Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Sets Tolls for .Net Developers
matsh writes: "Today Microsoft revealed the cost of signing up as a developer to .Net. Entry level is $1,000. Standard level $10,000. Custom support will cost even more."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Interesting. What they are doing then is creating a bar to smaller (perhaps hobbyist) developers.
That just means that less cool stuff will be produced then I suppose.
Sounds like a fair game to me...
.NET is strong enough to warrant this -- and if you think it's rubbish, then they're only shooting themself in the foot!
.NET because then every second web site out there would be Passport authenticated etc... Hell, raise the price to $500,000!!!!!
They obviously think
Seriously though -- in a way it's better than giving it away with copies of Visual Studio
Anyone know international pricing?
I have several friends who will be required to pay for it, and knowing big companies they will charge more than twice the US cost.
/* FUCK - The F-word is here so that you can grep for it */
... in the war to drive out small-scale developers in favor of well-controlled large corporate entities. People paying that much money for the privilege of developing software are very likely to be quite aggressive in convincing themselves that they're happy. And note that much of the fees here will come from big fat IT budgets for internal application development. CIOs just want an empire like anybody else, and this sort of thing really fuels the fires.
I'm soooo sorry, I don't think I could live without subway lol
One of the reason that so many people are now using Windows 9x/ME/2000 is that Microsoft bascially gave away their SDK back in the days of Win 3.x, while IBM was looking to their OS/2 SDK as part of their revenue model, and charging accordingly.
I would have thought Microsoft learned a valuable lesson back then.
-josh
I have to wonder if MS is pricing to lure developers to utilize their new facility. And if that is the case... why is entry level $250 a pop?
Do they think this is a bargain? And who is to say where the prices are going to go once they do manage to hook some suckers?
Can sombody post a comparison ?
Java Developer Essentials is about 50 USD per year, IIRC.
But what else do you get for 1000 USD ? Or 10000 ?
Windows 2000 - from the guys who brought us edlin
Here comes the Sun
Doo doo doo doo
Here Comes the Sun
And I say
It's alright.
I remember when IBM had this same attitude. I wonder whatever happened to them.
If you aren't part of the solution, there is good money to be made prolonging the problem
newsflash:
good software costs money, which is obviously something most of the readers here know nothing about.
They want us to pay at least $250 per .Net service used in an application? Why bother? Nimda installs for free.
This isn't for the SDK/tools, which you can get via the MSDN, if not for free online.
.net services such as passport. If you're developing an in-house app that doesn't touch the microsoft .net website (damn, the terminology is all wrong) then you don't need to pay your 10K USD.
This is to be hosted/linked/use the core
Note to ACs: I won't mod you up, even if you are being funny or insightful. So take a chance! It's not real life!
my eyes just glaze over when i see microsoft's revenue and restriction plans.
it's something i've come to expect and pass over. pretty soon the whole world should be getting numb to microsoft, and when people get numb to something, that something starts losing any appeal it might ever have had.
can you say ibm?
the article from a couple days ago about microsoft going the ibm way (existing but not cutting edge) is being fulfilled with every developer's rolling eyes.
~A
Linux, Vai, Satch and Guitars.. that is the life ICQ# 7357858
Mean that there won't be any OSS projects coming to the platform anytime soon? ;)
That's great for the hundred or so companies that can afford it... what happens to the 250,000 that can't?
Oh, that's right, they've got that whole monopoly thing going on and the 250,000 HAVE to pay, or else hire a whole new IT staff of open source developers. Silly me.
My sig sucks.
Developing centralized authentications system - 5 mil
Building and connecting the required datacenters - 250 mil
Preventing Hackers from gaining access - unknown (but don't worry, they didn't pay this one)
Having it cracked less than a day after it's release, which will cost million after million to your customers - PRICLESS
Incentive \In*cen"tive\, a. [L. incentivus, from incinere to strike up or set the tune; pref. in- + canere to sing. See Enchant, Chant.]
1. Inciting; encouraging or moving; rousing to action;
stimulative.
It would appear that Microsoft is not seeing the numbers they would like in Office XP sales. They have the audacity to host a media extravaganza including Madonna in New York to hoopla WinXP, despite recent events (they want to "show the world that America is still doing business"... that costs money... they are launching Xbox next month. That will cost money. the economy is bad, and people are keeping both hands on their wallets...
I may be wrong here... but it looks to me like i am seeing a sick company...
Desperation \Des`per*a"tion\, n. [L. desperatio: cf. OF.desperation.]
1. The act of despairing or becoming desperate; a giving up
of hope.
2. A state of despair, or utter hopeless; abandonment of
hope; extreme recklessness; reckless fury.
The last company I was working for was going to authenticate financial transactions. Let me tell you that they were not going to do it for free. How is this any different? Or maybe the phone company charging for setting up your phone lines and billing your company monthly?
MS is charging for a service and you can choose to use it or not.
Perhaps the open source community can get together and create a distributed authentication system to compete with it.
The story mentioned online banking two or three times. I will NEVER use the same password for bank accounts that i would use for hotmail, much less the same authentication service.
Converging things like that is bad, mkay?
--buddy
I suppose that's one way of dealing with the industry downturn in the hope of keeping your shareholders happy. It'll be interesting to see how well it fares in real life of course...
GPL: Free to download, free to upgrade, free to use next year, but you may need to pay for support.
MS: Pay to have delivered, pay to upgrade, pay to use next year, and you will have to pay for support.
Well, my cash-strapped industry-downturn budget's made up it's mind...
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
I think these prices are fair for what you're getting.. You have to actually look at what it is you're getting, rather than instantly comparing it to other things, like open source.
.NET/Hailstorm/MyServices is a new business idea which is benefiting from the Internet and will offer companies a good service..
.NET - this intergration count will surely go up.
Personally, I believe that if something is good enough, it is worth paying for. Look at Hotmail, the largest free online email service - it's a pretty good deal, it's never down really and you get a lot of features.. Now if you wanted to implement this kind of service into a more corporate environment, surely you'd expect to pay for it?
The extra charges for customized solutions and support - what's the problem with that? Anyone in the market for purchasing bespoke solutions would budget for obtaining a customized product and excellent support services - I know that there are hundreds, probably thousands of companies out there making bespoke solutions that charge an absolute fortune for it, and then totally extortionate the client when it comes to post-sale support..
I think Microsoft are getting their shit together with this and do have a good focus on the future. With the failings of the dotcom model, someone needs to start using the web for just more than a bunch of websites offering resources and to put this emmence network to some practical use..
Yeah, Sun may try and compete. They may try and compete against Passport. True, Passport isn't widely used on 3rd party websites - but with the integration with
And at the end of the day, you're not being forced into using it. You can still go off and use whatever technologies and platform you wish. You may opt to not pay for such services, but if I went to a garage to get my car serviced and was told it was free, i'd be rather dubious about the quality...
"Never let the truth get in the way of a good story..."
...as they can.
And any of you that like money should be able to relate.
It would make sense for MS to try to hook developers while there still young and impressionable. (Drug dealers in my high school did the same thing. Just say no, kids.)
Anyone know if Universities like mine are going to get copies of the
They did. The lesson was to give it away until the competitors selling theirs went away. When they go away, charge as much as you like.
Microsoft is probably one of the richest corporations in the entire software industry. Every few years, they produce another OS and sell hundreds of copies making thousands of dollars each time. They produce a word processor and spreadsheet that can only be used on their OS, and charge people for that. They charge a cut for the total cost of almost all PCs that are sold. Isn'rt it time they stopped charging people for everything, and realised that there are more important things than money in the world?
Alot. MS was built on piracy: DOS, Win 3.1, Win95, Visual [anything], etc. All heavily pirated. How many programmers traded compilers among each other in high school and college? Most, I'm sure. I know I got my pascal, Quickbasic, and several C++ compilers from friends. I also gave copies to other friends. I only bought 1 version of dos, never bought windows until 95. Why do people pirate? Look at the price of software. What'll happen if .NET stuff has workable copy protection? It'll flop. Free (pirated or otherwise) or very cheap is REQUIRED to start a new "standard". You need young geeks to work with it, grow with it, learn it, etc.
Make note that this is a subscription, not just a flat, one-time fee. This looks like the beginning of Microsloth's relationship with everyone's wallet.
Life is the leading cause of death in America.
I see things like this, and my first reaction is that it confirms my biases that Miguel de Icaza et al. have gone completely off their rocker by thinking that they can work with Microsoft and support .NET using Mono or anything else developed as true free or open source software.
How does this affect Mono anyway? Will somebody have to cough up in order to develop Mono? While, sure, Ximian could pay, what happens when Ximian does an Eazel? Nautilus is still with us; if Mono is open source, it would still be with us too, except then who has to pay? Or does M$ then sue the entire open source community for working on a .NET application without anybody paying the fees? Or do we really believe that somehow Mono is going to have unfettered access to the APIs it needs without having to pay?
Or would it only be the users of Mono who had to pay the fees?
The lesson I personally would take from this is "stay away." The free software community would do much better to come up with its own solution to the need (if there is one) that .NET is addressing, rather than trying to support the .NET platform. Honestly, if we don't want to hand over all final control of all computing and web standards to Microsoft, we need to be doing everything we can right now to (at best) make them irrelevant, or (at worst) keep just enough of a competing presence in there that open standards can't be summarily ignored.
