Do you think Microsoft is overcharging for dev tools?

[baja_yu]

About six months ago I've started working heavily with Objetive C and Xcode (IDE).
I've worked with Eclipse about 4-5 years ago for some light Java coding but for some reason it didn't sit with me, somehow felt unfinished and sluggish. Lately I took some of my free time to get acquainted with the Android SDK for which I again needed Eclipse, but this time I was pleasantly surprised. It's light, quick, good layout, and abundance of additional (free) tools and plugins. Compared to the two, Visual Studio feels a bit heavy.

But that's not my main point. My main point is the price. Now, the first two are free (since Xcode 4 Apple started charging for it but only $5 and it's free if you are in the developer program), but not VS. Ok, there's the Express edition, but with that you get very little besides the basic IDE. If you wanted to compare the three you wouldn't even be able to use the Professional Edition of VS which retails at over $500, but at least the Premium (over $5.000) or Ultimate (over $11.000), and most worthwhile plugins for it are not free.

Is it really worth that much? Am I the only one that feels duped?

[dilettante]

I think Pro at $500 is a bit high, perhaps a $300 suggested retail price would be closer to reality.

I think it is kept that high to help take the edge off the price of Premium, which in turn is so high to make Ultimate look better.

The whole thing is driven by the higher end SKUs in my opinion, which include lots of crapware (Team this and Team that, rah rah) tools that have very little payback in the dev process and cost a lot to create. So costly (and appealing to so few) that they would never see the light of day if they had to make it as separate add-on tools.

All part of Anders' empire building.

The same thinking took Borland (through several name changes and splits) down the same road of adding "design and process" tools around the core developer tools.

This probably isn't Anders himself at work, but cronies and toadies he brought with him into MS from previous ventures.


Oops, thought we were in chit-chat.

[dilettante]

Did Eclipse get better or did your PC get bigger and faster?

I wonder if that's what makes Java (and .Net) viable at all today: machines so big they hide the poor performance of bloated runtimes.

[Shaggy Hiker]

I wonder if that's what makes Java (and .Net) viable at all today: machines so big they hide the poor performance of bloated runtimes.

Fire up the old 286 and give it a try.

At one time, you had to really focus on tight coding to make the performance even acceptable. Now you can focus more on the UI design and not worry so much about the internals. We may well be hanging a lot on bloated runtimes, but have we lost all that much by doing so?

[dilettante]

At one time, you had to really focus on tight coding to make the performance even acceptable. Now you can focus more on the UI design and not worry so much about the internals. We may well be hanging a lot on bloated runtimes, but have we lost all that much by doing so?

Well I wasn't headed in that direction. I'm merely suggesting that Eclipse may have benefitted from more powerful desktop machines as much or more than from being rewritten to work more smoothly.

[NeedSomeAnswers]

With the recent price rises yes they are over pricing, but hey i never pay for them my work does so it doesn't overly worry me.

If i was starting my own Software business it would make me think twice about using there tools though as the price would probably be prohibitive for small start up companies.

[baja_yu]

They do have the BizSpark program which gives you access to a lot of content for free. That's commendable but only when compared to their regular prices. When you compare it with the competition, then it's a different story.

As for what dilettante mentioned, it's not so much speed that put me off Eclipse earlier, it just seemed to me more like a rudimentary code editor then a full fledged IDE, I think it didn't have basic syntax coloring back then. Now it looks and works really well, very polished. Definitely something I could see myself using often.
So in that sense, when I compared it to VS then, it seemed justified that it was free and I had to pay for Visual Studio, but now I'm not so sure that VS has an edge over the competition justify the price.

[dilettante]

That seems pretty weird. Eclipse had color-coding for Java, C, C++ in 2006. I was using it quite a bit back then.

Maybe you had an older version.

[baja_yu]

It could be that either my timing of the events isn't correct or that memory of that particular feature is incorrect. Though I my overall satisfaction with it was low in general. It's a quite different product today, that I feel can go head to head with the VS Goliath, and be free at the same time. Stuff like this makes me confident that there can be a future in truly free/open source software. I really feel sorry for those that have to pony up the $12K price tag of VS Ultimate.

[Jenner]

I honestly can't even see the point of paying for more than Pro and Pro's price tag is pretty reasonable. You're only going to buy it if you're serious about program development; i.e. a "Professional".

If you're just curious about the language or are just developing some personal or shareware application, then Visual Basic Express gives you 99% of what most people ever need for free. I don't see that as overcharging for anything.

