Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft To Acquire Xamarin (phoronix.com)

New submitter androlinuz writes: Microsoft has signed an agreement to acquire Xamarin, a leading platform provider for mobile app development. In conjunction with Visual Studio, Xamarin provides a rich mobile development offering that enables developers to build mobile apps using C# and deliver fully native mobile app experiences to all major devices, including iOS, Android, and Windows. Xamarin's approach enables developers to take advantage of the productivity and power of .NET to build mobile apps, and to use C# to write to the full set of native APIs and mobile capabilities provided by each device platform.

86 of 130 comments (clear)

  1. didn't this happen in 2014? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ho hum... .Net was better off as 2 companies instead of 1

    1. Re:didn't this happen in 2014? by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 1

      I thought so too. No one is surprised, of course. Even the Express editions of Visual Studio targeted Xamarin.

    2. Re:didn't this happen in 2014? by joaommp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Embrace, extend, extinguish"...

    3. Re:didn't this happen in 2014? by lgw · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Microsoft lacks the power to do that shit any more, and they know it. They're not betting the company on the success of the Windows phone. They're hoping people will develop apps for Android and iPhone (and Windows) using C#. As someone who prefers C# to Java, I really want to see this happen seamlessly.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    4. Re:didn't this happen in 2014? by terjeber · · Score: 1

      Hi, the 1990s called and wanted their stupid anti-Microsoft soundbites back.

    5. Re:didn't this happen in 2014? by joaommp · · Score: 1

      It's not an anti-Microsoft soundbite. Actually, some time ago, when the news came out about Microsoft starting the collaboration with Xamarin and the Mono team, a lot of people warned about this and used that exact expression. I was one of those who defedend Microsoft. But now, the pattern is emerging. So no, it's not an 1990 stupid anti-Microsoft soundbite, it's a reasonable expectations since the company, still today keeps applying the same tactics.

    6. Re:didn't this happen in 2014? by dontbemad · · Score: 1

      "Embrace, extend, extinguish"...

      Why the hell would they even do this? Kill off a tool that attracts more and more people to C# and the .NET platform as a whole? Stop with the idiotic quotes.

    7. Re:didn't this happen in 2014? by dave420 · · Score: 1

      You seem to have forgotten to include any corroborating evidence... Surely an oversight on your part, I'm sure...

    8. Re:didn't this happen in 2014? by terjeber · · Score: 1

      But now, the pattern is emerging

      So, lay it out for me, how is Microsoft going to firstly "extend" a product they own, not based on any standards that can be extended, and then extinguish it? Include some details please.

    9. Re:didn't this happen in 2014? by pupsocket · · Score: 1

      They don't have to do anything.

  2. Pulling an Elop by Prien715 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Looks like Miguel de Icaza has officially become part of Microsoft. Maybe he can pull a Elop and get Windows 11 to use Gnome as its desktop environment.

    --
    -- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
    1. Re:Pulling an Elop by alexhs · · Score: 2

      Looks like Miguel de Icaza has officially become part of Microsoft.

      Yep. This being Slashdot, I expected this story's title to be "Miguel de Icaza at long last a Microsoft employee".

      Maybe he can pull a Elop and get Windows 11 to use Gnome as its desktop environment.

      Not going to happen. I'm not sure he was involved even in GNOME2.He's been fully devoted to .Net since the start of this millennium.

      --
      I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of killer sig, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
    2. Re:Pulling an Elop by Caesar+Tjalbo · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yep. This being Slashdot, I expected this story's title to be "Miguel de Icaza at long last officially a Microsoft employee".

      tftfy

      --
      "I'm not much interested in interoperability. I want substitutability. I want to be able to throw your software out."
    3. Re:Pulling an Elop by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 1

      So port ReactOS Explorer to run atop wine and run it under X11.