-Rob
"Muglia said for entry-level, small-scale applications, Microsoft will charge developers $1,000 a year for access to
For standard use, which Microsoft expects will involve the majority of users, Microsoft will charge $10,000 per year for using
So, MS is betting that their infrastruture (data centers plus .net software) is bringing something that didn't existed before and that will generate enough money to "entry-level, small scale applications" that will allow them to pay the investment and still get something back ?
I don't think so, Bill, and I'll keep those $1000 for me, if you don't mind, because there are lots of stock alerts, calendars and messangers for free out there, with open source and backed by real people and not some strange hive minded corporation.
Well I will just go over to to the local bookstore and get myself some nice php and perl books, along thousands of my 18 year old friends looking for a programing platform on wich you can make a living in the future.
Ofcource microsoft (I feel the dollar sign would be really apropriate here but I might set of the lameness filters) will end up giving "vb.NET for kids" "c#.NET for teething kids" away to techical education organizations to turn them in to msce production facilities.
Mod this up and up and up please.
--"Karma is justice without the satisfaction"
Well Mucrosoft succeded to drive out IBM by giving away the SDK when IBM required money for it.
Now Linux are on the verge of driving out Mucrosoft using the same tactic.
Those that do not learn from history...
Just saying it like it are.
In windows what does it cost to write a program? You have to buy a compiler.. $500? But you can write as many programs as you want.
I didn't use the preview button, so get over it!!!!
Mike
I think the post is misleading, the fees relate to the use of "My Services" (formerly known as HailStorm) only and not to .Net deveopment in general as someone could deduce.
.Net My Services Web services plan."
Quote from the site: "Microsoft on Tuesday announced the first details of what it will charge software developers to build applications linked to its
How much does it cost to sign up as a Linux developer?
*snicker*
Microsoft will be losing brainshare like crazy. The colleges that still teach microsoft technologies will now get yet another good reason to toss out Microsoft technologies. Mine taught us assembler and some pretty interesting details about NT in OS class. That was about it.
.NET.
And look where it got me. A great job programming a credit card fraud detection system using Linux, Mysql and Perl. A competitor didn't believe his own eyes when he saw the performance on our solution. He implemented using
Anyhow - just say no, kids. And if you mention the $1000 price tag, your manager will be more likely to say go ahead if you propose using open technologies. They are getting pretty fed up with Microsoft licensing.
That wasn't coherent. I hope some parts were slightly informative.
Stop the brainwash
This is about the cost of becoming a corporate partner for use of My Services (that's what they now call HailStorm, if you weren't paying attention).
.NET? That'll be a big fat zero, over and above the cost of your Windows licence (although once the BSD port has happened, that'll wipe out that little overhead.
.NET platform SDK, and you'll find you get the CLR, the framework libraries, the compilers, and all the command line tools you need to play with .NET.
The actual cost of developing for
Download the
And that'll cost you nothing. no-thing.
Yeah, VS.NET will cost you hard earned cash. So will a Windows server licence or two for hosting. But even MS isn't stupid enough to create a barrier for entry so high that nobody jumps over it at all.
I wonder if they'll sell me just the exploitable bits? :{)
what do you usually order? I like the subway club.
YES, there is a McDonald's in Hanoi Square.
(Score:-1 OffTopic)
That wont work on linux
No Sig
Dear o dear, this news item is really going to confuse all you people who like to speak before you have done your homework.
.NET platform itself, nor is it an SDK. People are free to write .NET applications for NOTHING and all the SDK is online at msdn.microsoft.com (fuck the link, you can cut and paste).
.NET service for reserving books or something and charging you to use it.
For starters, this is the ".NET My Services" service, it is NOT the
This is no different from the city library developing a
"I think the numbers are quite reasonable. The applications are putting a load on us," Muglia said. "These numbers are barely covering (our costs)...We're not making money with these numbers. We want to make it as friction-free as possible to adopt this new platform."
Despite some opinions here, $250 is not a lot for a small developer to pay for a year's certification. Look at Sun's licensing scheme. I have no trouble believing MS aren't maknig a penny and may even be losing money on the scheme right now. What did IE development cost them and was it worth it to own the browser market? Lots, and yes. They're very good at this game.
Think about what's going on: MS want to make it easy for developers. They're offering low prices to get a lot of companies to accept and adopt quickly. Consider IE: "Warn if Site Certificate Invalid" and "Notify if certificate has been revoked" are standard options and default on.
Once MS can get to critical mass with .NET and their certiication, your mother-in-law is only going to use MS-certified apps. MS will control the content and the prices will then change to ensure a steady profit stream. This is fairly close to a give-away as it stands, and it meshes with the browser they give away already, and which they have set the way they want it.
Microsoft have added an "E" to their formula: Embrace, Extend, Entrench, Extinguish.
woof.
How am I ever going to beat what's-his-name's "Green Eggs and Hamlet" sig?!
ROFLPMP!
Sounds like a brillient bussiness plan to me!
Lets try charging people for what they can already get for free. Micro$oft must have really lost the plot.
Although then again, I'm sure people are stupid enough to see this as the latest 'must have upgrade' and will become tied into using it, in typical microsoft style.
Anyone quoted by a reporter knows how little they understand
Don't believe what you read is the truth.
Microsoft says customers who sign up for .Net My Services, expected to debut in full next year, can expect to eventually get one-step access to electronic documents, contact lists and calendars; instant alerts on stock changes, weather forecasts and flight delays; and automated transactions, such as online banking, ticket purchases and stock trades, from Microsoft and its partners.
... My Yahoo! comes to mind. Why does M$ think they can get me to pay for this?
I get all of these things for free from various places around the net. In a lot of cases, there are even places that will give me one stop shopping
Oh, yeah, I use a Mac and Linux. I couldn't pay for them if I wanted to.
Anybody remember the old SNL skit about the phone company and a particularly rude operator.
.Net just get pirated like VS6 and spread that way as a defacto standard... go figure piracy could actually help MS. But given their recent draconian behavior I'd be on the lookout for coded lags intended to identify pirates by thier compiled code (MSWord 2000 already does it). In this case you could develop apps, but couldnt release them untill you payed a tax to MS.
.Net that great? To justify such a steep migration path? Will this herald much larger tarifs in the future?
"Were the phone company, we don't care"
Welcome to monopoly abuse. They figure that they have such inertia that they no longer have to be nice to developers. It's an interesting theory. What comes first the chicken or the egg = Do IT departments make decisions based on a suporvisory dictator ship, or do they consult their programers on what they would be most productive at.
.Net is going to be a facinating piece of development software to work with, but will that facination be enough to overcome the tendancy to use what is at hand.
As a third rought will Visual Studio
And keep in mind, indvidual developer arguments are not really effective. MS doesn't care about individuals, only corporations. And other posters haven nailed it on the head:MS wants easy to control corps that can be predicted and culled.
BTW: Are the advantages of
I would rather be ashes than dust!
MS isn't charging you to develop .NET apps (minus the cost of IDE which you don't need either if you are inclined), they are charging you to use their MyServices stuff (passport, etc) which I think is perfectly reasonable.
--"Karma is justice without the satisfaction"
...before you buy.
And not just the present EULA, but future copies.
It can't be ruled out that EULAs may have provisions forbidding deployment of code with open source licenses, or containing/facilitating content critical of Microsoft etc.
-- In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was UNSIGNED, and the main(){} was without form and void...
$1000 a year to develop and use .NET, and in doing so help to protect and bolster Microsoft's position. Sounds like fair recompense.
Sounds like its very worthwhile.
Hang on, they want ME to pay THEM.....not the other way round?
Is that right?
Microsoft. Go for a long walk off a short pier.
One of the reason that so many people are now using Windows 9x/ME/2000 is that Microsoft bascially gave away their SDK back in the days of Win 3.x, while IBM was looking to their OS/2 SDK as part of their revenue model, and charging accordingly.
.NET My Services which used to be called Hailstorm not the .NET Framework SDK.
The article is about pricing for accessing
Reading the article, it's clear this only applies to .NET My NET Services, and has nothing to do at all with .NET.
How much does MS charge people to put content on MSN? I don't know, and I don't really care. If I did want to put stuff there, I'm pretty sure they would charge me, based upon some sort of SLA. Why would it suprise anyone that the same would be true of apps running off MS Messenger?
Doh! I forgot -- we don't bother to check anything around here.
Johnh
If there were ever a more perfect example of how Microsoft's monopoly is hurting the market (and individuals), I don't know what it would be. This perfectly shows that because of their presence, they feel that they can do whatever they want.
Just look at CE. When I was deciding between a Palm and a CE machine, I was extremely tempted to go with the Microsoft-based products because they were giving away their easy-to-use development tools. I didn't. I bought the Palm, but I never spent the $300 on CodeWarrior, nor did I spend the many hours it would have taken to figure out how to make a GUI using the open-source tools.
