4 ms·

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 indicat

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.
      - WayneDB 15y ago
        "Xcode is a fully-fledged development environment" - which lacks even the most basic plug-in system! Furthermore, on the far more extensible Windows OS, you can integrate source control into Windows Explorer...another program with a plugin system where Apple offers none. For Memory/Performance profiling, go choose one of the many FREE tools available for Windows - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_performance_analysis_tools http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_performance_analysis_to... What are you left with? What does "basic UX" even mean?
      - dpark 15y ago
        How can you complain about the price of VS when you want to drop in a $200 extension? Seriously? I agree those things are nice to have. I don't see that any of them are truly critical, though. The lack of these features is not crippling. > Microsoft also thought huge iPhone/iPad adoption rates was "at best unlikely". Doesn't that go against your argument? Didn't the iPhone prove that developers were very willing to pay to develops apps? > [$100 + 30/70 split] for iOS is a completely different story than [$49 + $479 + 30/70 split] for Windows. You keep insisting that the full version of VS is necessary, but that simply isn't true, and repeating it over and over again will not make it true.
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?

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.
    - WayneDB 15y ago
      "Xcode is a fully-fledged development environment" - which lacks even the most basic plug-in system! Furthermore, on the far more extensible Windows OS, you can integrate source control into Windows Explorer...another program with a plugin system where Apple offers none. For Memory/Performance profiling, go choose one of the many FREE tools available for Windows - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_performance_analysis_tools http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_performance_analysis_to... What are you left with? What does "basic UX" even mean?
    - dpark 15y ago
      How can you complain about the price of VS when you want to drop in a $200 extension? Seriously? I agree those things are nice to have. I don't see that any of them are truly critical, though. The lack of these features is not crippling. > Microsoft also thought huge iPhone/iPad adoption rates was "at best unlikely". Doesn't that go against your argument? Didn't the iPhone prove that developers were very willing to pay to develops apps? > [$100 + 30/70 split] for iOS is a completely different story than [$49 + $479 + 30/70 split] for Windows. You keep insisting that the full version of VS is necessary, but that simply isn't true, and repeating it over and over again will not make it true.

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?