Re: VS.NET is too EXPENSIVE. Developers switching rapidly from it.
From: Ed Kaim [MSFT] (edkaim_at_online.microsoft.com)
Date: 03/29/04
- Next message: Daniel Rudy: "Re: VS.NET is too EXPENSIVE. Developers switching rapidly from it."
- Previous message: Ed Kaim [MSFT]: "Re: VS.NET is too EXPENSIVE. Developers switching rapidly from it."
- In reply to: Mike Cox: "Re: VS.NET is too EXPENSIVE. Developers switching rapidly from it."
- Next in thread: Frans Bouma: "Re: VS.NET is too EXPENSIVE. Developers switching rapidly from it."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 00:58:38 -0800
> My company will switch to whatever makes them competitive.
Absolutely. If you feel that your company will be more competitive than
others because you've decided to save a few thousand dollars and not use the
most productive tools available, then it's a decision you'll have to live
with. Until productivity is valued as highly as cost, corners will be cut
and quality and/or time-to-market will suffer.
"Mike Cox" <mikecoxlinux@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c47g6f$2f8qjt$1@ID-222658.news.uni-berlin.de...
> In article <#R#npSQFEHA.2768@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl>, "Ed Kaim [MSFT]"
> <edkaim@online.microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>
> > I'm going to address the inaccurate anti-Microsoft issues in this post.
> > I'm not going to bite on any of the Linux-based flamebait.
> >> I'm a big fan of .NET and Visual Studio.NET. But at my company, we are
> >> going to switch to Linux because, quite frankly, VS.NET costs way too
> >> much in light of the huge competition from Linux. After all, in order
> >> for MS to be successful it needs a large group of developers.
> > If your company is considering a switch to Linux because you feel the
> > cost of developer tools is too high then you may want to consider doing
> > some more research before making a final decision.
>
> It is not just the developer tools. Developers should be a loss-leader
> if Microsoft wants people to use Windows and .NET. We have some linux
> guys here at work who are showing managment that linux can do the same
> thing as Windows in terms of COM, .NET, and win32 via WINE.
>
> No one is using Borland, and Oracle Internet Developer. Websphere is not
> used by very many medium sized companies.
>
> >> At my company, I'm an MS proponent, but I have LOST the battle in terms
> >> of justifiying the cost of using Visual Studio when there are free
> >> Linux alternatives. My company won't use Visual Studio.NET stuff for
> >> internal use because of its cost. Why should management spend thousands
> >> of dollars per year for MSDN and VS.NET per developer when it can just
> >> use Open Source software and documentation for free?
> > Microsoft provides the SDKs for free. Microsoft provides Web development
> > tools for free. Microsoft provides millions of lines of sample source
> > code (and complete projects) and all documentation for free. You don't
> > have to pay a dime to build apps for Microsoft's platform. If you feel
> > you need Visual Studio, as millions of developers do, then there is cost
> > because Microsoft has to invest in making it better. Much of that cost
> > goes towards product servicing. If you can live without the drastic
> > boost in productivity, support from hundreds of tools partners, and
> > official technical support with a well-defined roadmap, then it's harder
> > to make the case. The only really effective arguments you could make for
> > not using Visual Studio would be if you need to build cross-platform
> > client applications or if you're trying to take the company down from
> > the inside.
> >> Especially considering the fact that g++ is really standards compliant,
> > Is it more standards-compliant than Visual C++? Look it up--you may be
> > surprised. Also see how many 100% ANSI-compliant C++ compilers you can
> > find, if any.
> >
> >> and that there is ACE+TAO for CORBA development.
> > Yes, but most new development is using standards-compliant Web services
> > for integration & remoting. Visual Studio excels in Web services
> > development.
> >> There is
> >> troll tech for GUI app development which is completely cross-platform,
> >> and you can choose the license you want, GPL or commercial.
> > You can choose to license software you build with Visual Studio under
> > whatever license you want.
> >
> >> There is
> >> even mono and eclipse for .NET development.
> > Yes--but this doesn't support the claim you make about why the cost of
> > Visual Studio if making you move to Linux.
> >> Why does anyone need Microsoft Visual Studio.NET and MSDN then?
> >> Especially when it costs thousands per yer for one developer? I can't
> >> make the cost argument, and there aren't any Visual Studio.NET
> >> installations at my company, only VS 6.0, and any upgrades that happen
> >> will be to Linux.
> > Let's say the typical developer costs around $120,000 per year (which
> > includes salary, benefits, equipment, training, and all other employee
> > costs). In order tyo justify that employee, they must produce more than
> > that in some way. It could be the development of a small app that helps
> > information workers get projects completed faster or their contributions
> > to the company's flagship software product. Either way, the faster and
> > more effective they can be as a developer, the more value they provide
> > to the company. If someone said "we can increase developer productivity
> > by 5% (by having all the software on DVDs in the office and reducing the
> > code used to integrate it), but it'll cost us an extra 3% ($2,799 for a
> > new MSDN Universal subscription)", then most companies would be
> > thrilled. With Visual Studio .NET and MSDN, developer productivity can
> > be drastically improved in this way. In fact, many of the case studies
> > have shown that development productivity reduces product cycles by more
> > than half and project quality has increased substantially. You can
> > search http://www.microsoft.com/casestudies to find an example similar
> > to what your comapny does.
>
> Developers do not cost 120,000 dollars. Half my company's developers are
> in India where they cost about 15,000 dollars. The other half are in the
> US, where the average programer makes 41,000 dollars and the support
> costs are about 12,000 including Health insurance.
>
> Remember that the development tools are just the tip of the iceberg. You
> still have to buy win2003, MS SQL Server, Exchange, and the Windows
> clients CALs, the Windows Desktops.