As I get on in years, it's increasingly interesting to me how much we can learn from history. We've seen this before. Many times. Once Microsoft gets a lock on a market, they make that market a revenue generator. After taking a bath on IE for years - don't think that didn't take millions to get coded - we're paying for it with higher costs for XP and strong-arm tactics to force companies to upgrade every seat they own (my company allowed themselves to be used).
Now, they've taken a long enough bath on IIS (which was also offered for free, remember), and they're going to get they're money back on it. The only hope in this case is that they don't have a lock on this market.
Acts 17:28, "For in Him we live, and move, and have our being."
I was wondering where all the good marijuana had gotten to. Billy has it!
After paying $50,000 in Win2k / Office XP fees, we will certainly be looking for ways OUT of this sort of thing, not INTO it.
We already have StarOffice 5.2 / 6-Beta on most desktops. But it's always good to get a little more motivation.
Maybe I should go back to trying to get Kylix to stay up for more than 5 minutes...
This is not for
Microsoft charges money to play in their playground!
DUHHHHHHHHH
What is the relevance of this for the Mono project from Ximian ?
Of itself, it looks innocuous. .NET becomes more widespread. Don't forget that there are many well-funded interests whose financial welfare depends on silencing (or at least controlling) the independent creator.
One can argue that any serious programmer will find a way to come up with $1k. It's not that much, considering that any decent musical instrument costs at least $1k, and impoverished musicians find a way to come up with that sort of cash all the time.
Forgive my paranoid leaning, but I can't rule out that this price may increase exponentially if/when
So don't be surprised to see the $1000 entry level's facilities being eroded to nothing, and real access costing upwards of $50k+
-- In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was UNSIGNED, and the main(){} was without form and void...
The article is referring to microsoft's .Net services, like Passport, etc.
.Net the development environment. Sure you could pirate Visual Studio .Net, but that wouldn't get you on Microsoft's distributed .Net service, which you probably won't ever need to use unless you're developing a web site that is going to use Passport authentication.
You're talking about
Hell, you can already download the compilers and SDK's from Microsoft for free anyway.
At least they gave me one copy of their fully-functional beta. I didn't even bother installing it since I don't develop on windows anymore. I couldn't care less about that .NET bullshit.
For Usersm l
.Net My Services through subscriptions charged to consumers. At the same time, it will charge its business partners and developers a small fee to gain access to the .Net My Services user base. Muglia said fees for companies participating in the service will be "nominal."
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-7617467.ht
"""Microsoft expects to earn most of its profits from
Analysts have speculated that Microsoft will charge consumers a base fee of $25 to $50 per year, plus a usage-based fee depending on which services are used and for how long."""
In the late afternoon of December 16, 1773, men disguised as Indians boarded the tea ships and dumped the tea into Boston harbor.
Maybe it's time to revisit that particular "tradition" with a few new twists.
I'm wondering, it's a much used practice to either give away the client part and ask money for the 'server side' or SDK or the other way around. Now they charge for both. Why don't they give away free access for a limited time? That way, everybody could try it out and walk into the MS trap.
That's a bit like they did with windows as well. They didn't give it away, but they also didn't try very hard to stop all the copying for personal use, as long as the big companies bought licenses.
I think (and maybe it's wishfull thinking) MS underestimates the diversity on the Internet. The holes in their Internet related stuff won't help much either...
MarijnZZ
(hmmm, a javascript vi editor would be nice...)
One person has noticed this that I can see so far and hopefully I can reiterate:
This is only for access to the Passport system for the single sign on.
Hence the cost per application.
I think too many people are knee jerk reacting to this, making comments before using their heads.
My only criticism is that Microsoft say this will only just cover their costs, which I'm a little suspicious of, since bandwidth use would be minimal. I think that the costs would be recovered very quickly given the projections of the number of companies signed up for this. I'm guessing that even eBay have to pay a lot of money for the privilege of this, since I bet they have a custom contract as well.
What I don't understand about Microsoft's .NET strategy is
.NET fit into this?
.NET???
a) Where is the evidence of demand for it?
b) What are the benefits for the customer?
I regularly buy flights on the net, also books. I tend to use the same companies each time. They have my details, I just need to select the product I require and click the accept button. I know that my info. only resides with them, and I trust them not to spread it around.
Where does
I am imagining going to a web site, say Amazon. The site asks me "Can Amazon access your hobby list to make recommendations?" Er, sorry, no it can't. "Can Amazon access your calendar so we can find when your birthday is?". Er, nope. "Can Amazon access your address book so we can tell your friends about our great products?" Absolutely not. "Can Amazon access your job profile so we can suggest some business books?". No, and stop asking the dumb questions. The answer is no.
There are lots of, for instance, on-line calendar services available, which can be accessed from any web enabled device or WAP phone. Do people use them that much? What would Microsoft provide that I can't already get? And would it be worth paying for?
Please, someone tell me, I'm dying to know. What is the benefit to me, Joe Consumer, of
.NET, ????
uhh, I think we made a security hole in your
NET , its umm really insecure and ahhh well we aren't going to fix it and ahhh, well you can't fix it either. So relax and enjoy it.
"OBEY!!!!!!!!! ME!!!"
invader bill gates
Muglia said for entry-level, small-scale applications, Microsoft will charge developers $1,000 a year for access to .Net My Services and $250 per application they create.
.NET apps, it will be free.
.NET My Services = HailStorm. If you want to write HailStorm apps, it will cost you. If you want to write generic
"For people who are doing serious business with this--companies using it for mission-critical needs and need a higher degree of quick support turnaround--we will have custom pricing," Muglia told CNET News.com.
.NET heart-lung machine perhaps? It'll cancel all further appointments if things go wrong.
Do i need to add anything before you start laughing, or is it just me? mission-critical? A
Microsoft is basically saying, "We're going to make you use .NET to develop software. We're also going to make you pay for us to maintain the infrastructure so it doesn't cost us anything to make you use it."
.NET) to get an unrelated market (app developers) to pay money? I'm trying to remain objective here, but...
This is insane, and it's classic monopoly pricing. Most companies follow general market principles, like supply and demand, and ubiquity. Sun could never get away with charging consumers for a service and ALSO charging app server vendors for the privilege; the vendors and app developers just wouldn't stand for it. MSFT can get away with it because they're MSFT.
Could someone please explain to me how this is not leveraging a monopoly on the desktop (which will, realistically, require consumers to use
.NET "Entry-Level" subscription
Subscription: $1000 per year.
Cost per application: $250
.NET "Standard" subscription
Subscription: $10,000 per year.
Cost per application: $1500
Linux
Subscription: $0 per life
Cost per application: $0
I don't get it, is this for support on your product you are developing? What about a university or a person making a program on their free time? There's no way some high school kid is going to pay $1250 to hack around on some code while learning C.
Outdoor digital photography, mostly in New Engl
This is actually a much more complex problem: ".net" is a buzzword use for everything and it's opposit on today's MS products: from "application framework" to productr denomination to general startegie to actual technology to services.
It's actually becomming a real problem in the developpement because so many people are confused by this that they think that only "VS.net" can create web service applications and that only ".net server" can be used as a server plateform.
I see things like this, and my first reaction is that it confirms my biases that Miguel de Icaza et al. have gone completely off their rocker by thinking that they can work with Microsoft and support .NET using Mono or anything else developed as true free or open source software.
.NET My Services a.k.a. Hailstorm. Miguel said as much when I interviewed him for Slashdot and the same thing is on the Mono FAQ page.
.NET My Services are web services provided by Microsoft. What exactly makes you thing there is any relationship at all?
Mono has nothing to do with
Mono is a development platform,
.NET and its components represent a shift away from this. A huge shift. Instead of selling code, the company wants to sell services. And when you sell services, a lot of things change about your business model which can be very painful while you're trying to make the move.
Make no mistake - moving from a boxed product model to a services-based model is hard, whether you are a small dealer or Microsoft Corp. And often the two have clashing priorities. At the moment Microsoft spends hundreds of millions making sure its channel works hard at getting product out to the end user. If they ultimately want to move to services-based revenue and electronic upgrades, the channel could well find itself out in the cold eventually.
--- Hot Shot City is particularly good.
"I think the numbers are quite reasonable. The applications are putting a load on us," Muglia said. "These numbers are barely covering (our costs)...We're not making money with these numbers.
.Net My Services running will come from customers. "We think the predominant place is to focus on users' value and charging end users (customers) for that value."
Muglia reiterated that the bulk of the revenue needed to keep
So they cover costs with the developer fees and everything from the users/consumers is profit? And because they're going to get millions of users just because Windows will come preinstalled they'll make millions (or more?)
BTW, did anyone catch Bill on Frasier?
Until its available to businesses, and all those place that offer free-everything realize they can start charging people for it after paying a $1000 fee to Microsoft. The other scenario is that even if only a minor percentage of people sign up for .NET, the "free" sites lose that advertising revenue.
...Microsoft announced that the new .Nimda Everybody's Service would be offered as a budget complement to the .Net offering.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
This is what I got...
FXConverter - 164 Currency Converter Results
Wednesday, October 24, 2001
10,000 US Dollar = 19,711.4 Australian Dollar
10,000 Australian Dollar (AUD) = 5,073.20 US Dollar (USD)
Its called Predatory Pricing , and for a monopoly like Microsoft, such a thing is illegal in the USA. Yet Microsoft has done it with Internet Explorer, their SDKs, and many other things.