The two big things you'd be lacking are Setup Projects (which you can substitute with a free installer package like Inno), and an old version of Crystal Reports (which you can substitute with an alternative reporting package; or even the latest version of Crystal Reports which is quite a bit nicer.)

Just looking over the feature packages included in Premium and Ultimate, I don't see a single feature I'd use. All the database deployment and testing in Premium isn't that big a deal. I've written programs that deploy databases for years now with Pro. The profiler might be nice, for for the price of the package, I'm sure I can find a better profiler out there for less. All Ultimate seems to include are more testing options than a Computer Science major probably knows exists. Heck, I don't even use Unit Testing, seeing it as more or less a waste of time.

With the Express versions as powerful as they are being free, I don't see a problem.

[baja_yu]

Well, if you need/use it or not is besides the point. The others offer you all those features for free while MS is charging for them.

And I'd have to disagree on testing, code coverage, stress testing are important, especially on larger/more complex projects, and crucial for some projects.

[moti barski]

i don't get what you can't achieve with express edition

[baja_yu]

When you come to need it, you'll get it. You can compare the editions here: http://www.microsoft.com/visualstudi...uct-comparison

[moti barski]

i disagree with the chart :
i think azure can work with asp.net
support is much greater for express

[baja_yu]

It's obvious that the marketing department doesn't fully understand the product. You should write to MS and suggest they correct it.

[moti barski]

It's obvious that the marketing department doesn't fully understand the product. You should write to MS and suggest they correct it.

senior baja yu
you are OP(original poster), tell me what vb.net express doesn't solve for you
that the other vertions do

[baja_yu]

I've mentioned a few already, code analysis, coverage, metrics... testing of virtually any kind, lacks modeling and architecture design capabilities (class diagrams, use cases, business process modeling etc), though I use Sybase PowerDesigner for that anyway.

The point is that you can do all that with Eclipse, for free, but you have to cough up enough cash as a decent car for VS Ultimate.

[Nightwalker83]

About six months ago I've started working heavily with Objetive C and Xcode (IDE).

I heard somewhere that now it costs about $199 for a developer license to develop crapple products.

Edit:

The license is if you want to do stuff such as publish your app. I think just using the products to write code is free.

[baja_yu]

You can develop for free. If you wish to publish in the App Store then you need a license. Individual and company licenses are $99 per year, enterprise license (in house distribution, no App Store) are $199 or $299, I'm not sure. Xcode 3 used to be free even with a free developer account (maybe still is). Xcode 4 is free for the paid program members and costs $5 otherwise.

[moti barski]

I heard somewhere that now it costs about $199 for a developer license to develop crapple products.

sweet post
yeah i also considered learning xcode till i saw apple charge 100$ to post apps in theire app store (without the app store the developer can't transfer his app to the iphone or ipad)

[baja_yu]

sweet post
yeah i also considered learning xcode till i saw apple charge 100$ to post apps in theire app store (without the app store the developer can't transfer his app to the iphone or ipad)

So? MS charges the same $99 per year to publish Windows Phone 7 apps, and they limit the number of free apps to 100 after which each submission costs $20. Granted 100 apps for one person is a lot, but still.

There is a cost of hosting and distribution which you get care free (not the hygiene pads), just upload and you're done. And if nothing else then it's a barrier to stop the store from being flooded with fake submissions. And you can still learn Objective C and use Xcode to make apps for Mac OS that you can distribute as you wish.

And, granted, the fee at Google for Android is $25, but there still is a fee.

[Nightwalker83]

And, granted, the fee at Google for Android is $25, but there still is a fee.

I wish I was learning coding for the Android but my school only offers the iphone coding.

[moti barski]

So? MS charges the same $99 per year to publish Windows Phone 7 apps, and they limit the number of free apps to 100 after which each submission costs $20. Granted 100 apps for one person is a lot, but still.

2 wrongs don't necessarily make a right

i have seen many cellphone apps and I wasn't impressed (mortal kombat 3, draw in sand, skype, angry birds) i think the app store fee is the cause of the boring apps

as for eclips : it seems to translate between compilers there are sites that can do that

as for power designer, i think that's a tool for network admins, my neigbor is a net admin and he doesn't use that

[baja_yu]

I'm trying to scrape up what ever free time I have to do it, that's actually how I stumbled on the latest Eclipse. I've started by reading the documentation and trying a few tutorials/sample code from there. Seems very well explained. I'm sure you'll be able to pick it up on your own.

