Windows is the same. [$100 + 30/70 split] for iOS is a completely different story than [$49 + $479 + 30/70 split] for Windows. That price point is way to high to drive adoption. Don't take my word for it, though - wait until developers find how disappointing the development experience is with Express.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - smackfu 15y ago
    You can run VS on a Mac, you can't run XCode on a PC. So if you don't have a Mac, $4 doesn't quite cut it.
    - rbanffy 15y ago
      But if you are willing to pay US$ 500 for VS on a Mac, you should be willing to pay US$ 600 for Xcode when you have a PC. Plus, it comes with a free Mac Mini.
      - WayneDB 15y ago
        But you can get VS Express for free. The only major thing it doesn't have that VS Pro has is the plugin system, which XCode doesn't even have to begin with!
        nupark2 15y ago
        Xcode provides the functionality you need by default, whereas you need plugins in VS just to get source control. There's also profiling support (not included in VSE), an x86-64 compiler (also not included), etc.
        WayneDB 15y ago
        You get Subversion and Git with Xcode and that's it. Exactly 2 choices. This is simply not a big deal in Windows where SCM can be directly integrated into the graphical file browser!! Furthermore, VS Express can easily be configured to support 64 bit compilation. http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1865069/compile-64-bit-app-with-vc-express-2010 http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1865069/compile-64-bit-ap...
        nupark2 15y ago
        > You get Subversion and Git with Xcode and that's it. Exactly 2 choices. Fortunately, those are the only too I need. I agree that Xcode would benefit plugins, but unlike VCE, the Xcode baseline is sufficient for my (and most people's) requirements. > This is simply not a big deal in Windows where SCM can be directly integrated into the graphical file browser!! Working with AVR Studio 5 (Visual Studio-based) and Visual Studio C++, I've found that IDE support for SVN makes a huge difference -- constantly falling back to TortoiseSVN is obtuse, annoying, and time consuming.
  - Someone 15y ago
    Not really relevant for this discussion, but AFAIK, Xcode never has been prized at $4. It cost $4.99 for a while (when Mac OS X Lion was in beta), but it is free again (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xcode#4.x_series http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xcode#4.x_series)
  - masklinn 15y ago
    > Well, why should I shell out $479 for VS when I can get Xcode for $4? $0 actually, the Xcode license is included in the OSX license. Xcode 4.0 (on Snow Leopard) was a bit of a special case, as it was a major Xcode release out of sync with OS releases and was thus sold for $5 as it was not covered by SL's Xcode 3 license[0], but it's gone back to free (and Lion only) as soon as Lion was released. [0] all of this is according to Apple's legal and accounting, who are apparently a bunch of nutcase fruit-fuckers.
    - chc 15y ago
      Apple got religion about Sarbanes-Oxley when they were struck with a couple of major accounting scandals in one year.
  - MortenK 15y ago
    What do you mean Bizspark isn't enough? You get every single piece of development software, operative systems, hell even server software for free. How is that not enough?
- EwanToo 15y ago
  I'm not sure your comparison with Photoshop is great - Adobe aren't trying to get people to produce images specifically for sale in the "Adobe Photoshop Store", where Adobe would get a 20% cut of the sale price. In this case, if an app developed by these tools and sold by Microsoft is a hit, Microsoft will be taking money from both sides. Microsoft are free to do what they want, but if developers choose to use alternative platforms, then Microsoft lose out on the real profit centre of marketplace sales.
  - dpark 15y ago
    There are and will continue to be (I would assume) free tools for developing for Windows, including Windows 8. The Express tools are quite capable of doing the job. If you need the extra power afforded by the full version of Visual Studio, then pay for it, because you probably aren't really a hobbyist at that point.
    - EwanToo 15y ago
      Some of the express tool limitations are quite surprising really, like the lake of source/revision control. You might only be a hobbyist, but source code control is still good practice. Either way, my point isn't really that the tools cost money, but that Microsoft will make more money from good quality apps being sold through their marketplace than they ever will do from sales of Visual studio to smaller developers. This is especially true given that Microsoft are willing to almost give away Visual Studio in small licence quantities if you sign up as a Microsoft business partner.
      - dpark 15y ago
        The lack of source control is not an unreasonable criticism. However, it's exclusion from Visual Studio Express does not stop a developer from using source control. > This is especially true given that Microsoft are willing to almost give away Visual Studio in small licence quantities if you sign up as a Microsoft business partner. I think you've hit on the issue. My guess is that Microsoft doesn't mind giving VS to you for free. What they mind is giving VS to most companies for free. And when you release the product as "free for personal use', it becomes a major pain to make sure companies actually pay for it. It's easier to have a normal price and make specific exceptions (DreamSpark, BizSpark, etc.).
- johnbender 15y ago
  > Why shouldn't hobbyists pay for tool? Developers are less likely (significantly so in my view) to invest their time in a platform that treats tinkerers and hobbyists as second class citizens by providing hamstrung free tools. I've always firmly believed that the MS development stack is both impressive technically and wonderful to work in. It seems to me they could have a much more vibrant open source and free application community if they gave away full copies of Visual Studio to individuals and continued to charge businesses.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
cgag 15y ago
Not getting into the visual studio thing, what's the logic behind charging someone to develop apps that you get a 70% (for the first 25k at least) cut from?
- code_duck 15y ago
  Similarly, Apple charges $100/year for the iOS Developer Program. At least Xcode is only $5.
- thematt 15y ago
  Probably because not everyone will sell the apps they developed using Visual Studio in "the store". Visual Studio is used by tons of enterprises for developing software that will not be sold directly to consumers.
- dpark 15y ago
  It's an intentional barrier to entry. Reviewing apps costs money. Charging a nominal fee limits the number of people who submit completed-broken or pointless apps.
- ZeroGravitas 15y ago
  I would have thought it's an incentive to not get banned, so preventing spammers etc. from just signing up for a million accounts as old ones get shut down.
Tangurena 15y ago
If you still maintain your college .edu email account, you could join Dreamspark and get a legit copy of Visual Studio Pro for free. If you're interested in XNA, while the regular XNA game studio is free, the student version lets you join App Hub for free (instead of the $99/year fee). https://www.dreamspark.com/default.aspx https://www.dreamspark.com/default.aspx
- GFischer 15y ago
  You can also sign up for the BizSpark program. http://www.microsoft.com/bizspark/ http://www.microsoft.com/bizspark/
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
cobrausn 15y ago
The express version is free and is meant for hobbyists and individuals. If you were to form a small company, you might be able to get a bit more than that for free. http://altdevblogaday.com/2011/12/03/you-should-be-using-microsoft-bizspark/ http://altdevblogaday.com/2011/12/03/you-should-be-using-mic...
mattmanser 15y ago
The cheapest Visual Studio is totally free (Express). I don't mind MS trashing where's it's due (crap js & imgs for code snippets for example), but don't spout total nonsense. Also I paid nothing like the price you're quoting for my BizSpark subscription, MS offer different prices to startups. I believe there's a web focused one that's even cheaper, though I can't remember the name.
- nupark2 15y ago
  Express is hobbled; no plugins (so you can't use SVN/git plugins), and doesn't ship with things like the 64-bit compiler. It's basically trial-ware. I have no problem with paying for tools, especially for commercial product development. However, the price point is high for a hobbyist tool, and the free version is frustratingly hobbled. Given that I can use IntelliJ, Eclipse, and Xcode for free (Android/iOS) -- it will hurt broad adoption.
tobias3 15y ago
They don't want to undermine the market of Windows development tools. More choice leads to happier developers. Of course they could give them away for free and recuberate the costs somewhere else but then goodbye Borland (already happend ;) )