    4. Re: Pulling an Elop by iampiti · · Score: 1

      Given how I dislike windows 10 's she'll I'd rather have kde on of windows' internals and be able to run Windows programs in a "classic " desktop shell

  3. Makes sense by akweboa164 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Now that Microsoft open sourced .NET (https://github.com/Microsoft/dotnet) this makes sense. Really happy for everyone at Xamarin, they are one of those companies that put in the work and deserve this.

    1. Re:Makes sense by terjeber · · Score: 1

      Moron.

  4. Miguel finally works at MS then? by krisbrowne42 · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    He's been an apologist for MS in the OSS community for as long as I can remember, this seems like a natural move for him.

  5. Re:Press Release? by mattyj · · Score: 2

    Advertisement for what, exactly? Do you consider this to not be news that people might want to know about? Or are you just a jerk?

    You can always remove your account and not visit slashdot if you don't like it.

  6. Wow by bickerdyke · · Score: 2, Funny

    fully native mobile app experiences to all major devices, including iOS, Android, and Windows. Xamarin's approach enables developers to take advantage of the productivity and power of .NET to build mobile apps

    Wow.

    Someone ha d a second glass of the cool aid.

    --
    bickerdyke
    1. Re:Wow by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 4, Informative

      >> Xamarin's approach enables developers to take advantage of the productivity and power of Visual Studio to build mobile apps

      FTFY. When we were building our last set of apps, we were happy that our developers could reuse their Visual Studio / C# skills; we purchased Xamarin so we wouldn't have to care (as much) about what the compiled code ran on, and specifically so we could avoid hiring more than a handful of dedicated Android or iOS developers (to perform touch-up work if necessary).

    2. Re:Wow by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      If .Net ever truly becomes write once deploy everywhere... terrifying.

    3. Re:Wow by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

      Now THAT sounds completly sensible.

      However, leveraging the power of production synergy or whatever along those lines the summary said, sounds like complete PR BS

      --
      bickerdyke
    4. Re:Wow by cbhacking · · Score: 2

      Terrifying... because needing to re-write code is a good thing? Because people should be using languages like C++ instead? Because it would mean Microsoft has, in effect, achieved what Sun and Oracle never *quite* pulled off (though right now they're still probably closer)? Because C# should be less useful than Java, even though it's a more-capable language? Because .NET includes Visual Basic .NET? (OK, that last one is a bit scary...)

      I suppose some Slashdotters find the thought of MS succeeding at anything terrifying. On the other hand, they open-sourced all of .NET first. This isn't exactly your daddy's Microsoft anymore.

      --
      There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
    5. Re:Wow by gtall · · Score: 1

      Sheesh, how young can a person be, it's Kool-Aid...and get the fuck off my lawn...

    6. Re:Wow by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      Actually I like C# but I still see idiots drag-n-dropping crap with the supper easy IDE... but that's not a MS problem

    7. Re:Wow by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

      Sorry bout that. But I'm old enough to know it as Quench

      --
      bickerdyke
    8. Re:Wow by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      How did it go? Were you happy with the quality of the output? Did it seem as good as if you'd made the apps natively?
      I'm interested in practical anecdotes using this tool (since it's the best data we have at this point)

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    9. Re: Wow by hsmith · · Score: 1

      Partnering with RedHat to bring DNX to Linux is a big move.

    10. Re:Wow by PmanAce · · Score: 3, Informative

      When I built my app for droid and touch (android and iPhone as you can imagine), my client couldn't tell the difference between native apps and my apps because the end result was a native app.

      --
      Tired of my customary (Score:1)
    11. Re:Wow by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Nice.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    12. Re:Wow by LostMyBeaver · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I've been doing it as well.

      To be fair, I come from a really long history of bringing multi-million line projects to up to 80 different platforms (everything from Symbian to Mac to Qnx to Nintendo Wii) and from the beginning of the project focused 100% on portability to begin with... I chose C# because C is for OS Kernels (write those too) and C# is for apps. They're the two universal languages in the sense that they are the two languages who can access APIs on any platform.

