Slashdot Mirror
Windows Mobile Development No Longer Free
Jacco de Leeuw writes "Windows Mobile developers have enjoyed free development tools like the eMbedded Visual Tools and that in turn has helped popularize Windows Mobile devices and a number of free or cheap applications. But now the SDK for the upcoming Windows Mobile 5.0 has a number of 'technical (not political) dependencies' on Visual Studio 2005, which starts at $299. Is it time for an open source Windows Mobile toolchain?"
You can get Microsoft Visual Studio 2005 Beta 2 for free right now.
When is it not time for open-source anything?
No, it is time to get developers to realize that there are other platforms one can use for a mobile computing platform that are NOT Windows.
www.eFax.com are spammers
And why is it that it depends heavily on VS in the first place? Now mobile developers will have to pay through the nose for yet another MS product. Coincidence? I don't think so.
What about everything else besides embedded Linux? It's no simple task to make software for blackberry, qualcomm phones, palm, symbianos, ngage or any other mobile computing platform. Some have freely available dev kits and some don't. But none of them are simple, free and open simultaneously. If they were then cell providers wouldn't be able to rip people off by selling them Tetris.
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
It's just time to stop supporting those platforms that reach into your pockets both directions if thats important to you. If you don't like it, use a platform that has more alternatives like Palm. Eventually they'll get the message.
Give them a little taste for free.
When they go back for more... It's gonna cost.
For all of the java haters out there. I am developing on a pocketpc with a 6 dollar jvm and eclipse. I don't know how it works for the selling of software, but for internal software it doesn't get much better.
Please don't post a link about an open source product and expect me to change, it is well worth 6 dollars and works great.
Before the eMbedded Visual Tools v3.0 came out, the toolset was actually a set of Visual Studio 5.0 add-ons that integrated with a base VS installation. From 3.0 until now, the tools have been separate from Visual Studio (mostly because of major compatibility problems with the internal eVC database and VC6).
However, the plug-in architecture seems to have been fixed in the latest VS.Net bits, so the original plan (to let the VS team do all the heavy lifting and the Mobile team to reap the benefits of a dedicated IDE team while concentrating on the OS) seems to have been reborn.
While it is a pain for developers, in that they will now be required to own a copy of VS, this actually bodes well for the Mobile team and its products.
The reference to the powerbook was an example, you insensitive clod. And regarding your comment about how all computing is desktop computing, well, I never said that, did I?
My other Sig is
In a universe where programmers cost at least $50 an hour, there are still people who think a $300 IDE is expensive. A good tool saves you that much in labor costs in the first week of use.
How do you Windows users/developers like being nickel-and-dimed?
Well, that's it then. Since my hobbist software development budget is approximately zero - I'm going to have to give up on Windows Mobile development. A $300 machine that I can develop for is fine, a $300 machine that requires $300 worth of tools to develop for is not.
Charging for the OS, then charging for development tools is just getting ridiculous. Either developers producing for their platform is beneficial to them - or it isn't. The free command-line tools for Windows 32-bit were an awesome move (although I personally prefer MingW32 for cross-platform similarities). If Microsoft can update their free command-line tools to build for the Windows Mobile platform, I'll probably stay. Or if I can figure out how to build Windows Mobile apps with GCC (although I'm not looking forward to that mess).
Otherwise, I'll be looking for a new platform for my next handheld. And this was after me moving on from Palm. iSteve iJobs and Apple, please come out with a handheld pocket computer. Pretty please! I'll even take back everything I said about the splintered mess of APIs on OSX. Hello?
Every time a company gives something away for 'free' eventually it is reigned in, usually after it becomes the defacto standard or has eliminated all the competition. Political or not the point is that they have control, not you.
Perhaps next time you won't put all your egg into a basket you don't even control.
MSFT has a proven history of doing this to coders and customers.
Until developers realize that past performance DOES indicate future results, they should reap what they sow by using MSFT products.
Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. It's the only thing that ever has.
Chances are if you're a software developer writing software for a Windows CE device, you're already going to buy a copy of Visual Studio.
If you're not, well, then the tool costs $299. Doesn't seem all that unreasonable. It's not like they're charging you a per-device licensing fee like some embedded tool vendors do.
Do you happen to have a link? I've been looking at Mobile JVMs lately.
- To acquire a Visual C++ development system, and
- To purchase an add-on for Windows CE development.
Nowadays, one just has to spend 15 minutes downloading eVC++ 4 for free. Same goes for Windows-oriented development. Same for dozens of other SDKs. There are ways to develop for each and every Microsoft platform using free tools from Microsoft.What is going to happen actually, in my opinion, will be similar to the situation with development tools for .NET framework:
Now on a personal note. I think, I am willing to pay $299 if this would give me a single tool that would provide coverage for all Pocket PC and Windows Mobile target platforms without the sheer madness of having to install eVC++ 3, eVC++ 4, VS 6, and VS.NET 2003 (let alone a half dozen of platform SDKs). This alone is well worth $299. ;-)
I find this interesting because Bill Gates himself actually uses as anecdotal evidence in the computer industry what would be the result if prices and productivity increased in, say the car industry at the same rate as the computer industry. Yet, I'm surprised more don't find Microsoft's pricing the most damning indictment of either Mr. Gates' thesis, or of Microsoft's pricing practices.
