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.
... 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.
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
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!
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
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.
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.
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
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.
Where does this assumption come from that if big companies aren't making money off of it, the net is not being of practical use? I just don't get it. Yes, I can see why companies would want to find a way to make the web useful for business. What I don't get is why all of us as a whole world population should think that this is necessary for the web to be useful. I send lots of E-mail; I find scientific preprints online; I can easily post information that people across the world can see; I download huge quantities of free software to run personal and professonal workstations; I order some books and computer hardware online. All of these things are of tremedous use to me, but by and large only the infrastructure providers are profiting off of it. Why should we think that the web isn't of any use right now just because, as one self-styled luminary noted, it isn't obeying some basic rules of business?
Mind you, if companies do find ways to make money off if it, I don't begrudge that... IF (1) I'm not forced into using it (and with M$ behind passport, I bet it will get very difficult for me to do the sort of online commerce I've done in the pass without giving into it, which will piss me off), and if (2) the great elements about the open web which is a "collection of websites" right now don't go away (and the entertainment industry very much wants them to go away in order to turn the internet into the next TV so that they can more easily make money off of it). I'm not anti-business, but I really would like the internet and the web to keep some of the great features it has right now.
-Rob
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
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 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.
Yes, but your guitar will last you for decades... when do you think the next version of .Net will be released, and how much do you think it will cost? $1000 over 20 years versus $1000 a year is a very different thing. Also, you *can* get a decent guitar for $160 instead of $1200, and would be advised to while you are learning to play, and you'll discover that the two have very different uses. Playing Bach, I'll use the $1200 guitar. Playing Nick Cave, I'll use the $160 guitar. Switch the two around, and it just doesn't sound as nice - in either direction (a bit of buzz on the bottom E and lots of hollow slapping with my palm on the body adds quite a bit to a song like "Kiss Off", but not to "Sweet Baby James"). If both cost $1000, I wouldn't own both.
Look at Basic - half the reason so many people learned it in the early 80s is because it was on a ROM on half the computers out there - Apple ][, IBM PC, etc. And for those that didn't have it, it generally came with the OS (GW Basic, BASICA, etc).
--
Evan
"$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
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.
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.
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
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.
A decent guitar, by my definition, is one that sounds good. I completely agree though about getting one for under $300. Here's a little anecdote for you folks that think a "decent guitar" costs $1000+.
This is a shameless plug, but... all of these songs were played on a mass produced Korean Ibanez with a broken neck (fixed with glue and various scrap nails and screws). The thing is also missing buttons on two tuners. I think it sounds pretty damn decent for a guitar that was found broken in two sitting on top of a neighbor's garbage.
Original cost? Probably 200 bucks. If sold, it'd be worth about $20 maximum. To me, it's priceless.
...Not to mention that you could easily, legally, and without harassment buy a used guitar from pawn shops, consignment stores, garage sales, eBay, etc. for a fraction of the price of a new one. I doubt it would be that easy to get you're hands on a used
And more importantly, if you spend $1000 on a guitar, find you really don't want it, you can probably sell it again for nearly what you paid for it (assuming you weren't ripped off in the first place, it's still in good condition, etc)-- the only way you'll ever get your money out of your .NET investment is to sell software. Good luck, what with Microsoft including anything they can into the OS.
I do not have a signature
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.