7 ms·

You mean they receive Microsoft's software for free for 3 years, after which they get a discounted price for 2 years as an "alumni", after which they have to pa

by pzxc 12y ago

You mean they receive Microsoft's software for free for 3 years, after which they get a discounted price for 2 years as an "alumni", after which they have to pay full price now they are fully on your stack and have large switching costs. I'm not buying that Trojan horse.

atwebb 12y ago
Isn't that information made clear up front so that a company can make an informed decision? Maybe it'd be an apt comparison if the Trojan's put a big sign on the front saying: "Acceptance of this horse constitutes acceptance of a (up till now) secret invasion"
peripitea 12y ago
If you're starting a business, "what will our operating costs be in 3-5 years?" is just about the last thing you should be worried about. In fact, I'd guess that most new business owners would love to end up facing that problem. I certainly would. Plus, it's not like they gouge you after 5 years; Microsoft has a strong incentive to keep its products/services competitively priced. I'm far from a Microsoft fan, but I fail to see how BizSpark is anything but a huge boon to the startup/small business community.
- rbanffy 12y ago
  > I fail to see how BizSpark is anything but a huge boon to the startup/small business community. For starters, it encourages a bad habit: using the Microsoft stack and deploying on Windows. Unless you are significantly more productive by using this toolset, I'd advise against it. Having said that, most startups fail, so, chances are using Windows will not be a problem 3-5 years down the road.
  - uvTwitch 12y ago
    >a bad habit: using the Microsoft stack and deploying on Windows this is not "a bad habit"
    - slowmotiony 12y ago
      Seems like it is on HN, just like basically everything else that isn't open source.
  - sliverstorm 12y ago
    Aren't all three bad choices? - Windows: proprietary, hard(ish?) to scale. BizSpark. - Linux: Finicky, spend time & money getting it working right. Scales well. - Apple: Expensive. Nice. I'm not a startup guy, but I can easily picture a world in which Apple is chosen by the massively-funded, Linux is chosen by the scaling-is-our-business-model, and Windows is chosen by the get-off-the-ground-first lean (curiously enough) thanks to BizSpark. FWIW my terminal is Windows, and my datacenter is *nix.
    - markovbling 12y ago
      there's a Starcraft analogy in there somewhere
    - tracker1 12y ago
      Windows isn't particularly more difficult to scale than Linux. A lot of tooling that you would use to scale in Linux is also available in Windows. The cost of such scaling either horizontally or vertically is another issue altogether. I actually like a lot of things when it comes to windows, and dislike a lot with Linux. That said, I'm still targeting Linux for next-generation app development... When you need to have 3-5 servers for your data and application layers, the price of MS's stack is a bigger difference here. It really depends on your situation though.. if you have a need for small LOB apps, or even a SaaS that can work in Azure deployments, using BizSpark and sticking to MS isn't a bad option. Apple may be used by the developers, but depending on your business need, you really aren't deploying to apple servers.
    - rbanffy 12y ago
      > - Linux: Finicky, spend time & money getting it working right.... Not if you know what you are doing. I find it easier, cheaper and faster to deploy Linux applications than it is to boot a Windows server, apply updates, secure it and install your application (and keep it updated). I know it can all be done - and automated to a large extent - with Microsoft admin tools, but it still takes longer than spinning up a new Debian, Ubuntu or CentOS server and doing the same steps. The ecosystem is just not there. And since you don't need to worry about licensing costs, you can deploy as many machines as you need and make them role-specific, lighter and individually simpler. > - Apple: Expensive. Nice. Expensive is relative. My previous MacBook was still solid after five years. No Lenovo/Dell/HP has that kind of build quality at a lower price and the ones that have that build are uglier and more expensive than their Apple counterparts. I agree if you need a fingerprint or smartcard reader, you can't go with Apple, but those are specific needs. Spreading the cost of a Mac over its useful life makes it look more attractive than a PC. Plus, it has a very developer-friendly OS if you are not developing for Windows. Also, Apple makes desktop machines. My comment was mostly about BizSpark's server side.