Maybe you can argue that IE is free now, but oh, you just wait. Microsoft will gouge the money out of you someway or another.
Tell me if I'm wrong, but isn't .NET just ActiveX with nobs on?
.NET not allow true 3rd party development?!?!? ramble..ramble...ramble...
So Microsoft are now going to start charging users for use of these 'online' controls in a VB/C++ environment?
how long will that last for? third-party developers will stamp on them..... or will
"Guns for show, knives for a pro" - Fletcher
Not only will they be setting tolls for developers, but I'll bet you there will be a charge for every transaction that happens on .net. As Microsoft's stated goal is for every economic transaction that occorus on the Internet to go through .net, this means that there will be an unavoidable Microsoft tax on every internet financial transaction. The Microsoft tax on computers will have become a Microsoft tax on everything. They will have successfully have challenged the government's monopoly role in collecting unavoidable taxes.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
This is the point I wanted to comment on. In the article Muglia says, "The applications are putting a load on us. These numbers are barely covering (our costs)...We're not making money with these numbers."
It seems to me that if .NET is such a burden to support, perhaps they should have made it more intuitive, dev-freindly, and included better documentation. Instead they put out a crap product and expect the user to pay for the extra help they need to actually get anything out of it. Gee, where have we seen this before. Oh yeah, practically every app MS spews out. Except now it seems they're getting more confidant with the grip they have on our collective balls.
Okay, if the book charge is $1,000 for a small app, and $250 'per' application. How can any grass-roots group want to develop a open source / or free application to give away without some company acting as a benefactor? This smells like a plan to 'weed' these groups away from .NET at all which makes me wonder about the MONO project. WHy couldn't they have done this like Borlands plan with Kylix? One set for free/opensource one set for pay??
Dear God, what are they? Some kind of proprietary software company??? Next I bet you're going to tell me that the license has restrictions in it!
Cheers,
IT
Power corrupts. PowerPoint corrupts absolutely.
At prices like these, I see microsoft losing out big time to other platforms like Linux which don't have the extortionate pricing structure.
Another side-effect will be the large scale piracy of Microsoft's product. Is this what they really want ?
This is for .Net My Services - which is simply some services offered by Microsoft.
As far as I know, the Framework will be free, and will include a C# compiler (not sure though), dropping the price to $0 for developing your own stuff, not including the license to the Windoze box of course.
Anybody surprised? They are just using the model they've used all along: first it's free and almost looks like a good idea, then you pay a little bit, then you pay licensing fees and they own your application.
a beauty!
Developing .net: $1,000, Having your users get hacked by a security hole: Priceless,
for everything else there is *card
If you have your own server with the .net runtime, you don't need to pay this fee, since you don't use the My Services service. If you want to store your service at their site, or/and you want to use their services, thus build f.e. a shell around the functionality they provide, you have to pay for the usage of these services, like you have to pay for the cable TV services you get.
.NET runtime and VS.net. So stop crying this fee is for building .net applications.
Alternatively, other companies will be providing the same services for perhaps less or free. All you really need is a
Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
Back then the market was not yet developed as it is now with Microsoft controlling the desktop. IBM's OS/2 was not yet popular as Windows so its not really a good comparisson. The rationale now is that if you develop in the Windows you will have a bigger pond to catch the fish.
Return the bells of Balangiga.
Of course like any thing else, MS will want to take this stuff to the subsctiption model. It will be too tempting other wise.
This contrasts well with Open Source, where many of the tools a much lower priced.
Some people will sneer and say you get what you pay for. This is not alway quite true, as some around here will certaainly attest.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
.WAr3z for .NET Subscription
Subscription: $0 per year
(Though subjective to ratio sites)
Cost per application: $0.00
What makes you think they will ask? Clippy, retired from irritating users, will be trying to compile all of those things to give to whoever wants to tap the information. You can bet all of that crap will be stored on your hard drive in some file that will crash the OS if removed. Why build a four terrabyte database on your victims when you can make them do it for you.
The most disgusting thing about this is that it may work. M$ will continue to twist the arms of big vendors to maintain the stupid Windoze only OS sales, and they will break their old OSs. Joe sixpacks will either quit buying computers (like he already has), or he will migrate eventually. Getting my own wife to use anything but windoze was like pulling teeth, though she understood why. If the greedheads see the migration working, they will try to tap it. They are all licking their chops.
If M$ can't collect my information at home, they have me at work. Service packs and "upgrades" have been adding privacy invasion tools on our NT machines for years. Think Outlook, MSIE 5, remote desktops, bleh. Soon the company will be putting up a ton of money for Win2k, which has yet to be tested with more than 150 company applications. XP has been prove to break Word templates, so more costs will be incured there on thousands of broken documents. But it's worth it, right? Gotta keep current.
-Twitter.
You may have valid points but each has the same answer.
This is Microsoft we are talking about here!!! Would anyone trust any of these functions to MICROSOFT???!!!
ONLINE BANKING WITH MICROSOFT??? THINK ABOUT IT!!!
It is not for developing with .NET !!!
.NET "My Services". To develop with .NET all you need is the .NET Frameworks or VS7.
It is for using the
Get it right you fucking bigots!
I first read the headline as "Microsoft gets Trolls as .net developers" and bounced. But it would probably be a good way of getting them off of Slashdot. :-)
Money for nothing, pix for free
Just keep telling yourself that.
- (Minor): a standard interface to an on-line address book,.. whatever.
- (Major) access to their user's data (with the use's permission).
They are playing a chicken and egg game. Most users will want to store their personal data in one place (their machine or some server) and not enter this in 10,000 times. No how does my application X access Johnny's data when he logs onto my site? It's authenticates the passport and get's its from the microsoft server.So you get access to a "service" which allows you to "serve" anybody who uses a passport. If passport becomes the worldwide standard you'd defn be getting your money's worth at $250 a pop. Let's bet that the cost won't stay there, Wait for it 1) to increase, 2) to become "per transaction" based. That's where the money really starts flowing.
However I believe that the principle behind .NET is a no-brainer good idea - people need a service like this. Clealry however it should be based top to bottom on an open standard so that anybody is able to host personal passport data (e.g. W3c P3P.
On a realistic note thought I think open ways of doing this will emerge - because many people will want a slice of this pie and people won't be held to ransom. Microsoft will obtain a big first mover advantage but also carries a lot of cost. What is critical is to check out the patent situation in the area (because you can bet your life there will be a large arsenal of them).
Roll on the OpenSource standard passport + third party providers to host that data.
.sig
If MS keeps milking developers for more money, they will ultimately lose out. Developers are the life blood of MS. What would they do without shareware?
My boss has a saying....
Microsoft thinks that they have everyone by the balls, but eventually, those people will beome eunuchs (UNIX).
The "Microsoft tax" historically referred to the cost of bundling Windows in with a computer. This is due to Microsoft's licensing Windows on a per-CPU basis rather than a per-copy basis, essentially making it more practical to bundle Windows with every machine rather than a competitor's OS. Consumers indirectly paid the price for an OEM copy of Windows, or they didn't use computers at all, whether they wanted to or not. The general exceptions to this rule were Mac users and people savvy enough to build their own machine from parts. These days things have changed but most computers still come with the cost of Windows bundled into the price tag. It's a "tax" because you didn't have a choice: it was a computer with Windows or no computer at all.
.NET takes off, the implication is that in order to do business online, you will have to sign up (and pay) for a Microsoft Hailstorm account because that's what online business will "standardize" on. However, it's not entirely clear that that will happen, especially with this news...
If
N4st0r, trixx0r h0bb1tz0rz! Th3y st0l3 0ur pr3c10uzz!
Now I get why Microsoft would be eager to get this into Linux, and every other viable competitor. .Net isn't about just web services. It is about programs. You can be charged $5/month for a backup program after 30 days. Of $2/month for extra calendar features. Or $1/month for an online backup of your config files.
.Net, and the renting of software, they're writing the first chapter in the mainstreaming of Linux. That is, providing, the Linux community doesn't adopt .Net!
If *just* Windows goes into renting software, then the Linux community has a GREAT advantage. Why? People absolutely HATE having the meter running. Any service which has a flat rate, when reasonably priced and sometimes even slightly more expensive, will ALWAYS win the consumer. It is a historical truth.
If only Windows adopts
Seems like it would be a strategic advantage NOT to have software rental on Linux. And this is a plus for the open source community.
I think it is pretty obvious that one of the main purposes of this move is to exclude Open Source development from this platform. Not many contributors to OS software are willing to pay such amounts, and you can bet there is a clause that prevents people from sharing one MyServices license even inside the same project.
In Murphy We Turst
This is unbelievable. It would also seem like good news to other aspects of the distributed object market.
.NET ... but might when free-lance writers that drive various e-zines and smaller publications have to ante up $1000 bucks to get their twinky little demo to work.
... and that the customer will pay exorbitant prices to play.
.NET's own component-warez.
Consider Java/Corba, SOAP and even DCOM if MSFT continues to support it in it's current implementation (I doub it). None of them combined get as much press attention, as
And talk about timing, how many cost-cutting/concious companies will want to add as much as $10,000 to the cost of a project. Even at that price, Government contractors are going to think twice.