dpark 15y ago

Why shouldn't hobbyists pay for tools? As you said, the Express versions are free. But if you want to play with the same toys as professionals, why shouldn't you pay for them? Last I checked, Photoshop wasn't free to me just because I'm not a professional artist. Neither is anything else, really. There's not a lot of software licensed under a CC-noncommercial-style license. Disclaimer: Microsoft employee here

king_magic 15y ago
Well, why should I shell out $479 for VS when I can get Xcode for $4? If a paid membership came with a VS install, that'd be one thing, but I've seen no indications of that yet. Now, I personally see no problem with charging for tools, but if Microsoft wants to drive adoption at the same (or higher) rate as iOS/OSX/Android, they are going to have to make the tools free or very cheap. And BizSpark just isn't enough. Developers are going to ignore the platform, end of story. This shouldn't be surprising. No offense, but this just strikes me as another instance of Microsoft "not getting it".
- dpark 15y ago
  So don't buy Visual Studio. You don't have to spend $479 to develop for Windows 7, and you won't have to spend $479 to develop Metro apps for Windows 8, either. You can use the express edition for free, and until that's available, you can use the developer preview for free. (That's $4 less than Xcode!) This is kind of like saying "I'll never edit a picture because Photoshop costs $600!" Yeah, you can edit a picture in Photoshop, or you can do the same thing with a free tool.
  - king_magic 15y ago
    I would buy Visual Studio (in fact I own a copy), but the average developer who develops for iOS/OSX/Android is going to say something like this to themselves: "You're right. I won't buy Visual Studio. And I won't use the Express Edition, because it is seriously limited when compared to even the low-end paid version of Visual Studio. And the Express Edition is seriously limited when compared to the functionality found in Xcode/Instruments. And as a result, you won't get revenue from any apps I develop, because I'll happily ignore your platform". Microsoft is free to shoot themselves in the foot. They've already done it with the Zune and with their fixation on stylus-based tablets this century. Do you really want to add this to the list? It just strikes me as silly on Microsoft's part. If you want to get developers interested in your platform again, you need to make concessions to sweeten the deal.
    - dpark 15y ago
      Out of curiosity, what's so limited about the Express Edition? I haven't used it in a while, but last time I did it seemed quite capable. As for your claim that developers will ignore Windows, I think that's at best unlikely. Developers have embraced Windows with the same toolset split for a long time. And iOS with its $100 signup + 30/70 split has proven that developers will pay to develop for a platform if they believe it's worthwhile.
      - king_magic 15y ago
        Just off the top of my head: no extensions (no ReSharper, for example, no Nuget), no integrated source control, no memory/performance profiling, basic UX as compared to full VS - things like that. Xcode is a full-fledged development environment. Those things come standard in Xcode. VS Express, by comparison, is a kids toy. It is not a serious development environment. Microsoft also thought huge iPhone/iPad adoption rates was "at best unlikely". Yes, developers had embraced Windows over the past two decades, but that all started to change with iOS/Android. You cannot seriously believe that the world is the same, and that developer's attitudes towards Windows is the same. [$100 + 30/70 split] for iOS is a completely different story than [$49 + $479 + 30/70 split] for Windows. That price point is way to high to drive adoption. Don't take my word for it, though - wait until developers find how disappointing the development experience is with Express.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- smackfu 15y ago
  You can run VS on a Mac, you can't run XCode on a PC. So if you don't have a Mac, $4 doesn't quite cut it.
  - rbanffy 15y ago
    But if you are willing to pay US$ 500 for VS on a Mac, you should be willing to pay US$ 600 for Xcode when you have a PC. Plus, it comes with a free Mac Mini.
    - WayneDB 15y ago
      But you can get VS Express for free. The only major thing it doesn't have that VS Pro has is the plugin system, which XCode doesn't even have to begin with!
      - nupark2 15y ago
        Xcode provides the functionality you need by default, whereas you need plugins in VS just to get source control. There's also profiling support (not included in VSE), an x86-64 compiler (also not included), etc.
        WayneDB 15y ago