The gist of Gates' anecdote (and I'm just thumbnailing, there are far more accurate and detailed analyses available) is that if cars progressed as computers have, a car that cost $10,000 back in the early 80's today would cost about $100, would get four or five hundred miles per gallon, etc. Accordingly a glimpse at the progress in computers is quite amazing, but I find it curious why OS' prices haven't shown the same trend. Could Gates' anecdote apply ONLY to hardware? I don't think so.
Anyway, food for thought. I think this Mobile example is a pretty good indicator though of what happens when Microsoft continues to control so much of so many pieces of the industry. They put themselves out there as the benevolent "helpers", even going so far as to make it appear they will give things away..., but when noone is looking, and all of the competition has finally cried "Uncle", the kid gloves come off, and Microsoft can pretty much define the marketplace any way they want... as they've demonstrated yet again. Sigh.
The part that's expensive is not that $300. The part that's expensive is that now you have placed your future in the hands of that commercial vendor. It's the rewrites and ports you have to do when Microsoft decides to change the OS. It's the workarounds you have to come up with for bugs in the IDE or compiler until Microsoft gets around to releasing the next version. Proprietary software is risky in the long run.
The point is that commercial products are developed on VS which costs $300+.
But, on the other hand- there's still VS that can be found on sharing networks and warez sites. For personal use- it's more than enough.
How about an open source Windows "stationary" toolchain? Like GCC cranking out Win2K-XP apps?
--
make install -not war
...Shoot(foot);
Ah yes, charging money for SDK's is the sure fire way to make your platform popular.
What the hell are they thinking?
Bot Assisted Blogging
"A good tool saves you that much in labor costs in the first week of use."
I program in Lisp, Smalltalk, and Forth. Good tools are easy to find, and free.
Well, that's it then. Since my hobbist software development budget is approximately zero - I'm going to have to give up on Windows Mobile development. [emphasis added]
... One thing you do do is prevent good software from being written. Who can afford to do professional work for nothing? What hobbyist can put 3-man years into programming, finding all bugs, documenting his product and distribute for free? The fact is, no one besides us has invested a lot of money in hobby software. We have written 6800 BASIC, and are writing 8080 APL and 6800 APL, but there is very little incentive to make this software available to hobbyists. Most directly, the thing you do is theft. Bill Gates, An Open Letter to Hobbyists, February 3, 1976.
As the majority of hobbyists must be aware, most of you steal your software. Hardware must be paid for, but software is something to share. Who cares if the people who worked on it get paid? Is this fair?
It has been thirty and you still can't realize that you are non grata? Your patience is unbelievable but why won't you just get over it and go somewhere else where people actually want you? Crazy idea, isn't it?
Karma: Positive (probably because of superiour intellect)
use 'orca' from the platform sdk ( see orca.msi )
to edit the 'Property' table, and change 'SupportOnlyWhidbey' to '0'
then it will install without requiring vstudio 8.0
Why do we want to spread the MS monopoly further into mobile devices?
As much as I hate M$ for doing this kind of move, I am also old enough to remeber a time where you didn't got any compiler with your OS.
Yes boys and girls in the old days of DOS, Windows 3.X and Mac System X. We had to BUY our tools, there were good free alternatives available.
Even products like DJGPP were out of reach for many of us in Europe without BBS access.
So, again, even though I don't like their move. I do understand it.
And just think what OS vendors do offer their development environments for free and I'm not talking about gcc based ones.
Is it time for an open source Windows Mobile toolchain?
No its not. Its time for open source to help open source projects, not help M$ keep their dominance in the market using their usual tactics.
If O.S. people want to contribute to mobile development there are several O.S. platforms they can target where the overall good to the open source cause will be much better than working on the enemy territory.
I'm trying to get modded "Interesting Flamebait Informative and Insightful Redundant Troll" *-* Please Help *-*
If you buy just the C# or VB.NET ide instead of the complete Visual Studio. I believe they start at about $100.
to build applications for PalmOS and Linux.
I don't understand the mentality of jumping over to Microsoft platform and then complaining about their monopoly.
As I recall, OpenBSD 3.7 now supports the Zaurus. You can run X on it.
OpenBSD may not be your cup of tea, but if there is a port, it means they did it without signing any NDAs (they don't ever sign them). So the information required to do the port is freely available, implying that you'll probably also have good Linux support.
I've noticed that a lot of mobile hardware sellers will sell you a Linux SDK, but they charge a disgusting amount of money ($900 or so).
But if you go with the Zaurus (commodity HW), you've got all your free tools (well supported too). I wouldn't even think of using Windows anything for any hobbyist stuff -- it costs money, and you strengthen MS's position without getting paid for it.
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_
Well, this is one of the reasons I just swiched over from a Windows PDA to a Linux based PDA. I like the idea of open development. (That, and Linux is cool!) Dell Axim X5 to Sharp Zaurus C1000 -1 Offtopic
You say "persona non grata" because in latin "persona" is feminin. If you replace the subject of the sentence with "he" you need to use the masculin form:
At the moment he's perfectly gratus.
Pathman, Free (as in GPL) 3D Pac Man