8 ms·

Dear Developers, We Think You’re Idiots, XOXO...Microsoft

26 points by SamAtt 17y ago

RyanMcGreal 17y ago
> I think a lot of the 'economic disparity' between developing LAMP apps and developing Microsoft apps is imagined and I think $999 a year for three team members is actually a pretty good deal. Keep telling yourself that.
- donw 17y ago
  In the commercial software development world, it's an amazingly good deal. It comes with a four-CPU license for both your web and DB servers, full copies of Visual Studio Professional, and a small pile of other tools that would easily breech the $333/year/developer mark... if you used Microsoft technologies. I agree with the parent poster -- the wording and intent of this 'deal' are very, very different, and a bit insulting. But if you're already a Microsoft developer, it's still a hell of a deal. Sure, it locks you in to their software stack in the future, but if you were an ASP.NET developer before WebSpark, it's not like this will change anything there. What this does do, if you're a Microsoft developer, is let you take a chance at building a new company using your existing knowledge. Without having to shell out more than $100 to get all the software you might need. And I think that's a smart move for Microsoft.
  - RyanMcGreal 17y ago
    What you're saying is that this is a good deal for people who are already locked into Microsoft technologies. Sorry, but that's still a bit like saying being punched in the face twice is better than being punched in the face four times - and I write this as someone with a background in web development using Microsoft technologies.
    - nopassrecover 17y ago
      > What you're saying is that this is a good deal for people who are already locked into Microsoft technologies. No, this is about new companies. If you prefer using Microsoft technologies (e.g. C# and LINQ, MS SQL, ASP.NET MVC) Microsoft would like to take economic considerations out of the equation for new companies (same as they do with BizSpark).
      - TomOfTTB 17y ago
        For the record one of the points I was trying to (perhaps badly) make in the post (it's from my blog) is that I don't think it takes the economic considerations out of the equation. When I talk to developers their economic consideration is on the deployment side not on the development side. I don't think most people care that much about the cost of their developer tools as much as they care about the Windows 2008 license they'll need for every server
        nopassrecover 17y ago
        Fair points but if you (instead of your clients) are hosting code you will probably want to look to see if you're eligible for the BizSpark program which does include server licences. Alternatively, use an existing webhost.
  - pmorici 17y ago
    Microsoft is still going to make a fist full of money licensing the software that will have to run on the end customers production server. The $999 is only for development license.
nopassrecover 17y ago
This isn't about treating developers as idiots. It's about subsidising the cost of starting contracting/a new company using Microsoft technologies so that you can build up some profits before licensing costs become an issue.
- TomOfTTB 17y ago
  The question really is "who is the target of this program" If it's people who were already sold on Microsoft technology than it's just a nice thing to do. If they are trying to woo other developers away from open source solutions the approach they've taken comes across as "we think we're outsmarting you"
  - slackerIII 17y ago
    What if they are trying to appeal to people who need less than 3 years to decide if their business is going to be successful? If it is successful, the money won't matter. If it isn't, the money won't matter.
  - nopassrecover 17y ago
    I don't think anyone at Microsoft could seriously believe that a developer would base their entire business/consultant career on an unchecked belief that these near-free licences never expired. I think it's much more likely that they are trying to eliminate one reason new businesses/consultants may decide against using Microsoft tech (which their market research may have yielded). If they can make Microsoft tech accessible to startups, web dev agencies and solo web developers then that's a big step towards growing their dev popularity.
    - moe 17y ago
      that's a big step towards growing their dev popularity Looks more like a last straw to me. There's simply nothing they could realistically offer at this point to lure the web community into their walled garden. Dozens of OSS stacks are competing for mindshare. Microsoft is not even playing.
acg 17y ago
I have no doubt that this deal exists because this market is highly competitive with many solutions available for nothing. I wish Microsoft luck and hope that the competition continues. There will be some customers that this deal will be right for, and it will definitely help some startups.
pyre 17y ago
While it might be/seem deceptive, I think that anyone that decides to base their business off of these tools being free forever without bothering to read the fine print is in for a rude awakening of their own making. Microsoft has provided them with the information, just because they didn't bother to read past the headline is their own fault (the headline is meant to grab attention, not to impart 100% of necessary knowledge).
thismat 17y ago
Everyone fails to mention now much more advanced and nicer developing in VS is compared to any other platform. It's worth the money for a copy if you're a serious developer looking to use .NET, it's worth it even more now that there is little initial overhead. No, I don't work exclusively in .NET, I work in a variety of platforms, but now I have yet another service to offer clients and potential clients that is cost effective. Does everyone think that no matter what you're automatically locked into having only one stack to work from? Why not use whatever is ideal for the job at hand? EDIT: Also, you don't have to hate on Microsoft anymore, that's very 2003, instead of focusing on what is the negative, let's instead consider the positive moves they've made, and the quality development environment they've come up with.
- amackera 17y ago
  "Everyone fails to mention now much more advanced and nicer developing in VS is compared to any other platform." Everyone fails to mention that since it's completely a matter of personal opinion. I am of the opinion that you're dead wrong...
  - thismat 17y ago
    Yes, yes of course it's a matter of personal opinion. How much time have you spent in VS though, out of curiosity? I worded that post very poorly, but the point still stands that the integration, power and seamless feel to debugging in VS is unlike any other solution I've seen or used. Don't forget I use rails for almost all of my personal development, I love the environment and framework, BUT, tool for tool comparison after working fairly extensively with both, to me, it just doesn't have the same level of detail and polish. I don't get why people are so defensive of their environments, or why there is such bias and hate for the different environments.
- etherael 17y ago
  Currently trying to learn asp.net after a long and happy career in ruby on rails, django, grails, codeigniter based solutions. Find it very hard to believe you seriously think people actually "prefer" this? But I guess that just illustrates perfectly the fact that is entirely a matter of opinion, which is probably why it isn't often mentioned :)
duncanj 17y ago
This is called "puppy-dogging". You want to sell a puppy. The customer isn't sure he wants to shell out the money. So, you say, "Take the puppy home, and it's free for two weeks." It's obvious from there.