  - numo16 12y ago
    > For starters, it encourages a bad habit: using the Microsoft stack and deploying on Windows. Or, you know, just using the Azure portion of the program and deploying in any language with any database implementation to linux VMs with docker.
    - rbanffy 12y ago
      Like I said, more often than not the problems that may appear if the BizSpark-powered startup succeeds will never happen, because most startups don't.
- teacup50 12y ago
  As someone who has started a business, that's insane. Of course you should worry about what your operating costs will be in 3-5 years. If you don't need to swallow a potential poison pill that could seriously impact your maneuverability at a critical juncture (yes, that includes 3-5 years in), WHY would you?
  - untog 12y ago
    Depends what kind of business. If you're a rapid growing startup then I imagine you expect your company to have been bought long before 3-5 years.
    - teacup50 12y ago
      And 9/10 times, you'll be a crater in the ground instead.
- diltonm 12y ago
  >> what will our operating costs be in 3-5 years? That is exactly what you need to be thinking about. As much money as Microsoft makes on consumers backs and then they lay these traps for would be small business developers. There's a reason why rich people try to avoid paying for their lunch.
  - stormbrew 12y ago
    Yes, you should be thinking 3-5 years ahead. And if you're thinking that far ahead, you'll amortize the free 3 years with the 2 years after in which you pay and come out with a true cost. You might even work in the odds that you'll be in business and/or have sold out in that time along with some estimate of switching costs to other technology (which might actually be low if you mainly use Azure). I don't know if it still comes out as worth it, but that's what you have to figure out. A kneejerk "I'll be paying for this in 3 years so I shouldn't take advantage of it being free now" isn't exactly the most rational response either.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
  - rtpg 12y ago
    I get the general feeling, but VS licenses are not what going to cause your startup to go bankrupt. People's salaries are an order of magnitude bigger, to say the least.
blumkvist 12y ago
Oh only 3 years of free software and services... Nobody should want that...
- melling 12y ago
  Well, if the other option is a lifetime of free software...
  - cwyers 12y ago
    As everyone likes to point out, Linux is free as in speech, not free as in beer. There's a reason many people shell out money to the likes of Red Hat when they run their business on libre software.
    - melling 12y ago
      Sure, people pay for support where they need it. If you've got a critical box, it's probably a good idea.
whyaduck 12y ago
VS Pro with MSDN is under $1000 (the bare tool's much less) - if your engineers are 1% more efficient using VS rather than whatever the alternative is, then it's paid for.
- shakethemonkey 12y ago
  Developing for Android, the likelihood is actually they will be less efficient. Generally when developing for a target use the same tools that most people use for it; the probability of someone having encountered the your particular problems and already solved them for you on StackOverflow is so much higher.
alkonaut 12y ago
Now the community IDE will be free as long as your team is <5. So the "risk" here is a startup surviving 3 years and being more than 5 employees? At that point I'd say the cost of buying some IDE:s is pretty small. If going with this platform makes the team just a few percent more productive then it's probably worth it. The "stack" doesn't cost anything extra as long as you don't do something silly like host on your own windows server machines, or use sql server.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
felixrieseberg 12y ago
This keeps coming up, so let me make this super clear: While access to the download expires after three years, all software downloaded up to that point remains your property, including the licenses. Even for the exception, Windows Server, you'll get four production licenses as a farewell gift. Given that StackOverflow runs on 25 Windows Servers, this can't be a bad deal.
pjmlp 12y ago
Microsoft prices are discussed all the time in HN, but they are actually quite competitive. Yes, in the age of open source it is great to build business using software for free[1]. However, when I compare with other commercial players that you need to call for prices, Microsoft is quite good. [1] Assuming engineers' salary spent on support doesn't count.