      I found that with good planning, I have been able to make a program which runs on Windows Store, Windows Desktop, Mac OS X, iPad and Android using all native UI components as well as pixel perfect print support with less effort than I ever put into with Qt or my own homegrown. As a result, I can't really imagine ever writing in anything else again. I let me focus on learning platform APIs and not screwing around with things like SWIG or crazy assed Android C++ adapters.

      Oh... let's not forget that by managing my data structures intelligently (my document format is almost as complex as Microsoft Word's), I was able to outperform manually management memory schemas every time and by hooking the garbage collector I was able to implement a memory defragmentor which I've done in C++ in the past and required so much template hell that the code became unmaintainable. By defragging the memory through the GC, I was able to take advantage of language level relocation and as a result, the code is readable and manageable... oh... and quite a bit more performance efficient since it generally runs as a FSM during idle cycles.

      C# allowed me through a single language to quickly implement about half a million lines of code and focus more on productivity and less on dicking around with things like SWIFT compiler errors and warnings which look like "Something is wrong an caused a parser error within a 100 lines of line 241 that makes this line think it's a chicken.. please call again later when you comment out 90% of your file and restructure you code to manually find the actual error".

      C# compiler errors suck too, but at least the Visual Studio GUI makes it pretty easy to drill down to root cause.

      I'll say this much, they started as a development tool company, they always nailed the development tool thing and now with LLVM support offering C standard compliance directly within Visual Studio, I think Microsoft has really nailed it.

      Now if they throw enough money at compiling for Mac and iPhone without a Mac that would be awesome. Programming in XCode is so painfully slow it's unbareable. If you made the mistake of buying a Mac Pro and are wondering why it's so damn slow, install Windows 10 on it and use Visual Studio instead and run OS X in a virtual machine to compile against. It's a HUGE improvement.

      Last thing to fix I think is getting remote app support for iPhone simulator. Then make it so if I press F5, I get just that Window. I'm using iRapp at the moment which isn't awful, but it's a bit intrusive.

    13. Re:Wow by LostMyBeaver · · Score: 1

      Bugger me!

      Bickerdyke.... odd name... sounds dangerous... you just cost me like 190 Euro after shipping and MVA with that stinking link. I didn't know I could buy Kool-Aid on this side of the ocean.

      My kids will love you though.

    14. Re:Wow by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

      As dangerous as a science-fiction-social worker can be.....

      190€? On what kind of shopping spree have you been?

      --
      bickerdyke
  7. Rich is the giveaway by swb · · Score: 1

    Have you ever heard an actual hands-on IT person describe any IT component as having a "rich" quality to it? It seems like a writer's use of language to ascribe a tactile quality to something which has no tactile properties.

  8. Re:Microsoft also owns microsoftsucks.com... by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As far as I understood, it's simply a way to use C# to develop cross-platform mobile apps - nothing as grandiose as you're suggesting. That a space that, at least initially, Microsoft wasn't interested in filling. However, given Microsoft's recent focus on cross-platform development, this actually makes a lot of sense for both companies. For Microsoft, it means not having to duplicate work that's already been done, and for Xamarin, frankly, it means not having to compete with a space Microsoft wants to get in.

    Historically speaking, I'd argue that Mono has been the alternative to Microsoft's proprietary implementation of C#, along with whatever other languages it supports. Also, now that Microsoft has open-sourced the .NET core, there might end up being a waning demand for an alternative implementation, although that's admittedly just a guess.

    --
    Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
  9. Re:Microsoft also owns microsoftsucks.com... by JcMorin · · Score: 1

    The C# implementation of the whole .NET framework is fully open source. https://github.com/dotnet/core... Xamarin was chargin to use it and it was one of the few possibility to be able to write app that work on iOS. My best guess it will be free with Microsoft so dev can write app that works everywhere.

