4 ms·

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:

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.
    - nupark2 15y ago
      > Doesn't that go against your argument? Didn't the iPhone prove that developers were very willing to pay to develops apps? $99. And only after being able to play with the full/complete development tools and simulator for free. If that's what Visual Studio cost, I'd pay it now. > 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. As an non-MS developer that's just now working with Windows 7 and Visual Studio (C++, and the AVR Studio 5 that's built on top of the VS shell), I can state definitively that the full version is necessary to get any real work done. At the very least, I need VCS integration, a profiler, and an x86-64 compiler.
      - dpark 15y ago
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
- king_magic 15y ago
  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. edit: - to be fair, Xcode doesn't seem to have a plugin system, but Xcode still is far more capable than Express.
  - JonoW 15y ago
    Correction - you can use NuGet with VS Express. One thing to consider about costs; to use a $4 version of xcode you have to buy a Mac, so the price differential is probably not as much as you are making out. I use VS professional at work, VS Express at home, the difference is not that great (only thing I miss is ReSharper, but even that is expensive, about $150 I think)
    - king_magic 15y ago
      Having to buy a Mac is a good point. I did not think about that.

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.
  - nupark2 15y ago
    > Doesn't that go against your argument? Didn't the iPhone prove that developers were very willing to pay to develops apps? $99. And only after being able to play with the full/complete development tools and simulator for free. If that's what Visual Studio cost, I'd pay it now. > 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. As an non-MS developer that's just now working with Windows 7 and Visual Studio (C++, and the AVR Studio 5 that's built on top of the VS shell), I can state definitively that the full version is necessary to get any real work done. At the very least, I need VCS integration, a profiler, and an x86-64 compiler.
    - dpark 15y ago

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

king_magic 15y ago
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. edit: - to be fair, Xcode doesn't seem to have a plugin system, but Xcode still is far more capable than Express.
- JonoW 15y ago
  Correction - you can use NuGet with VS Express. One thing to consider about costs; to use a $4 version of xcode you have to buy a Mac, so the price differential is probably not as much as you are making out. I use VS professional at work, VS Express at home, the difference is not that great (only thing I miss is ReSharper, but even that is expensive, about $150 I think)
  - king_magic 15y ago
    Having to buy a Mac is a good point. I did not think about that.