It seems to me as of Microsoft is going down the same path of destruction Digital Equipment and IBM traveled when they were kings of their hills. This thought that "nobody gets fired for hiring/using microsoft"
Moreover, it makes the time right for third party companies to begin creating component libraries that will either emulate, compete or obviate
healyourchurchwebsite.com - WWJB?
Send the competition packing, and then jack up the prices.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Uh, not sure if most slashdotters heard of a thing called MSDN. No, it's not a knock-off of OSDN. Yes it was there before.
.NET in the future, just watch). I know it's an amazing concept. But companies, developers and the like have been purchasing compilers and/or libraries to develop for operating systems since the dawn of Unix. Nothing new. I mean, look at those VB catalogs floating around. They charged like 200~300 bucks for some stupid form making utility. And the funning thing, is people buy them!
.NET. But, hey, if you were a monolopy, what would you do? People are going to buy this stuff.
Point is not to flame. But rather state, people are going to pay money, even to develop for an operating system (OS applies here since they'll make an OS out of
MSDN subscriptions were in the 1,000 ~ 10,000 range, so nothing new or amazing there. Yeah the library is bigger than
From the CNET article:
The company is constructing multiple data centers to house information related to the service, and it will recruit partner companies to offer services and host customer data.
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that
there is no money in hell.
If $1,000 is going to be the lowest Microsoft will go, then I'm sad to say that beginning developers in the Windows/.NET arena will be stifled. They'll approad other venues, such as Linux, Qt, etc. for learning how to program.
I guess in the current economy, inexperienced, entry-level programmers are not important to Microsoft, making it that much harder for college graduates to get their foot in the door.
OK,
.Net: closed, immature, unstable, unscalable, expensive ($1,000-$10,000+) licence.
Sun's Java: open, mature, stable, scalable, portable, free licence.
Microsoft
I do not mean to mindlessly flame Bill and the boys, but don't we already have all this, and the fact that I have different options from people doing their own solutions imply that maybe one single overarching architecture in the background may actually limit innovation?
I know that the cost of doing business with M$ in Canada has opened the door where I work to Linux and other open source solutions to internal software and product development. I also know that we can't afford the lack of consistency from M$ in their security, format, and licensing models.
Some folks here say that the best thing going for Linux is that its not M$. To an extent, that is true. I think rather it is that Linux is not managed in the way M$ is.
-- The Hollow Man
Non illegitimati carborundum
Hmmmm... M$ licensing models seem to me to be corporate terrorism :}
That goat is lying!
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing. Emo Philips
"...perhaps they should have made it more intuitive, dev-freindly, and included better documentation"
I think the costs they were referring to were bandwidth costs, not other costs like documentation and support.
creation science book
I hate to point this out, but that's still cheaper than paying TrollTech for the right to use Qt (and by extension, KDE)!!!
Microsoft sets tolls?
Microsoft should rather sell dolls. That will be better for anyone.
Just keep telling yourself that.
:)
Ok
Linux is great. I dont know why anyone would pay $200 for Windows 2000 Fischer Price edition, when redhat 7.2 is really really awesome, and comes with so much software. I am a power user, granted, and therefore I know quality when I see it. And MS really only has marketing and momentum. As things stand right now, it can barely compete on quality/quantity/price of software.
I think it's great to be optimistic about linux growth. Nobody knows what's gonna happen in 5 years, and people that preclude possibilities are lying to themselves. Plain and simple.
Wrong. It's like a library charging for development of software that uses their services.
Pfft. I'd rather connect clients with the library across the road, which charges for service only.
My exception safety is -fno-exceptions.
The core SDK has always been free (except for some juicy core stuff that MS keeps to themselves, and their "shared source partners.")
Power to the Peaceful
Thank heaven.
They already spend (from what I read) $100-$200 million / year developing and improving Internet Explorer. (I hope my source is correct on that, though I can't seem to dig it up just now.) That is roughly the GDP of the country of Dominica. And they pay other companies to adopt it as their browser technology. What could their motivation possibly be to spend this much money on a product they give away for free? (Yes, that last question was a joke, folks
Frankly, I was worried the company was going to go bankrupt.
-- My choice of computing platform is a symbol of my individuality and belief in personal freedom.
It's about time that /. is no longer filled with sensational slashdotter bullshit.
Yes, bullshit.
CNet's articles are normally pretty crappy, but /.'s linkup, especially the subject line (and the description too) are complete and total bullshit, intended to rally anti-MS slashdotters around something the article's title and description misstate.
How many times do informed .NET developers have to remind the general /. community that:
People who are in desperate need of getting an informed clue before posting:
God Bless our Free Country, where it takes so long to get through all the appeals courts that Microshaft will have already shut the competitor down by the time the supreme court gives them a slap on the wrist and says "pay them $100 million of the $3 billion you have earned while waiting on appeals, sorry that you had to spend another $100 million on lawyers - that only leaves you with $2.8 billion. Life must be so hard. Oh yeah - don't do this again"
"Who am I" and "Why are we here" are not the problems.
The problem is when someone asks "Why are they here."
Scotty beam me up!
.Net is.
.Net services. You know... the idea of web services? Like this is what it'll cost if you want to utilize Microsoft's services as part of your system.
.Net programming environment, which from everything I have seen thus far indicated will be available free as in beer. Except for a number of value add pieces, such as the IDE, ASP.Net caching, and a performance tuned compiler.
Once again it becomes blazingly obvious that the bulk of Microsoft's detractors haven't a clue which end they use to go to the bathroom, much less what
This is about
Has nothing to do with the
I have been looking at .NET for a long time now and at first I too was somewhat confused about what the definition was. .NET is not a product or a server or even a platform, rather it is all of these things. The .NET My Services in my opinion should not be considered a part of .NET the platform, instead think of it in the sense of an ASP (provider not page) Microsoft is using the web services platform built on .NET specifications to develop a suite of services. End users will see the use of these services for free by way of applications which have integrated the services. The developers who integrate the Microsoft services into their application will have to pay a fee, similar to licensing components for application development today. The price may seem a little steep but realize that not only are they providing a functional service for your application, they provide the infrastructure to ensure that the service is available to meet your application user's demands. I myself don't see the day that I would use the .NET My Services, however, the platform that is exposed by the collective effort from Microsoft across their development and server products is a very exciting one. So I respect .NET for what I feel is a good vision for distributed development, and where I don't agree with Microsoft, I am not forced to.
My Services is going to fail miserably and go the route of the Channels bar of Windows 98. People are much smarter than they used to be about all this.
Anyone remember an old game (c. 1989) from Business Week that used to come in boxes of 5.25" floppies? You would run Microsoft for 5 years and see how well you did. The best I could do was to practically give away the software for 3 years, then once I had market share crank up the prices 1000%. Maybe Gates & ape-boy Ballme[r] have been playing that game.
But since "My Services" includes the passport auth it might as well be mandatory.
.net server without paying for "My Services"?
You can't run your own passport system. What exactly would be the point of running your own
??
On slashdot??? Never!
;-)
Mooney Guy N4074H
'Exactly when did we become IBM?' - Bill Gates
They do like they always do ..get you interrested, make promises then turn around and screw you.
.and i hope that the patent the other company has on .net technologies will explode in their face.
.. do anything you can to reduce them to the same they reduced their competition.Dismantle them,put them in peices and close them.
Im not a ms fan
My morro is simple
A $1000 from every developer for _bandwidth_? I accept the possibility of this, but I think the cost of manning a help desk to cover tech support requests is a more likey source of these costs. And I maintain the position that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Putting an ounce effort into making a better product results in dropping a pound of tech support. Unfortunately when the goal is greed and not pride in one's work, there is no incentive for putting in that extra effort.
You know how the pusher gives you free sample of a controlled substance? You get addicted and the next thing the prices get real high, since you FEEL you can't do without.
There isn't a single technology in MS which isn't available elsewhere. The fools who geared their entire IT departments to rely on MS for development have only themselves to blame, since they took the free sample, and since their jobs now depend upon getting the stuff, MS will be happy to provide it at higher and higher const. Since the stuff is by all accounts "controlled", the developer is stuck in the nasty situation by a culture willing to settle for MS mediocrity.
Oh, well...
If you want the fancy IDE and the semi-useful library of interfaces to the OS, you can do one of two things; you can continue to pay an escalating rate or you can brew you own.
Warning: Just like the established pushers are the ones who call the authorities in when they get small time competition, you can count on MS to call in the authorities (via lawsuits, guerrila licensing, namebrand misdirection) anytime somebody tries to produce an OS and development system to compete with theirs. Think BeOS among others. Remember IBM produced a stable, resilient OS with all of the features of Windows 95 but made the mistake of licensing the technology to MS; Can you say OS2 Warp?
Fast machines, powerfull AI, impulsive invention,... All I lack is a good espresso machine!
Modded down as flamebait. My first time! I feel like a real /.er now. :)
The
Perhaps when they mention the 1000/year it's for the priviledge to work with C# ?
Foot long grilled chicken on parmesan oregano w/ everything except for hot peppers & onion, with BBQ sauce. Thems good eatings!