  10. Re:Microsoft also owns microsoftsucks.com... by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

    No, Mono is the alternative to MS's implementation of C#. Xamarin is built on MS's implementation of C#, except some of the OS/GUI hooks.

    --
    Your ad here. Ask me how!
  11. Re:Microsoft also owns microsoftsucks.com... by Jesus_666 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What? No. Xamarin allows you to develop .Net apps for iOS and Android using Mono (Android) or a rickety cross-compilation toolchain (iOS). These days you use something very similar to the Windows Mobile API (including XAML) to target iOS, Android and WinMo/Metro. It's pretty nifty; I work on a Xamarin-based app and about 95% of the code is shared while the app looks and feels 100% native on all platforms.

    I can see Xamarin as something Microsoft would want - now they supply one of the most popular APIs for cross-platform app development.

    --
    USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
  12. Re:Press Release? by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

    As someone who uses Xamarin in a commercial product I find this to be very interesting news. Even if it was written in marketingese.

    --
    USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
  13. Good by ilsaloving · · Score: 3, Informative

    Normally, I would say that this is a bad thing, but Xamarian's pricing is brutal anyone who just wants to play around, explore, and possibly try to sell an app or two if they're halfway decent. When I was looking at cross-platform development tools, I was really interested in using Xamarian, but I wasn't about to fork over $1000/year just to play with developing cross platform software (ie: mobile AND desktop). And their starter edition only runs with Visual Studio, which is Windows only.

    QT is even worse. Their documentation actually states "Please consult a lawyer before using QT for commercial development". Their pricing is so brutal they don't even advertise it on their website. I had to google for leaked price lists just to get a ballpark figure, and the prices almost made me fall out of my chair. So heaven forbid you write an app and think, "Hey, this ain't bad. I'll put this on the app stores and see if anyone likes it." QT will be suddenly expecting several thousand dollars right up front before you legally able to sell.

    I really like the "It's ok, you can pay us once you're making money" system that Unreal and Unity have switched to. THAT's how you encourage indie adoption. Unfortunately they're geared primarily for making games, not regular applications, so if you wanted to create some kind of database-type system or whatever, then those toolkits are not a good fit.

    1. Re:Good by ilsaloving · · Score: 2

      Sure! I'd be perfectly fine with that.

    2. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      I was super excited to try Xamarin last year. I spent a night downloading and installing their software after seeing that they did have a free tier for developers to test their apps to see if Xamarin worked for them. The download and setup took so long that I ended up having to call it and finish the next evening. So I sit back down at my computer the next night, only to then have to go give my life story to Xamarin just to open their software. Finally, account registered, I open up their own tutorial which is a simple "Hello World" app. Literally, it just displays Hello World on the screen. I go to run the app and get:

      "We're sorry, this application exceeds the compiled file size limit for your tier. Please upgrade your subscription to continue."

      After Googling this extensively, I found that apparently the limit is so arbitrarily small that there was no point, and that Xamarin themselves had already responded to user complaints on this and doubled it to get to the limit I had hit.

      I then spent the next evening uninstalling their software.

      In short, I felt lied to about their pricing practices. Don't advertise your "free tier" if it's not even usable. I lost three evenings of my life to that.

      So me hearing that Microsoft bought them out sounds like an amazing move, if for no other reason that I hope Microsoft will at least put some of the basic functionality in Express so I can finally try it out.

    3. Re:Good by ilsaloving · · Score: 1

      FYI, I just came across this blog article and thought people would find it interesting.

      Apparently efforts have been made to make it easier to use Unity for application development. Resource utilization may still be a deal-breaker for some though.

      https://medium.com/@raquezha/u...

      I haven't checked Unreal yet, maybe there's stuff for that too.

    4. Re:Good by craigg7500 · · Score: 1

      Interesting. I had a feeling the free tier was useless, you confirmed that for me, thanks. Yeah let's hope that it becomes part of the MSDN subscription.