I've started here: http://developer.android.com/guide/d...ing/index.html (after installing all the tools and SDK) and worked my way down the article and all items in it. A very pleasant experience, especially keeping in mind that I'm not a big fan of Java (no particular reason). Java and Eclipse (besides free time) were the two main reason keeping me away from it. I actually researched making it work with NetBeans instead, but it wasn't a smooth ride so I bit the bullet and installed Eclipse. No regrets!

[baja_yu]

2 wrongs don't necessarily make a right

That wasn't the point. I was describing that Apple is no special case when it comes to publishing smartphone apps.

i have seen many cellphone apps and I wasn't impressed (mortal kombat 3, draw in sand, skype, angry birds) i think the app store fee is the cause of the boring apps

I fail to see how.

as for eclips : it seems to translate between compilers there are sites that can do that

What?!... really... What!?

as for power designer, i think that's a tool for network admins, my neigbor is a net admin and he doesn't use that

You have NO IDEA what Sybase PowerDesigner is, it appears.

[Nightwalker83]

i have seen many cellphone apps and I wasn't impressed (mortal kombat 3, draw in sand, skype, angry birds) i think the app store fee is the cause of the boring apps

No, that would be the programmer/developer who is the cause of that. However, those apps do seem to have a support base. My dad likes them, he was showing me all the apps I could download because we recently bought an Android tablet.

[moti barski]

also, xna can program for android and xbox

[ntg]

I've been using studio constantly since 1998 and Eclipse on occasion since 2007. So I guess my opinion is a bit biased.

I can't say I miss (or need) any of the VS capabilities that are left out of the Professional version. There are free tools that I use to cater for unit testing and code coverage/code analysis. Perhaps the feature I would most likely add to my development cycle if it were incorporated in the Professional version is the database change management and unit testing. But otherwise I feel pretty comfortable with the Pro edition and I consider the current pricing more than fair. In fact, I feel that it's a steal.

Having said that, I feel that pricing for the other editions is laughably ridiculous for individual developers. But if you think about it, versions other than Pro are targeted mostly at companies with streamlined development processes that can shell out the $ to get the added benefits offered by these versions. I understand that we're living in tough times and cost cutting is the order of the day every day but deciding how much value you can get out of, say, the Ultimate VS version is a personal call depending on individual circumstances and the nature of the solutions being developed. If you create something like small sites or provide bug fixes for a solution with a small user base, Ultimate might not make sense. If you create shrink wrapped software selling by the thousands or coding expensive custom solutions, the cost of Ultimate may be at noise level.

It's true that Eclipse has made great advancements in the last few years. As other members pointed out, it's also true that our workstations have gotten more powerful in the last few years and that may mask some of the shortcomings of Eclipse in terms of performance but I consider this to be a side issue - this is the story of our lives with large and complex IDEs, they seem sluggish on the previous computer and super-fast on the new one.

I use Eclipse for Java-based projects and I'm happy with the experience. I give high grades to Eclipse but I still feel that VS provides a better and more intuitive experience. There was a time that I wouldn't even bother comparing Eclipse to VS. Nowadays Eclipse has gotten so much better that it is comparable to VS but VS is still the champ, even if that means I have to pay a few hundred $ to have it. I would not try to switch my .Net development to Eclipse because I'm happier with VS. On the contrary, I would try out how VS worked out with Java if I were given a serious chance but I don't think I ever will.

But all these are subjective impressions and opinions. I've spend a lot of time using VS and a much shorter time using Eclipse. I think that for other people the situation may be the exact opposite and they may certainly feel that Eclipse beats VS hands-down and they wouldn't get VS Ultimate even if it were given out for free. In the end, there's one way to tell if a software licensing model appears fair and that is to try and understand if it follows a bottom-up or top-down pricing model. If I had to guess, I would say that the Pro edition follows something close to a bottom-up pricing model and that's why I feel that it's reasonably priced. I do not think that the capabilities added to other VS versions required an additional expenditure such that it justifies their pricing. I feel that for Premium and Ultimate Microsoft is quoting based on the value the customer expects or perceives that he will get from the product. This is top-down pricing and it's only reasonable to expect that it will be perceived as pricey (to avoid using the word "unfair") by some people.

[Jenner]

also, xna can program for android and xbox

I'm pretty sure XNA can't do Android, but it does do Windows Phone and most certainly does XBox.

[RhinoBull]

If i was starting my own Software business it would make me think twice about using there tools though as the price would probably be prohibitive for small start up companies.