26 points by SamAtt 17y ago

> I think a lot of the 'economic disparity' between developing LAMP apps and developing Microsoft apps is imagined and I think $999 a year for three team members is actually a pretty good deal. Keep telling yourself that.

donw 17y ago
In the commercial software development world, it's an amazingly good deal. It comes with a four-CPU license for both your web and DB servers, full copies of Visual Studio Professional, and a small pile of other tools that would easily breech the $333/year/developer mark... if you used Microsoft technologies. I agree with the parent poster -- the wording and intent of this 'deal' are very, very different, and a bit insulting. But if you're already a Microsoft developer, it's still a hell of a deal. Sure, it locks you in to their software stack in the future, but if you were an ASP.NET developer before WebSpark, it's not like this will change anything there. What this does do, if you're a Microsoft developer, is let you take a chance at building a new company using your existing knowledge. Without having to shell out more than $100 to get all the software you might need. And I think that's a smart move for Microsoft.
- RyanMcGreal 17y ago
  What you're saying is that this is a good deal for people who are already locked into Microsoft technologies. Sorry, but that's still a bit like saying being punched in the face twice is better than being punched in the face four times - and I write this as someone with a background in web development using Microsoft technologies.
  - nopassrecover 17y ago
    > What you're saying is that this is a good deal for people who are already locked into Microsoft technologies. No, this is about new companies. If you prefer using Microsoft technologies (e.g. C# and LINQ, MS SQL, ASP.NET MVC) Microsoft would like to take economic considerations out of the equation for new companies (same as they do with BizSpark).
    - TomOfTTB 17y ago
      For the record one of the points I was trying to (perhaps badly) make in the post (it's from my blog) is that I don't think it takes the economic considerations out of the equation. When I talk to developers their economic consideration is on the deployment side not on the development side. I don't think most people care that much about the cost of their developer tools as much as they care about the Windows 2008 license they'll need for every server
      - nopassrecover 17y ago
        Fair points but if you (instead of your clients) are hosting code you will probably want to look to see if you're eligible for the BizSpark program which does include server licences. Alternatively, use an existing webhost.
- pmorici 17y ago
  Microsoft is still going to make a fist full of money licensing the software that will have to run on the end customers production server. The $999 is only for development license.

nopassrecover 17y ago

This isn't about treating developers as idiots. It's about subsidising the cost of starting contracting/a new company using Microsoft technologies so that you can build up some profits before licensing costs become an issue.