>
> Management only cares about the bottom line. The linux guys here are
showing
> reports of how much we would save by switching to Linux. Now it does
> pretty much everything Windows does.
>
> Microsoft needs to get its prices in line so that the cost of switching
> would be a bit more than what Microsoft products cost. The cost of
> switching is basically employee retraining and some recoding.
>
> >
> >> But all is not lost. If you follow my pricing guide lines, you will
> >> see people stay or convert to VS.NET. I am in the trenches so I know
> >> what is going on. Here are my price ideas for VS.NET:
> >>
> >> Visual Studio.NET Professional: 129 dollars Visual Studio.NET
> >> Enterprise : 199 dollars MSDN (The Enterprise version) : 125 dollars
> >> per year. VS C# Basic Edition: 29 dollars.
> > Thank you for your feedback, but I don't think this would be a
> > justifiable business model. I am also in the trenches every day and have
> > seen a huge percentage of developers upgrade already while MSDN
> > subscribers automatically upgrade as part of their license. When you
> > look at the online pricing of alternative offerings, Visual Studio
> > pricing is very fair. IBM's Websphere Enterprise Developer: $6,177
> > Oracle's Internet Developer Suite: $5,000 Borland's JBuilder X
> > Enterprise: $3,500 Microsoft's MSDN Universal (which has more than just
> > tools): $2,799
>
> Microsoft is not looking at the competition clearly then. You aren't
> competing against Oracle Internet Developer Suite, or Borland's JBuilder.
> These are practiacally dead, and have limited users in my experience.
> Websphere is used more, but not by that much.
>
> Microsoft has a huge market share. It always won by being the low-cost
> competitor similar to walmart. Why can't Microsoft use economies of
> scale to make a profit but still sell their product at a competitive
> price? Remember, those other development tools are either pretty much
> dead (Borland) or are not used as widly (Websphere) so their high cost is
> probably more justified because of their lack of users. Those people
> using them are probably paying the premuim not to use Micorosft products
> for whatever zealot reasons.
>
> Don' t let this issue be another Internet! Microsoft has lots of
> supporters, but we can't champion MS if the costs are not right. Maybe
> after you beat Linux and get longhorn up and running, you can raise the
> prices, but right now I'm seeing a lot of people looking at other
> options. Especially those burned by Licensing 6.0.
>
> I have Linux on my desktop as part of my re-training, and kde is looking
> really nice, and with my com knowledge, CORBA is a piece of cake(CORBA is
> a bit nicer than COM). I'm compliling .NET apps with C# with Mono. Even
> I'm compelled to see the linux guys case. Why would I spend 2 grand on
> something when I could just switch in a few days and get the same
> functionality for free? the 2 grand per workstation justifies the cost.
> 199 dollars would not.
>
> I can see how having 50 billion dollars would insulate a company from
> market realities, but not all companies are that fortunate. Don't let
> this be another internet where MS has to turn on a dime. Price VS.NET so
> it is cheaper to stay on it than switch, because once someone switches
> there is no reason to go back because you never *have* to pay for linux
> if you don't want to.
>
> Once Palladium (NGSCB) is out of course unsigned code like linux won't
> run, but if enough people are on linux, the NGSCB may be stillborn. Just
> be competitive price-wise until longhorn and DRM are out. Why should my
> company have to battle someone with lower costs because they use linux?
> My company will switch to whatever makes them competitive.
>
> > "Mike Cox" <mikecoxlinux@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:3d6111f1.0403281012.7877707f@posting.google.com...
> >> I'm a big fan of .NET and Visual Studio.NET. But at my company, we are
> >> going to switch to Linux because, quite frankly, VS.NET costs way too
> >> much in light of the huge competition from Linux. After all, in order
> >> for MS to be successful it needs a large group of developers.
> >>
> >> At my company, I'm an MS proponent, but I have LOST the battle in
> >> terms of justifiying the cost of using Visual Studio when there are
> >> free Linux alternatives. My company won't use Visual Studio.NET stuff
> >> for internal use because of its cost. Why should management spend
> >> thousands of dollars per year for MSDN and VS.NET per developer when it
> >> can just use Open Source software and documentation for free?
> >> Especially considering the fact that g++ is really standards compliant,
> >> and that there is ACE+TAO for CORBA development. There is troll tech
> >> for GUI app development which is completely cross-platform, and you can
> >> choose the license you want, GPL or commercial. There is even mono and
> >> eclipse for .NET development.
> >>
> >> Why does anyone need Microsoft Visual Studio.NET and MSDN then?
> >> Especially when it costs thousands per yer for one developer? I can't
> >> make the cost argument, and there aren't any Visual Studio.NET
> >> installations at my company, only VS 6.0, and any upgrades that happen
> >> will be to Linux.
> >>
> >> But all is not lost. If you follow my pricing guide lines, you will
> >> see people stay or convert to VS.NET. I am in the trenches so I know
> >> what is going on. Here are my price ideas for VS.NET:
> >>
> >> Visual Studio.NET Professional: 129 dollars Visual Studio.NET
> >> Enterprise : 199 dollars MSDN (The Enterprise version) : 125 dollars
> >> per year. VS C# Basic Edition: 29 dollars.
> >
- Next message: Daniel Rudy: "Re: VS.NET is too EXPENSIVE. Developers switching rapidly from it."
- Previous message: Ed Kaim [MSFT]: "Re: VS.NET is too EXPENSIVE. Developers switching rapidly from it."
- In reply to: Mike Cox: "Re: VS.NET is too EXPENSIVE. Developers switching rapidly from it."
- Next in thread: Frans Bouma: "Re: VS.NET is too EXPENSIVE. Developers switching rapidly from it."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