        You get Subversion and Git with Xcode and that's it. Exactly 2 choices. This is simply not a big deal in Windows where SCM can be directly integrated into the graphical file browser!! Furthermore, VS Express can easily be configured to support 64 bit compilation. http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1865069/compile-64-bit-app-with-vc-express-2010 http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1865069/compile-64-bit-ap...
        nupark2 15y ago
        > You get Subversion and Git with Xcode and that's it. Exactly 2 choices. Fortunately, those are the only too I need. I agree that Xcode would benefit plugins, but unlike VCE, the Xcode baseline is sufficient for my (and most people's) requirements. > This is simply not a big deal in Windows where SCM can be directly integrated into the graphical file browser!! Working with AVR Studio 5 (Visual Studio-based) and Visual Studio C++, I've found that IDE support for SVN makes a huge difference -- constantly falling back to TortoiseSVN is obtuse, annoying, and time consuming.
- Someone 15y ago
  Not really relevant for this discussion, but AFAIK, Xcode never has been prized at $4. It cost $4.99 for a while (when Mac OS X Lion was in beta), but it is free again (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xcode#4.x_series http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xcode#4.x_series)
- masklinn 15y ago
  > Well, why should I shell out $479 for VS when I can get Xcode for $4? $0 actually, the Xcode license is included in the OSX license. Xcode 4.0 (on Snow Leopard) was a bit of a special case, as it was a major Xcode release out of sync with OS releases and was thus sold for $5 as it was not covered by SL's Xcode 3 license[0], but it's gone back to free (and Lion only) as soon as Lion was released. [0] all of this is according to Apple's legal and accounting, who are apparently a bunch of nutcase fruit-fuckers.
  - chc 15y ago
    Apple got religion about Sarbanes-Oxley when they were struck with a couple of major accounting scandals in one year.
- MortenK 15y ago
  What do you mean Bizspark isn't enough? You get every single piece of development software, operative systems, hell even server software for free. How is that not enough?
EwanToo 15y ago
I'm not sure your comparison with Photoshop is great - Adobe aren't trying to get people to produce images specifically for sale in the "Adobe Photoshop Store", where Adobe would get a 20% cut of the sale price. In this case, if an app developed by these tools and sold by Microsoft is a hit, Microsoft will be taking money from both sides. Microsoft are free to do what they want, but if developers choose to use alternative platforms, then Microsoft lose out on the real profit centre of marketplace sales.
- dpark 15y ago
  There are and will continue to be (I would assume) free tools for developing for Windows, including Windows 8. The Express tools are quite capable of doing the job. If you need the extra power afforded by the full version of Visual Studio, then pay for it, because you probably aren't really a hobbyist at that point.
  - EwanToo 15y ago
    Some of the express tool limitations are quite surprising really, like the lake of source/revision control. You might only be a hobbyist, but source code control is still good practice. Either way, my point isn't really that the tools cost money, but that Microsoft will make more money from good quality apps being sold through their marketplace than they ever will do from sales of Visual studio to smaller developers. This is especially true given that Microsoft are willing to almost give away Visual Studio in small licence quantities if you sign up as a Microsoft business partner.
    - dpark 15y ago
      The lack of source control is not an unreasonable criticism. However, it's exclusion from Visual Studio Express does not stop a developer from using source control. > This is especially true given that Microsoft are willing to almost give away Visual Studio in small licence quantities if you sign up as a Microsoft business partner. I think you've hit on the issue. My guess is that Microsoft doesn't mind giving VS to you for free. What they mind is giving VS to most companies for free. And when you release the product as "free for personal use', it becomes a major pain to make sure companies actually pay for it. It's easier to have a normal price and make specific exceptions (DreamSpark, BizSpark, etc.).
johnbender 15y ago
> Why shouldn't hobbyists pay for tool? Developers are less likely (significantly so in my view) to invest their time in a platform that treats tinkerers and hobbyists as second class citizens by providing hamstrung free tools. I've always firmly believed that the MS development stack is both impressive technically and wonderful to work in. It seems to me they could have a much more vibrant open source and free application community if they gave away full copies of Visual Studio to individuals and continued to charge businesses.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