You have to be very careful about that - these days clients may ask you what tool(s) you used to build your apps. Mentioning some noname toolset may work like a death sentense - I've seen it in the past.
Granted, budgets are tight these days but still you may hear something like "we can't trust $100 tool" although it could be excellent. With that in mind mid/large companies most likely to go with expensive package rather than saving and taking a risk.
Is VS Ultimate really worth $11G? For that money you get very compreshensive toolset, full access to MSDN, etc so you be the judge.

[NeedSomeAnswers]

You have to be very careful about that - these days clients may ask you what tool(s) you used to build your apps. Mentioning some noname toolset may work like a death sentense - I've seen it in the past.
Granted, budgets are tight these days but still you may hear something like "we can't trust $100 tool" although it could be excellent. With that in mind mid/large companies most likely to go with expensive package rather than saving and taking a risk.

Fair point, although i am sure there is a middle ground, and certainly in the markets i have worked in in the UK there is quite an emphasis on MS development on the Desktop. clients like that, but they do not seem to care nearly as much about which web technologies you use.

[baja_yu]

You have to be very careful about that - these days clients may ask you what tool(s) you used to build your apps. Mentioning some noname toolset may work like a death sentense - I've seen it in the past.
Granted, budgets are tight these days but still you may hear something like "we can't trust $100 tool" although it could be excellent. With that in mind mid/large companies most likely to go with expensive package rather than saving and taking a risk.
Is VS Ultimate really worth $11G? For that money you get very compreshensive toolset, full access to MSDN, etc so you be the judge.

That may be true in a .Net/MS exclusive circles, there's really no other IDE that costs as much, and if you are doing any sort of Java development Eclipse is pretty much a de facto standard. And I don't think you get any less (for free) then you get from a 11G VS Ultimate.

Saying that it's ok just because someone can afford it doesn't make it any less overpriced. Would you say that a X amount of dollars Ferrari is good value if you had 1.000 times X money? Sure. But what if at the same time Lamborghini and Porche were free? And has the development world become as shallow as an LA fashion show, "Look at my shoes that are no better than a $50 pair from Target, but they cost $3K because some douche called Gucci signed them"?!

And lets keep in mind that Eclipse, for example, works for Java, PHP, Python, Perl, C/C++, Scala, Clojure and many more. If you ask me MS is doing this only to their own detriment. Smaller companies for which the price tag will be to high will go in other directions that, by the time they grow and can afford the price tag, will be much more suited and used to other technologies.

[half_duplex]

XNA for Android??? Eclipse???

What am I reading?

[RhinoBull]

@baja_yu:

Not quite sure about the point you're trying to make...

People often buy cheap stuff when budget is limited and NOT because some product "is about the same as that brand name".
Comparing Target to some high end department store (perhaps like Saks 5th Ave or Bergdorf Goodman) would be the same as comparing Chrysler to Bentley. Sure they both have 4 wheels and navigation system (Chr even has few "similar" body lines) but product quality can NEVER be equivalized.
Granted, brand names can be overpriced but their high price is usually accompanied with high quality materials, assembly, etc.
HIgh prices are often driven by market too and let's face it: there is a reason why people prefer one product/brand to another.
Although lots of people complaint about MS products in general VS is one of those high end superb quality products.
Whether someone can or cannot aford it isn't much relevant - think about the investment first (I'm sure it was in the range of 8 figures at least).

With that said I personally think the VS pricing is justified.

Regards.

[baja_yu]

Since you feel that VS is so much better than other development tools, there's no much point in arguing further.

[RhinoBull]

I actually didn't say that - what I did mention however was that VS is a superb product (I don't think anyone can deny that) and it's worth its money.
I wasn't aguing either - just replying to your statement which I believe was very subjective.
Just be philophical about it. That's all it takes.

Regards.

[Max Peck]

I'm one of those "startups" that we're talking about here. I'm building a commercial application (that I've been working on for about 15 months so far. Should be ready for testing and marketing in a couple more months).

What's worked for me is VS2008 Standard and Active Reports 6. I got VS2008 Standard for about $125. I needed a good reporting solution and, after some research, settled on Active Reports 6. That cost me a little over $600. If I consider all the other software tools & equipment I've purchased over the last year I'd say the total is in the ballpark of $3 Grand. After comparing feature-sets with the "Pro" version it was clear that VS2k8 and A/R6 amounts to about the same if not better than Pro. (A/R6 is a lot better implemented than Crystal Reports IMHO).

I don't need the "bleeding edge" as far as VS is concerned so I opted out of VS2010 which I've observed to be a little less stable anyway. This combination is turning out to be excellent. I do not consider the cost to have been excessive at all.

-Max