There seems to be some confusion here...
.NET is the platform
.NET My Services is a set of services built on the .NET platform.
.NET platform?
from what I can figure...
is this the case?
What if you don't want to use any of the My Services stuff and just want to build your own code from scratch on the
from the article -
"Developers can choose to support some or all of those [services] in the applications they develop and will be charged accordingly"
With the high cost of the .net tech, people will be less apt to pay for the tech. This will lead to even more piracy. hmmm do you think they ever thought about offering less costly software and better service, no, microsoft would have to be good for that to happen.
And I thought their wireless service couldn't get any worse!
I was afraid that MicroSquish might actually have been bright enough to make this whole ".net" scheme catch on.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
maybe you haven't been using the same .NET beta that myself a number of my friends have been using...
.NET thing kicks its ass!
as JAVA developers we have been incredibly impressed by the "intuitive" and "dev-friendly" environment. up till now the best JAVA IDE we've come across is IntelliJ, but now this
for instance...
right-click discover services. ba-da-bing, the IDE queries your web server, extracts all the WSDL it needs and you are immediately ready to start developing thin clients on top of web servers.
right-click, new web service... creates all the class structures for you and takes you right to the "insert your code here".
um... intuitive package importing, collapsable code regions and namespaces...
of course, this is all lost on hard-core linux fans. "if i can't do it in vi then it sucks".
maybe you should give the beta a test drive and you may be as impressed as we are (and yes, we have all been VERY anti-microsoft for the last three years).
Maybe MS is actually trying to increase piracy
with their toll so they can use it as more
evidence for copyright martial law?
I think that you wanted
JDK.price = free
||
JDK.price == free
Let's be really clear on this: developing .NET applications is free, but developer access to some .NET services are not. In fact, ASP.NET (next gen server side scripting language) is free with your purchase of a Microsoft OS that includes IIS. ASP.NET compiles to Microsofts new CLR (Common Language Runtime), the same platfrom that all other .NET languages compile to. This free application development software will compile to binaries that are as fast as C.
.NET developer will pay for is access to .NET software services run by Microsoft (essentially some large applications like Passport and My Services). A developer can, for a price, integrate data and functionality from these .NET services into their own applications. Passport and My Services do sound like useful things to leverage in third party apps providing that they are widely used and stable. I see no reason why a developer shouldn't pay for access to these services, especially considering how much money Microsoft has dumped into them.
What a
As a developer, you could use ASP.NET and write your own web services for user authentication, calendars, and productivity software at no cost to you.
Charging for the Xbox. Something no person wants, needs, or enjoys.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_U.S._Election_c
Are we in danger of some benefit concerts for the small developer? Code Aid, featuring all of your usual country-rock suspects...
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
It's not for the costs of the tools (ala msdn).
.Net services -don't- include CA. (which would be a shameful oversight)
.Net services from MS?
It's for the costs of access to their prebuilt -services-. If you have the skill to write and support your own shopping cart, you don't shell out $1000.
I mean, the price bar was set by Verisign. They'll charge you $1400 a year for a certificate and 'payment services' (cybercash).
If you snub Verisign and hit up Thawte ($125) for your certificate, and MS for your 'payment services' ($1000) it looks like you're -saving- $375 to me. And that's if MS
Is everyone so terrified of writing their own web calendar that they feel 'robbed' by 'having' to buy
But I suppose writing a well-thought article/post that points out that MS is -saving- you money (albeit a slight bit), or even just releasing their services at the already established going rate, just doesn't get the hits.
// "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"
I can already use online calendars, email, checking, banking, stock quotes, etc FOR FREE... so what exactly is the rational by which I would justify PAYING for these?
Let's see... Robinhood=take from the rich give to poor, MS=take from poor and give to the rich. They want to take free services and charge people for them. If society is dumb enough to go for that, then we deserve what we get.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= - The Celtic - =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
When you summarize an article, why not include the important facts, like what it is that exactly costs money. It's using the .Net services, you know the ones Microsoft is hosting that has everyones panties in a wad over privacy and what not. They're not charging you extra for writing in ASP.NET or VB.NET or C#. It's only if you use their passport and wallet shiznit.
'Same speed C but faster'
Really, I don't think it would be possible for me to care less. I develop everything on Linux, the only thing I use windows for is games. I have not run into a situation where I HAD to do anything on windows in a long time. Linux is a much better platform for development, in ANY field (well I don't know about games).
:P
I really don't see how them overcharging their customers really affects me at all. Except possibly that I will get more business because MS developers are a dime a dozen and we are a rarer breed....thanks MS, charge more if you like
jik-
FWIW, i think this is the ASP tool you're talking about.
i've never used it, but others have told me it's fab. Alternatives, woohoo!
This is the voice of World Control. I bring you Peace.
$399 for an MP3 player doesn't sound so bad.
"Today Microsoft revealed the cost of signing up as a developer to .Net. Entry level is $1,000. Standard level $10,000. Custom support will cost even more."
Is that with or without your soul?
This fee is to use MS's .NET MyServices, not to write code. Developing for .NET and deciding to plug into MS's prebuilt services are 2 totally different things.
.NET for *free*, yes, free. VB.NET, C#, J#, C++, free. But my guess is that wouldn't exactly make headlines at /.
.NET framework (free). It comes with all the compilers.
You can write code for
You just need
...was that the C libraries on OS/2 cost so damned much money, and I was in it as a hobbyist. It was NOT worth it for me to pay that kind of money, even though I could have made some pretty nice apps. So instead I made a lot of REXX scripts, since that is what I had on the OS for free (well...included, anyway) and later learned java, as it was a free download.
The article even says that this is for ".net my services" normal SDK models will still apply for everyday use. write all the stock quote and weather apps you want for free. jesus. learn to read an article before spouting off on just how evil and criminally insane microsoft is. anyone who has a copy of beta2 of studio .net also has a copy of the sdk, so charging a thousand for it really does not make much sense...
you stupid fucks, this is very *ON* topic. I've been in development for over the past 10 years, and hell if me or my organization is going to pay for this! This is seriously fucking stupid that they would charge this much, let alone charging at all! Nobody is going to use it. Microsoft will be out of business within the next 10 years. They will realize nobody is paying then they will lower the prices and offer incentives to come back to the old .NET only to realize that everyone is comfortable with Linux now and doesn't even want to USE crappy Microsoft products, let alone pay for them.
Except that makes no sense. You're paying the same $1,250 whether you distribute a single copy of your application, or a million copies. The cost has no relationship to the bandwidth.
This is simply a development tax. Want to write software for Windows? Open your wallet.
Linux is great. I dont know why anyone would pay $200 for Windows 2000 Fischer Price edition, when redhat 7.2 is really really awesome, and comes with so much software. I am a power user, granted, and therefore I know quality when I see it. And MS really only has marketing and momentum. As things stand right now, it can barely compete on quality/quantity/price of software.
Why? Because I know windows, when I start the computer up I want to be able to use the applications in it right away. When it's work time I don't really care much what OS is better or how much support/applications/information is avaliable, I know how to use it already. I boot up, start my app, and create the stuff I'm there to create. Biggest reason for not swapping to Linux is that I don't know it that well, I'm not tempted to spend weeks or months trying to figure out an OS when I already know one, no matter how much greater the other one is.
But some day...when I have the time...
Wax-Museum Fire Results In Hundreds Of New Danny DeVito Statues
The "toll" mentioned here is only to licence certain web services that many casual hobyists and professional developers alike will never need or use. You don't want to pay for Passport integration? Do your own e-wallet, pretty much everyone does now. You don't have to pay 10,000$ to get use of the IDE, as posters on this thread are suggesting.
I remember being told I would be dead in the water unless my code was transportable as a JavaBean...well, I'm still here....and where is that universal repository of JavaBeans everyone is hitting?
The more this stuff is rammed down our throats, the better plain old sockets look.
Wasn't it Steve Ballmer that said "Developers! Developers! Developers!" ? has that standard MS line changed to "charge developers! charge developers! charge developers!" ?
It's apparent that there is a serious misunderstanding here. .NET is not "locked" to some subscription model. Rather, .NET's "My Services" is locked to the subscription model.
.NET), or make use of another environment (Codewarrior, GCC, etc.). You can STILL write native code for Windows without a subscription, and you can write managed code (C#, VB, managed C++) without a subscription. You can even write your own web services without a subscription. If you want to plug into the MS My Services model, though, you pay.
.NET is already confused enough with Microsoft's TLA-of-the-week and other marketing-speak. Do a little research, people, before you start spouting off!
My Services is part of Microsoft's drive to make the Web Services - provided by MS in a centralized format - available to the developer community. Clients who need the "stability" of the Microsoft hosting and management will be able to make use of it through their annual subscription.
Developers who want to write Windows code will only have to purchase MS's development tools (Visual Studio
It distresses me to see such poor journalism, particularly when press about
What'dya mean there's no BLINK tag!?
What the heck is Bill thinking ? .NET and XP must be put on hold for 2 years until so that the companies that weree damaged as a result of MS's missuse of its Monopoly.
.NET standards could be out the window in a years time ?
Should he not wait and see what the court is going to do to MS befor they make a bunch of plans.