by pzxc 12y ago

atwebb 12y ago

Isn't that information made clear up front so that a company can make an informed decision? Maybe it'd be an apt comparison if the Trojan's put a big sign on the front saying: "Acceptance of this horse constitutes acceptance of a (up till now) secret invasion"

peripitea 12y ago

If you're starting a business, "what will our operating costs be in 3-5 years?" is just about the last thing you should be worried about. In fact, I'd guess that most new business owners would love to end up facing that problem. I certainly would. Plus, it's not like they gouge you after 5 years; Microsoft has a strong incentive to keep its products/services competitively priced. I'm far from a Microsoft fan, but I fail to see how BizSpark is anything but a huge boon to the startup/small business community.

rbanffy 12y ago
> I fail to see how BizSpark is anything but a huge boon to the startup/small business community. For starters, it encourages a bad habit: using the Microsoft stack and deploying on Windows. Unless you are significantly more productive by using this toolset, I'd advise against it. Having said that, most startups fail, so, chances are using Windows will not be a problem 3-5 years down the road.
- uvTwitch 12y ago
  >a bad habit: using the Microsoft stack and deploying on Windows this is not "a bad habit"
  - slowmotiony 12y ago
    Seems like it is on HN, just like basically everything else that isn't open source.
- sliverstorm 12y ago
  Aren't all three bad choices? - Windows: proprietary, hard(ish?) to scale. BizSpark. - Linux: Finicky, spend time & money getting it working right. Scales well. - Apple: Expensive. Nice. I'm not a startup guy, but I can easily picture a world in which Apple is chosen by the massively-funded, Linux is chosen by the scaling-is-our-business-model, and Windows is chosen by the get-off-the-ground-first lean (curiously enough) thanks to BizSpark. FWIW my terminal is Windows, and my datacenter is *nix.
  - markovbling 12y ago
    there's a Starcraft analogy in there somewhere
  - tracker1 12y ago
    Windows isn't particularly more difficult to scale than Linux. A lot of tooling that you would use to scale in Linux is also available in Windows. The cost of such scaling either horizontally or vertically is another issue altogether. I actually like a lot of things when it comes to windows, and dislike a lot with Linux. That said, I'm still targeting Linux for next-generation app development... When you need to have 3-5 servers for your data and application layers, the price of MS's stack is a bigger difference here. It really depends on your situation though.. if you have a need for small LOB apps, or even a SaaS that can work in Azure deployments, using BizSpark and sticking to MS isn't a bad option. Apple may be used by the developers, but depending on your business need, you really aren't deploying to apple servers.
  - rbanffy 12y ago
    > - Linux: Finicky, spend time & money getting it working right.... Not if you know what you are doing. I find it easier, cheaper and faster to deploy Linux applications than it is to boot a Windows server, apply updates, secure it and install your application (and keep it updated). I know it can all be done - and automated to a large extent - with Microsoft admin tools, but it still takes longer than spinning up a new Debian, Ubuntu or CentOS server and doing the same steps. The ecosystem is just not there. And since you don't need to worry about licensing costs, you can deploy as many machines as you need and make them role-specific, lighter and individually simpler. > - Apple: Expensive. Nice. Expensive is relative. My previous MacBook was still solid after five years. No Lenovo/Dell/HP has that kind of build quality at a lower price and the ones that have that build are uglier and more expensive than their Apple counterparts. I agree if you need a fingerprint or smartcard reader, you can't go with Apple, but those are specific needs. Spreading the cost of a Mac over its useful life makes it look more attractive than a PC. Plus, it has a very developer-friendly OS if you are not developing for Windows. Also, Apple makes desktop machines. My comment was mostly about BizSpark's server side.
- numo16 12y ago
  > For starters, it encourages a bad habit: using the Microsoft stack and deploying on Windows. Or, you know, just using the Azure portion of the program and deploying in any language with any database implementation to linux VMs with docker.
  - rbanffy 12y ago
    Like I said, more often than not the problems that may appear if the BizSpark-powered startup succeeds will never happen, because most startups don't.
teacup50 12y ago
As someone who has started a business, that's insane. Of course you should worry about what your operating costs will be in 3-5 years. If you don't need to swallow a potential poison pill that could seriously impact your maneuverability at a critical juncture (yes, that includes 3-5 years in), WHY would you?
- untog 12y ago
  Depends what kind of business. If you're a rapid growing startup then I imagine you expect your company to have been bought long before 3-5 years.
  - teacup50 12y ago
    And 9/10 times, you'll be a crater in the ground instead.
diltonm 12y ago
>> what will our operating costs be in 3-5 years? That is exactly what you need to be thinking about. As much money as Microsoft makes on consumers backs and then they lay these traps for would be small business developers. There's a reason why rich people try to avoid paying for their lunch.
- stormbrew 12y ago
  Yes, you should be thinking 3-5 years ahead. And if you're thinking that far ahead, you'll amortize the free 3 years with the 2 years after in which you pay and come out with a true cost. You might even work in the odds that you'll be in business and/or have sold out in that time along with some estimate of switching costs to other technology (which might actually be low if you mainly use Azure). I don't know if it still comes out as worth it, but that's what you have to figure out. A kneejerk "I'll be paying for this in 3 years so I shouldn't take advantage of it being free now" isn't exactly the most rational response either.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
- rtpg 12y ago
  I get the general feeling, but VS licenses are not what going to cause your startup to go bankrupt. People's salaries are an order of magnitude bigger, to say the least.

blumkvist 12y ago

Oh only 3 years of free software and services... Nobody should want that...

melling 12y ago
Well, if the other option is a lifetime of free software...
- cwyers 12y ago
  As everyone likes to point out, Linux is free as in speech, not free as in beer. There's a reason many people shell out money to the likes of Red Hat when they run their business on libre software.
  - melling 12y ago
    Sure, people pay for support where they need it. If you've got a critical box, it's probably a good idea.

whyaduck 12y ago

VS Pro with MSDN is under $1000 (the bare tool's much less) - if your engineers are 1% more efficient using VS rather than whatever the alternative is, then it's paid for.

shakethemonkey 12y ago
Developing for Android, the likelihood is actually they will be less efficient. Generally when developing for a target use the same tools that most people use for it; the probability of someone having encountered the your particular problems and already solved them for you on StackOverflow is so much higher.

alkonaut 12y ago

Now the community IDE will be free as long as your team is <5. So the "risk" here is a startup surviving 3 years and being more than 5 employees? At that point I'd say the cost of buying some IDE:s is pretty small. If going with this platform makes the team just a few percent more productive then it's probably worth it. The "stack" doesn't cost anything extra as long as you don't do something silly like host on your own windows server machines, or use sql server.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

felixrieseberg 12y ago

This keeps coming up, so let me make this super clear: While access to the download expires after three years, all software downloaded up to that point remains your property, including the licenses. Even for the exception, Windows Server, you'll get four production licenses as a farewell gift. Given that StackOverflow runs on 25 Windows Servers, this can't be a bad deal.

pjmlp 12y ago

Microsoft prices are discussed all the time in HN, but they are actually quite competitive. Yes, in the age of open source it is great to build business using software for free[1]. However, when I compare with other commercial players that you need to call for prices, Microsoft is quite good. [1] Assuming engineers' salary spent on support doesn't count.