    5. Re:Good by StormReaver · · Score: 3, Informative

      QT is even worse.

      I used Qt extensively for years. Qt >= 4.0 is LGPL (unless that's been changed when I wasn't looking), meaning you are free to use it for closed-source purposes as long as you don't modify the library itself.

      That being said, I find Java to be much better than Qt for desktop software in almost every way.

    6. Re:Good by generalyore · · Score: 1

      I just went to QT's website and found their pricing within a few seconds:  $350/month/developer

      https://www.qt.io/buy-product/?pid=7051

    7. Re:Good by terjeber · · Score: 2

      put some of the basic functionality in Express so I can finally try it out

      Why express? Community Edition, which is basically the same as once was Professional, is free.

    8. Re:Good by segedunum · · Score: 2

      Normally, I would say that this is a bad thing, but Xamarian's pricing is brutal anyone who just wants to play around, explore, and possibly try to sell an app or two if they're halfway decent.

      Sounds like you have no business model and no idea.

      QT is even worse. Their documentation actually states "Please consult a lawyer before using QT for commercial development". Their pricing is so brutal they don't even advertise it on their website.

      It's Qt. Qt is open sourced, and now LGPLed which is a stick people have loved to beat it with over the years, so it really isn't hard to get started.

      I don't know if you've noticed, but commercial development tools to tend to cost a bit of money. That isn't going to change any time soon. I've heard the endless whining at Qt over the years in particular.

    9. Re:Good by G-forze · · Score: 1

      No it's not. It's $1000 per year per developer per platform. So if you want to target Android, iOS and Windows Phone, it's $3000 per developer.

      --
      "There's someone in my head but it's not me." - Pink Floyd, Dark Side of the Moon
    10. Re:Good by ilsaloving · · Score: 1

      ONLY if it's not statically linked. Last I checked, this is not an option for Apple. Dunno about Android or others.

    11. Re:Good by ilsaloving · · Score: 1

      I have noticed. I've also noticed that expensive software is virtually unused and unknown in non-corporate circles, because the cost alone means the average developer isn't even going to waste time downloading the free trial. How many people do you know are, for example, running officially licensed copies of Websphere to run their website? Or Oracle 12c?

      That's why what Unity and Unreal have done is such massive news. In one single stroke, game development is now feasible for massive swaths of people for whom it was impossible before.

    12. Re:Good by ilsaloving · · Score: 1

      Oh, and I forgot to respond to you first point. No, I *don't* have a business model. Not everyone wants to turn everything into a business venture. If I have an idea to make something, I shouldn't have to quit my day job and put my entire life on the line just to satisfy some ridiculous notion that it's pointless to do something unless you go balls-in.

      Not everybody can get a "small loan" of a million dollars from their silver spoon wielding parents.

    13. Re:Good by ilsaloving · · Score: 1

      I think he's referring to Xamarin, not VS.

    14. Re:Good by ilsaloving · · Score: 1

      https://wiki.qt.io/Licensing-t...

      So basically, if I take the gamble and turn out wrong, I can end up with some OSS SJW making my life miserable. You can see why anyone would be nervous to produce closed source code with QT if they arn't a megacorp.

    15. Re:Good by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      From my experiences a couple of years back JBoss (RedHat, free) was actually more stable than Websphere (IBM, $$$).

    16. Re:Good by ilsaloving · · Score: 1

      That is true (I've worked with both), but it was just an example to illustrate my point.

  14. Re:Microsoft also owns microsoftsucks.com... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The C# implementation of the whole .NET framework is fully open source

    No, it's not. Otherwise, please send me a link to download this fully open source WPF classes. Thanks in advance.

  15. what's MS incentive to put .NET everywhere free? by 4wdloop · · Score: 1

    In the past .NET was a way to lure dev to Windows and to anchor them there.