What if they rule that
Or what if they rule that I.E. must not be packaged with XP. Would that not mean that
Bill must be snorten the good stuff to maintane a ego like that when his company is about to be beatin into submission by the courts.
haha. $1000? Too bad .NET isn't going to be worth the waste of a good $0.05 CD-R.
I agree. I just don't think Linux is "on the verge of driving out Microsoft" anytime soon. It takes a whole lot more than a good product to become a market leader.
Developers can choose to support some or all of those in the applications they develop and will be charged accordingly.
Muglia said for entry-level, small-scale applications, Microsoft will charge developers $1,000 a year for access to .Net My Services and $250 per application they create.
For standard use, which Microsoft expects will involve the majority of users, Microsoft will charge $10,000 per year for using .Net My Services and $1,500 per application.
If that's not a toll on development, I'm not sure what is. The client is charged per application that the developer was charged to make. That's some some service service, thank you, thank you.
Talk about a viral liscense. They must consider anything that links to their new "Service" a derivative work. The only problem is that it's not going to be catching.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
Good news! In order to make paying your bill more convenient and to keep our costs low, we have signed up with MS Passport so that you can (and MUST) easily pay your bill on the
This is followed by similar letters from your mortgage bank, phone company, electric utility...
Read the article - it's about charging developers for access to .NET services. However, the post sounds like MS is charging for access to the .NET platform - talk about FUD.
The best thing about a boolean is even if you are wrong, you are only off by a bit.
Let me get this straight...you want us to go and, like, click on the link and, like, read the article for ourselves?
Putz.
Back before Windows 95 came out you could (and probably wanted to) subscribe to Visual C++ to keep up with the releases as they tweaked support for Windows 95 in the months leading up to its release. IIRC a year got you the 4.X series and then 5.0
DCMonkey
Basicly the charges listed here would be like paying for web hosting with a lot of extra services. The list of services on MS' website is basicly a set of collaboration, authentication, document storage, email and voice mail, calendars, contact lists, and a number of other services. Basicly it's like asking MS to host your web site, your file server, applications servers, and email, and also allow you to write your own software to host on their servers which can access any of the information stored on or retrieved by their servers (that you've payed for access to).
How about "If I can't read it with a non-MS editor then it sucks?"
First of all, any IDE that generates a mountain of horsesh8t and then sends your cursor to the "insert your code here" point is IMHO garbage. One thing I like about Java (compared to, say, MS Visual anything) is the way that the "generated code" is hidden in superclasses. MS sticks it in your face. (Well, Sun does it too in Forte for Java, but that's why nobody uses it.)
Collapsible code regions sounds like a bad idea, like the "design time objects" that MS encourages you to use in Visual Studio. With those, you're basically editing gibberish that's being presented to you as text (with "cool looking" COM-based GUIs embedded within the text). But whooo, you don't have to scroll over that collapsed code now! I've had to migrate an app away from ASP where the code monkeys used design time objects and I believe their sole purpose is to make porting away from NT impossible. Any ASP that was inflicted with these warts had to be completely rewritten from scratch.
In any case, an IDE with cool right-clicks in it seems like a really poor reason to introduce vendor lock-in with such a nasty vendor. How easy is it to maintain these thin clients? Can they be migrated to other platforms or are you essentially editing closed-format object code (being viewed as source) with that IDE? When choosing a technology on which to base a project, you should look at the longer-term strategy, like ease of maintenance, adherence to standards, etc. MS is hoping they can offer you an IDE with some flashy toys in it and fool you into going down their one-way street.
Maybe I'd try it out anyway, but it would mean installing IIS, which I would like to avoid. Which is pointless, because it's probably running on half the computers in the office without anyone knowing anyway. How about "right-click discover patches for latest security holes"? Now THAT would be useful.
Microsoft's monopolistic market power is based on its leverage of the Windows/Office platform and revenue streams. Therefore, the best resolution to the antitrust case is one which increases competition by reducing the ability of Microsoft to leverage the platform and revenue or otherwise invade the privacy of the customer as a result of the foregoing.
.Net framework including any modifications thereof or successors thereto. This will permit two things: a.) relatively rapid porting of the framework to alternative operating systems while eliminating potential inconsistencies due to multiple framework development efforts (i.e. freeing resources devoted to the redundant Mono framework) and b.) platform independent applications (i.e. applications written exclusively to the .Net platform should be capable of running on Windows, Linux, Mac OS X, etc. a la Java). Microsoft would be bound by decree to certain source and object code publishing and documentation requirements a la Sun's voluntary efforts related to OpenOffice.org.
.NET services evolves into); b.) any network authentication source; c.) any advertising or sponsorship links. Related to this, Microsoft must not require the use of any network based service to use its desktop applications (i.e. why is Passport required to open my Money 2002 file?). Microsoft must further x.) permit third parties to utilize an API facilitating equivalent functionality for authentication and provision of services to the Windows platform/Microsoft desktop application as that used by Microsoft for .NET services; y.) give users the ability to chose any third party provider; and z.) simplify that choice by listing alternative providers with 2% or more of the market for any given class of network service where this list is sorted by market share.
.NET framework program. With respect to third party copyrights, Microsoft must use its best efforts to obtain a BSD license for such copyright so as to permit full disclosure and incorporation of that code in third party operating systems.
Here is my proposed consent decree:
1.).Net Framework: Microsoft must open source (BSD license) the
2.)Incorporation of Nonessential Functionality in Products: Microsoft must offer a simple means of avoiding the installation of or removing the following functionality post-installation: a.) all applications or network-based services not integral to the proper operation and maintenance of the Windows operating system (i.e. explorer, movie maker, photo editor, imaging software, media player, messenger, games, MSN Explorer plus whatever
3.)Privacy Management: Microsoft must not distribute any information it gathers about its customers/users to any third party without the explicit, opt-in, time-limited consent of that user. Microsoft must provide a simple, secure method for any customer/user to view all information that Microsoft has gathered with respect to that user and permit the customer/user to delete any or all of such information. Microsoft must use its "best efforts" to secure such information from accidental divulgence to third parties. Absent explicit, opt-in, time-limited consent, Microsoft must demonstrate that it does not utilize internally or distribute certain user information including contacts, calendar, and financial information except as absolutely essential to the provision of that service.
4.)Pricing/Marketing Restrictions: Microsoft must offer standardized, openly published pricing to any customer for a given volume of products. Microsoft must not enter into any agreement which would have the contractual or de facto result of exclusivity for Microsoft.
5.)Compatibility with Other Office Programs: Microsoft must offer the OpenOffice XML file filters for the following Microsoft Office versions: 97, 2000 and XP via a download from its Office support website and must bundle these filters as one of the default supported file formats in any future Office version or any service pack for an existing Office version. Further, Microsoft must publish the file formats for the following desktop applications: Office including FrontPage and Publisher, Visio, Project, and Money including the current version, two past generations, and all future versions (three months prior to commercial release of a product utilizing the new format). The DOJ would reserve the right to add to this list of products.
6.)Open Source Device Drivers: Except to the extent that such incorporates third party copyrights, Microsoft must release the technical specifications and open-source (BSD license) its source code, to every extent possible, for all devices and peripherals supported by the current version of Windows (i.e. scanners, printers, sound cards, video cards, hard drives, USB devices, controller cards and chips). Program management for this effort will be similar to the open source
What would you add or do differently?
Yes, they are going to CHARGE you just for writing an application, as was pointed out by M$ themselves in the first few lines of the article. I suppose they will try to levy that toll on anyone who wrote an application using their tools or not, so free developers may need apply before they try. At that rate the city library might have to pay a M$ tax too. I'd prefer my libray used a reasonable, peer reviewed free program like postgress or mysequel and left M$ out.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
What Microsoft is charging for is for developers to hook into the .NET MyServices (formerly Hailstorm). That's because to use them, you'll be using Microsoft's own resources, i.e., Microsoft's bandwidth and servers. I think most people by now realize that the business model of giving this away for free is just about dead.
If you're developing apps that don't use .NET MyServices, there's no charge. You can download the .NET Framework SDK for free and write your programs in Notepad if you want. This includes standalone apps, server apps, and even web services -- just not .NET MyServices.
Unless Slashdot is just interested in shoving FUD down the throat of all its readers -- and I would hope you'd consider it an insult to your intelligence that they would do this -- they really should correct the story submission.
Since Zope does everything that .NET reportedly does, and has been doing so longer, who cares?
... the headline is completely misrepresentative of the actual content of the article and the readily available facts of the matter.
.NET My Services (Calendar, contact-list, document storage, etc) in YOUR application, you can license it from MS for a fee.
.NET is free and always will be.
The real truth is that if you want to use Microsoft's
Last I checked, there are companies who actually charge people for the use of their software, I don't think this is anything new.
As always, the real truth is that developing for
Have you ever thought that actually Passport service does not bind accounts to real identities. This should limit possible applications drastically. Probably only PKI can solve it, but I think that most people do not want to pay $100 for a cert...
