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

From: Juan T. Llibre (nomailreplies_at_nowhere.com)
Date: 03/27/05 

Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 23:34:10 -0400

re:
> 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.

Because if they did that, they'd be accused of undermining
those products, and establishing a monopoly ?

You'd do well to take a look at :
http://dotnetjunkies.com/WebLog/christopherbowen/archive/2004/06/07/15677.aspx
and see how many products are touched by VSTS.

I have a feeling those are many more products than you've given
consideration to, and that the developers who are working on them
might not feel the same way you do when you demand that similar
tools be included in a Microsoft product which is not VSTS,
and which -furthermore- is available at a very low price.

I know it's easy to demand lots of tools at a very cheap price,
but the plain fact is that you can have most of those tools for
*no price at all*, or for a lot less than what VSTS will cost.

If you need to have Enterprise features, you will need to pay for them,
since providing Enterprise tools to developers who are not a part of
Enterprise teams, and who want to have Enterprise tools for cheap,
doesn't make much sense, business-wise.

If a developer has need for less features than VSTS,
that developer can always buy VS.NET "Standard"
for about $300. That's not a bad deal.

Home enthusiasts and small developers will even be able
to purchase Visual Web Developer or any of the Express
line of products for just $49, which is a great deal!

As far as VS, if "Standard" is not enough, then "Professional" might do.
They will, both, be considerably cheaper that VSTS.

What you can't expect is that Enterprise-level
Team Tools be available on the cheap plan.

Juan T. Llibre
ASP.NET MVP
http://asp.net.do/foros/
Foros de ASP.NET en Espaņol
Ven, y hablemos de ASP.NET...
======================

"Sean Hederman" <usemy@blogentry.com> wrote in message
news:d24kdo$bki$1@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
> "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!!!
    ... and that the developers who are working on them ... tools be included in a Microsoft product which is not VSTS, ... If you need to have Enterprise features, you will need to pay for them, ... >> aren't teally able to steer that segment of the market. ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.webservices)
  • Re: Proposed MSDN Subscription Changes - VERY BAD!!!
    ... and that the developers who are working on them ... tools be included in a Microsoft product which is not VSTS, ... If you need to have Enterprise features, you will need to pay for them, ... >> aren't teally able to steer that segment of the market. ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.framework)
  • Re: Proposed MSDN Subscription Changes - VERY BAD!!!
    ... and that the developers who are working on them ... tools be included in a Microsoft product which is not VSTS, ... If you need to have Enterprise features, you will need to pay for them, ... >> aren't teally able to steer that segment of the market. ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.windowsforms)
  • Re: Proposed MSDN Subscription Changes - VERY BAD!!!
    ... and that the developers who are working on them ... tools be included in a Microsoft product which is not VSTS, ... If you need to have Enterprise features, you will need to pay for them, ... >> aren't teally able to steer that segment of the market. ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.adonet)
  • 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.webservices)
Quantcast