cgag 15y ago

Not getting into the visual studio thing, what's the logic behind charging someone to develop apps that you get a 70% (for the first 25k at least) cut from?

code_duck 15y ago
Similarly, Apple charges $100/year for the iOS Developer Program. At least Xcode is only $5.
thematt 15y ago
Probably because not everyone will sell the apps they developed using Visual Studio in "the store". Visual Studio is used by tons of enterprises for developing software that will not be sold directly to consumers.
dpark 15y ago
It's an intentional barrier to entry. Reviewing apps costs money. Charging a nominal fee limits the number of people who submit completed-broken or pointless apps.
ZeroGravitas 15y ago
I would have thought it's an incentive to not get banned, so preventing spammers etc. from just signing up for a million accounts as old ones get shut down.

Tangurena 15y ago

If you still maintain your college .edu email account, you could join Dreamspark and get a legit copy of Visual Studio Pro for free. If you're interested in XNA, while the regular XNA game studio is free, the student version lets you join App Hub for free (instead of the $99/year fee). https://www.dreamspark.com/default.aspx https://www.dreamspark.com/default.aspx

GFischer 15y ago
You can also sign up for the BizSpark program. http://www.microsoft.com/bizspark/ http://www.microsoft.com/bizspark/
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]

cobrausn 15y ago

The express version is free and is meant for hobbyists and individuals. If you were to form a small company, you might be able to get a bit more than that for free. http://altdevblogaday.com/2011/12/03/you-should-be-using-microsoft-bizspark/ http://altdevblogaday.com/2011/12/03/you-should-be-using-mic...

mattmanser 15y ago

The cheapest Visual Studio is totally free (Express). I don't mind MS trashing where's it's due (crap js & imgs for code snippets for example), but don't spout total nonsense. Also I paid nothing like the price you're quoting for my BizSpark subscription, MS offer different prices to startups. I believe there's a web focused one that's even cheaper, though I can't remember the name.

nupark2 15y ago
Express is hobbled; no plugins (so you can't use SVN/git plugins), and doesn't ship with things like the 64-bit compiler. It's basically trial-ware. I have no problem with paying for tools, especially for commercial product development. However, the price point is high for a hobbyist tool, and the free version is frustratingly hobbled. Given that I can use IntelliJ, Eclipse, and Xcode for free (Android/iOS) -- it will hurt broad adoption.

tobias3 15y ago

They don't want to undermine the market of Windows development tools. More choice leads to happier developers. Of course they could give them away for free and recuberate the costs somewhere else but then goodbye Borland (already happend ;) )