TomOfTTB 17y ago
The question really is "who is the target of this program" If it's people who were already sold on Microsoft technology than it's just a nice thing to do. If they are trying to woo other developers away from open source solutions the approach they've taken comes across as "we think we're outsmarting you"
- slackerIII 17y ago
  What if they are trying to appeal to people who need less than 3 years to decide if their business is going to be successful? If it is successful, the money won't matter. If it isn't, the money won't matter.
- nopassrecover 17y ago
  I don't think anyone at Microsoft could seriously believe that a developer would base their entire business/consultant career on an unchecked belief that these near-free licences never expired. I think it's much more likely that they are trying to eliminate one reason new businesses/consultants may decide against using Microsoft tech (which their market research may have yielded). If they can make Microsoft tech accessible to startups, web dev agencies and solo web developers then that's a big step towards growing their dev popularity.
  - moe 17y ago
    that's a big step towards growing their dev popularity Looks more like a last straw to me. There's simply nothing they could realistically offer at this point to lure the web community into their walled garden. Dozens of OSS stacks are competing for mindshare. Microsoft is not even playing.

acg 17y ago

I have no doubt that this deal exists because this market is highly competitive with many solutions available for nothing. I wish Microsoft luck and hope that the competition continues. There will be some customers that this deal will be right for, and it will definitely help some startups.

pyre 17y ago

While it might be/seem deceptive, I think that anyone that decides to base their business off of these tools being free forever without bothering to read the fine print is in for a rude awakening of their own making. Microsoft has provided them with the information, just because they didn't bother to read past the headline is their own fault (the headline is meant to grab attention, not to impart 100% of necessary knowledge).

thismat 17y ago

Everyone fails to mention now much more advanced and nicer developing in VS is compared to any other platform. It's worth the money for a copy if you're a serious developer looking to use .NET, it's worth it even more now that there is little initial overhead. No, I don't work exclusively in .NET, I work in a variety of platforms, but now I have yet another service to offer clients and potential clients that is cost effective. Does everyone think that no matter what you're automatically locked into having only one stack to work from? Why not use whatever is ideal for the job at hand? EDIT: Also, you don't have to hate on Microsoft anymore, that's very 2003, instead of focusing on what is the negative, let's instead consider the positive moves they've made, and the quality development environment they've come up with.

amackera 17y ago
"Everyone fails to mention now much more advanced and nicer developing in VS is compared to any other platform." Everyone fails to mention that since it's completely a matter of personal opinion. I am of the opinion that you're dead wrong...
- thismat 17y ago
  Yes, yes of course it's a matter of personal opinion. How much time have you spent in VS though, out of curiosity? I worded that post very poorly, but the point still stands that the integration, power and seamless feel to debugging in VS is unlike any other solution I've seen or used. Don't forget I use rails for almost all of my personal development, I love the environment and framework, BUT, tool for tool comparison after working fairly extensively with both, to me, it just doesn't have the same level of detail and polish. I don't get why people are so defensive of their environments, or why there is such bias and hate for the different environments.
etherael 17y ago
Currently trying to learn asp.net after a long and happy career in ruby on rails, django, grails, codeigniter based solutions. Find it very hard to believe you seriously think people actually "prefer" this? But I guess that just illustrates perfectly the fact that is entirely a matter of opinion, which is probably why it isn't often mentioned :)

duncanj 17y ago

This is called "puppy-dogging". You want to sell a puppy. The customer isn't sure he wants to shell out the money. So, you say, "Take the puppy home, and it's free for two weeks." It's obvious from there.