Excuse me while I reserve my judgement on whether Microsoft will not eventually find a way to make these heretofore distinct and independent entities, merged in one ugly ball that is only available through a process which ultimately deposits money one way or another in Microsoft's pockets.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
This has been the most absolutely worthless discussion on Slashdot in a long time. There are PLENTY of interesting things to discuss about .NET MyServices, but because of the FUD in the posting, it never got discussed.
Sheep. Sheep. Sheep.
I never knew that! That's ridiculous! I thought the real potential for free software was for the end user - not having to pay for software. I never knew that it cost so much money just to develop software for MS platforms. I would think that as the free tools for developing software for the *nixes get better that will become a real strength.
My Karma was at 49, then they switched to words. All that work for nothing!
I'll be impressed when the Windows installation has a 'development' checkbox that installs source and IDE. But anyway... I wonder how many development houses are going to jump on C# and start programming on it. If you've got lots of seasoned VC++ programmers, why even bother? One more way to keep people on Windows is make them learn a non-portable language... QT is money to license for commercial products, but at least you can take QT and the skills learned on it to other platforms.
Only a monopoly or seriously vertical market (game consoles for example) can charge the people that it -needs- in order for it to stay popular for development tools necessary to create applications for their platform.
Linux is so far behind in the "user friendly" department, I think it'll be 2010 (maybe even 2020) before we see any competition of Linux and Microsoft on the desktop market.
.....
and before Linux win microsoft in the desktop market, there's no way Linux can win the server market.
so keep dreaming
My experience with these you-don't-have-to-be-a-developer-we'll-code-for-yo u IDEs is that many programmers that use them tend to write poor code.
Most of the time, developers that use these IDEs exclusively are either poorly trained to begin with or become lazy and depend to much on them. Their code reflects that.
I own JBuilder, and I use it occasionally because I like it's debugger, but most of the time, I just code in a regular old text editor and compile at the command line.
I would rather keep my options open and my talents sharp, so I'll avoid MS's latest code generator.
I thought Microsoft was interested in gaining developer support for their new initiative.
I can hardly see where setting trolls for .NET would help gain developer goodwill.
Besides, posters on Slashdot will troll for free - but I doubt they'd pay for the privilege to troll .NOT
"Provided by the management for your protection."
Well, that's the demo. In the real thing they'll switch the default. WIN3.1 let you see your file extentions by default. WIN9x does not.
Make even shorter URLs - 8LN.org
What happens if you create a wildly successful .NET service? You will never reap the ultimate benefits - MS will make their own version and drive you out of business through their control of the system. Don't waste your time.
Well... this is the final straw. Now Microsoft has decided not only to charge users on a yearly basis, but also to impose a tax on developers. Ten thousand bucks!
This sort of nonsense can do nothing to harm the OpenSource community : far from it - it strengthens our cause. The OS is free, the development tools are free, the support is plentiful. How can microsoft win?
X
Well observed.
Since you ask, I argue that the people making Microsoft products are smarter than the people using Microsoft products. A framer building a wooden house might drive nails with a heavy framing hammer (emacs). But a home owner replacing a rotted board on his front steps might use a lighter hammer (IDE), even though it's not 'optimally efficient'. His ego is not linked to driving home the nail in two strokes. He just wants to get the job done, preferrably without smashing his thumb.
Can you imagine an average Windows application programmer developing his own elsip?
Of course, if the home owner advocates using a tack hammer to build a house, he's going to get laughed at.
Developers can choose to support some or all of those in the applications they develop and will be charged accordingly.
Muglia said for entry-level, small-scale applications, Microsoft will charge developers $1,000 a year for access to .Net My Services and $250 per application they create.
For standard use, which Microsoft expects will involve the majority of users, Microsoft will charge $10,000 per year for using .Net My Services and $1,500 per application.
That's hard to misread. Why Muglia would say that they will charge $250 for the privalige of writing an application if it was not so? Of course, such "service" fees are nothing next to what M$ thinks people will pay to use their garbage.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
why pay for a sollution that has not prove yet it is working when we can have Java for free and use powerfull & opensourced software and applications servers on our linux for free ????
... i do think that linux/*bsd that will to build an enterprise solution should realy have a look at what java may offer ;-)
I pray for the dotGNU and dotStuff to stop their job, because the only thing that they will do is advertise the MS solution and not make the migration to linux easier !!!
Java is not the panacea, but it as evolve since years gaining hors-power and maturity
"What can java do for you today ?"
:o)
AR34'.
They withhold a bunch of useful features from the free versions, but you can write patches and implement them yourself using their Opentools API. It's not really an "API"- they just left a portion of the internal classes unobfuscated and gave them public modifiers, so you can monkey with them. The documentation sucks- it's basically a bunch of javadocs that are riddled here and there with 404s so you have to use System.out.println() and reflection to figure out how to do certain things. And it's a bit overengineered from running on top of Swing. But it does let you alter the IDE and add stuff to it. I added a "delete dependency cache" button to my toolbar to get around their annoying "rebuild doesn't really rebuild" bug, and a split pane view for viewing two source code files at once. Their class-structure tree and their debugger seem to be off limits to customization, however.
Many people have pointed out that this is the price of access to Hailstorm, not the price of access to .NET. I don't think the prices are high at all. In fact, they're ridiculously low for entry into the controlled space Microsoft is creating. Why don't you phone up Yahoo and Google and ask what they'd charge to let you put your button on their site? I don't think it will be as cheap as what MS is offering.
.... " or "Programmers won't .... ". These posters don't seem to realize that the software industry is shaped by businesses, not programmers. If you are hired to work on a .NET-related project, you will not know or care what arrangement the company made with Microsoft. The audience that Microsoft is addressing will not balk at the price.
I'm seeing a lot of comments like "Programmers will
Damn, you are stupid.
I don't want any single place where my information is store unless I have FULL and COMPLETE control on what is in there, and who can access it.
Such a place exists for me. Its my computer. It sits behind a nice little firewall, where people looking to make money of me can't reach it.
I'm glad sun is making an aternative. But the world at large is far far better with out such a thing. A central place of information for people to make money of me.
The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive
Consider this. Programming API's cost that much or more for specifc applications. 3d, crypto, printing, wireless and just about any arena you can think of.
1k for entry for a whole environment is not that bad.
Only around 25% of the people we surveyed responded negatively.
That sounds about right--one out of every four people online are not knuckle-dragging protohumans.
Too bad the ratio isn't that good in the real world.
All small developers are out with that high of an entry price in place. It will be interesting to see who does buy into the .Net stuff and see how much their cutomer support will cost them. I can assume that the customer support costs will be astronomical.
OH NOES! TEH INTARWEB IS BORKEN!
So you probably imply that all the developper using Visual Studio are writting poor code ? Man ! I am pretty sure Quake 3 was written with a vim port to win32, or is Photoshop written with emacs on cygwin? Sometimes I am impress by how the mind can bend facts on what is actually wants to hear....
Maybe you should bone up on your reading comprehension skills bud.
Until you can cut and paste universally, from all major applications to all major applications then Linux will remain a leper. In my opinion this is the major factor holding back the usability of Linux. Windows users don't, and don't have to, even know the names of the applications they use. The menu systems are unified and they have useful context menus and tooltips. In this respect windows \ office is light years ahead of the linux counterparts. You should be able to select a table of data from a web browser, press Ctrl+C, Alt-Tab to your word processor, press Ctrl+V and have it paste in a table, complete with identical formatting. You should be able to select an area of a picture from your graphics program (which should be in ONE window ie not The Gimp), press Ctrl+C, Alt-Tab to your word processor, press Ctrl+V and have it paste in the section of picture and wrap the text.
"If Stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?" - Will Rogers
As numerous people have pointed out, this isn't a bar to small developers working with .NET. However, what is a bar is that the Visual Studio.NET betas require ludicrous system specs to run.
I took the copy home from work to try out, since no-one on my development team was going to risk their work PC and I didn't mind reformatting my HD if it all went wrong. Sadly, I didn't get that far, because my little PII/350 with 192MB and Win98 wasn't even close to good enough to install the beta. That's a machine that was sate-of-the-art about 3 years ago, in case anyone's counting. It's still good enough for Quake III to be playable, but I can't even write "Hello, world" on it?!
The typical development PC at the office isn't much higher spec than that, because normally there's no need to upgrade. The typical expendable development machine certainly isn't. Note in particular that the beta seems to need Win2K (or presumably XP now) installed. Most of our work machines don't have that yet, because our clients (who often specify the systems on which our software must run) are only just starting to contemplate shipping Win2K systems.
So, as a direct result of Microsoft's absurd requirements to install this beast, I haven't tried it. And since I'm one of the few in the office who could be bothered, another Microsoft Certified Partner company is unlikely to upgrade any time soon.
Now that should be worrying Microsoft.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Does anybody else agree with me that this tendency to create cutsie little names like "My Computer", "My Services", "My Billy Gates" is a bit demeaning to the user?
It sounds like my first day of kindergarten class, as Mrs. McGee was handing out little name tags that said "My name is..."
It's hard to believe that "professional" developers lap up this stuff so readily. Oh well, back to the usual ranting...
---
slashdot: A failed experiment.
Microsoft don't want to move... they just want to cope with EVERY possible channel. They won't stop making shitty software for lame users if
--- "pero toda poesía es hostil al capitalismo"