    What is their incentive today for
    1) open sourcing .net
    2) supporting and now purchase of Xamarin?

    If xam/mono gets MSed than it seems even less safe to use .net as they may pull the plug on Mono anytime.
    Is it a ploy to sell more VisualStudios? And then WinOS for devs? Can't see a big money in this for MS...

    --
    4wdloop
  16. .NET by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

    .NET has productivity and power?? Who knew??

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    1. Re:.NET by terjeber · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In the late 1990s our company released some serious Java software for a very significant US market. We were very successful with it, and Sun used our logo as one of the success stories when taking out some double-page ads in papers like the New York Times. I have always been a huge fan of Java, but these days, when I do something for the JVM, it tends to be Scala. I much prefer Scala to Java.

      About six years ago I was asked to take on some C#/.NET stuff, and it was surprising to me how easy it was coming from Java. C# was clearly a "copy" of Java. This was .NET 3.5. After a while I realized that the MS tooling plus the C# language and the .NET environment made me more productive in C# than I had been on Java. Tooling in particular was very good, but also some of the language features of C# were simply more mature and more well thought-out than in Java land. C# does, for example, auto-boxing properly while Java autoboxing is a cluster fuck (compiler-stage autoboxing an Boolean object to a bool, for example is an idea that must have come out of the excrement of a brain dead developer, for example).

      Then C# developed. Took on functional aspects, got Linq, moved on. Java on the other hand. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. For years and years. Death by committee. Today a decent developer is probably twice as productive in C#/.NET as it is possible to be in Java, and things do not seem to be improving much. If your shop uses Windows PCs, Active Directory etc, you'd be practically insane to use Java/JVM over C#/.NET.

      Now, if the Xamarin move pans out, if you are a Windows shop who need specialized mobile apps, you'd be insane not to use C# or (important, I would typically use this) Cordova.

  17. Re:what's MS incentive to put .NET everywhere free by ndykman · · Score: 2

    Like most stuff at MS these days, it's Azure. A mobile app is just another front end to a web applications, and this makes the case of having using .Net from end to end and hosting in Azure and using things like Azure Mobile Services, Service Fabric and so on.

  18. Good for Miguel! by Rinikusu · · Score: 3

    Miguel de Icaza, you earned it.

    --
    If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
    1. Re:Good for Miguel! by terjeber · · Score: 2

      You really are a moron, and considering you are posting anonymously, you know it.

  19. Re:what's MS incentive to put .NET everywhere free by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

    Lol

    Reading these is like someone going on a rant about IBM. Strange today, as MS lost the monopoly they had.

    The incentive is simple. Why do they still sell Office to Mac users? To make money. Visual Studio is another money maker. If they can't beat em on the mobile platforms at least join them and make money for app makers. VS code already runs on Linux natively and VS 2015 community edition even has full Android SDKs and emulators and java 7 jdk. No I am not making this up.

    MS incentive also is the new CEO wants cloud and services and less concerned about platforms and tie in like Gates was. Azure has FreeBSD and Linux vm's ready to boot as they make money either way whether you use Windows or not.

    Xamarin makes sense in that you are not tied to one platform. MS is turning into IBM after they lost they became more open. The UI and integration might not be as much but a Xamarin app for IOS will likely run on Windows Moible for easily with porting.

    In essence the incentive for Sun with Java and why they didn't really capitalize on it. The idea is if they give java away these applets run on Solaris so what do you know?

  20. Re:what's MS incentive to put .NET everywhere free by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Xamarin simply sponsored Mono, but that doesn't necessarily grant the ability to kill it. How would they "pull the plug" on an open-source and free project? Besides, it would just scare people away from .NET in general, so I just don't see that happening.

    Microsoft is simply embracing other platforms, especially mobile, as they well understand they don't really have a serious dog in that fight with Windows mobile. They'd like to keep developers on Windows, and offering high-quality tools for multi-platform development is a way to do that, because yes, both Visual Studio and Windows (for PC) are important products still, despite overall waning importance of the PC platform. At the very least, keeping mobile developers in the VS environment certainly won't *hurt* their own product line, as they may get some ports they otherwise wouldn't have.

