Re: Proposed MSDN Subscription Changes - VERY BAD!!!

From: Sean Hederman (usemy_at_blogentry.com)
Date: 03/26/05 

Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 23:32:44 +0200

"Eric" <Eric@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:%23tRx7nhMFHA.3512@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> news.microsoft.com wrote:
>> One of my points is also that we developers are also the ones who often
>> recommend the tools to use for development to various companies we do
>> work for. If we cannot evaluate the product, we cannot recommend it.
>
> Great point!
>
> But:
> 1) MS doesn't really care if you recommend it or not, based on the
> proposed pricing. They are targetting a high-end niche, and most of us
> aren't teally able to steer that segment of the market.

I think what he means is that independent consultants and ISV's often
recommend software to customers. I know that in the last 6 months my
personal recommendations have netted MS about $75,000. It's difficult to
advise people about software you don't have access to however. Due to the
new licensing options and costs, I'll be getting Professional for myself
when my current contractee's subscription expires. Whilst they have made
Professional more attractive, it means I won't have access to the
enterprise-level server tools. Therefore, when looking at enterprise level
software I'll have to consider looking at non-MS alternatives. When
providing advice for SDLC tools I won't be able to recommend VSTS. I've
heard talk about the 120-day trial, but frankly I feel that to put an SDLC
tool through it's paces one has to run it through a full dev cycle. I
certainly don't often get so lucky as to run through a project in under 120
days.

Now, I DO understand that VSTS is a developers product so it doesn't make
sense to provide it at cut rate to developers. However, most of the stuff I
was looking for was incidental to VSTS. I was under the impression that
Whidbey would be coming with a decent source control system, and built-in
defect tracking integration, along with testing and profiling tools.
Frankly, everything else is nice, but not neccesary. What I want to know is
why they couldn't just spent some time integrating tools like NCover, NUnit,
NProf and so forth into a coherent whole in Whidbey for the lower end of the
market. We've only been asking for something like that since VB4.

Another option would have been to provide the standard 5 CAL, 1 Server
license for Universal subscriptions. Then MS could charge a fortune for
extra CAL's. They wouldn't lose any revenue since the people/companies who
wouldn't need to purchase more CAL's wouldn't be buying VSTS anyway.
Instead, they've seriously irritated the small ISV's and consultants.
Another irritant has been the high-handed attitude coming out from MS that
us non-Enterprise developers don't actually need or use SDLC tools. Earth to
MS: we do, albeit we don't need massive systems like VSTS. I think the main
problem has been the whole way this was marketed. We were informed about all
the wonders of Team System for ages and ages, and not once did I hear it
mentioned that this was not going to be part of the standard MSDN package.
So make us drool, and then pull the rug from under our feet. I believe
that's the reason there's so much anger.

> 2) The very high "per seat" price puts this out of consideration for small
> or medium sized companies, anyway. It only makes sense for large
> companies. Large companies would likely have their own architects to
> evaluate the system, and they have enough discretionary money to buy
> licenses for evaluation purposes. I'd expect MS to give them free
> evaluation licenses also, depending on how much business they do with MS.
>
> It's fine with me if Microsoft targets a new high-end market segment that
> has not been well-served by VSS and Visio. I am happy that they're finally
> trying to compete in the full life-cycle arena, and they deserve to make a
> reasonable return on their investment.
>
> I'm sad that I won't be able to go down that road with them, but I
> understand the market segment they are targetting, and it not a segment I
> work in at this time.
>
> Eric

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Proposed MSDN Subscription Changes - VERY BAD!!!
    ... If we cannot evaluate the product, we cannot recommend it. ... > aren't teally able to steer that segment of the market. ... I DO understand that VSTS is a developers product so it doesn't make ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.framework)
  • Re: Proposed MSDN Subscription Changes - VERY BAD!!!
    ... If we cannot evaluate the product, we cannot recommend it. ... > aren't teally able to steer that segment of the market. ... I DO understand that VSTS is a developers product so it doesn't make ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.windowsforms)
  • Re: Proposed MSDN Subscription Changes - VERY BAD!!!
    ... If we cannot evaluate the product, we cannot recommend it. ... > aren't teally able to steer that segment of the market. ... I DO understand that VSTS is a developers product so it doesn't make ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.adonet)
  • Re: Proposed MSDN Subscription Changes - VERY BAD!!!
    ... If we cannot evaluate the product, we cannot recommend it. ... > aren't teally able to steer that segment of the market. ... I DO understand that VSTS is a developers product so it doesn't make ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.webservices)
  • Re: Proposed MSDN Subscription Changes - VERY BAD!!!
    ... it'd be a bit difficult to accuse MS of taking over a market ... > tools be included in a Microsoft product which is not VSTS, ... wanted is what's been on the top of every developers wish list since the ... The Enterprise SDLC market has been ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.clr)
Quantcast