    Even so, when your company is focusing on services like Azure to a much greater extent, the client's platform doesn't really matter quite as much. I really don't think it's anything more complicated than that. People keep looking for deep, nefarious reasons for what MS does, when most of it can be explained by reasonably straightforward business strategies or strategic goals.

    --
    Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
  21. Re:what's MS incentive to put .NET everywhere free by cbhacking · · Score: 2, Insightful

    As the monkey once said, Developers Developers Developers! It's Microsoft trying to get people used to using Microsoft tools. If you use Visual Studio, you can use its built-in Xamarin integration to develop your Android and iOS apps. Once you're doing that, you really might as well also publish for the Windows app store - it's minimal additional effort and nets you at least a few percent more of the market - and that's what Microsoft really needs people doing.

    The whole "Windows Phone / Windows 10 Mobile is a pretty good OS, runs on some nice hardware, etc... but it has no apps so I went with Android / iOS" thing has been discussed nigh unto death, both on Slashdot and across the broader web. Microsoft has, for years, been searching for a way to get developers to publish for the Windows [Phone] store. If they can get people using the tools and frameworks, and make it *really* easy to then target Windows as well, they can perhaps finally solve the chicken-and-egg problem: Windows phones don't have many apps, so they have low market share, so there aren't many users to buy apps, so most developers don't publish apps for them, so there aren't many apps...

    If Microsoft can break that loop, they have a chance in the mobile market again. This is one (of several) approaches that they are taking to try and achieve this.

    Disclaimer: Not a MS employee, and the above is based on personal observations and guesswork, not on published statements or insider information.

    --
    There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
  22. A Logical Choice for Both Companies by ndykman · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It was overdue. Oddly, I think it was Xamarin that delayed this acquisition. I think MS would have been happy to pick them up two years ago. For all the flack Miguel de Icaza gets, he is a big open source supporter, and I bet he was concerned with how that would work being at MS and all. But, when .Net core happened, the writing was on the wall, and now they can just get .Net core to be what it needs to be.

    Make no mistake, this is a play to displace some existing players and to encourage adoption of hosting on Azure and using Azure services. It's a good story for a lot of companies. You can use one set of skills (C#/.Net) to address development from end to end and you get pretty streamlined hosting (via Azure). Compared to having to assemble all the pieces from front to back, plenty of companies will take the ecosystem lock in.

    1. Re:A Logical Choice for Both Companies by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Make no mistake, this is a play to displace some existing players and to encourage adoption of hosting on Azure and using Azure services

      TBH does it really make a difference whether you are running on the proprietary Amazon cloud, or the proprietary IBM cloud or the proprietary Microsoft cloud? Just as long as none of those players get a monopoly, I think it will be ok.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    2. Re:A Logical Choice for Both Companies by terjeber · · Score: 1

      Time for your tin-foil hat. Don't fret the straitjacket, it's for your own good, and the man in white, with the syringe, he's trying to help you.

    3. Re:A Logical Choice for Both Companies by RCL · · Score: 1

      Could you provide a bit more context? I'm interested, but I cannot find a reference of Microsoft ever providing Win32 implementation for Unix. Did you maybe mean SFU (which would be the other way around)?

  23. Wish they had done this a bit earlier by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    I just renewed my license back in December.

    As others have noted, the license structure was brutal - I'm a consultant and just needed Tamarin for a few times a year I have to help out a particular client with a Tamarin built application.

    They wanted *$1K* for a license, even though I'd hardly be using that. Luckily I was able to talk them down a fair amount after explaining the situation, but given how many consultants are active these days in helping smaller companies build applications, they really should have had some kind of intermediate tier.

    I'm really curious to see what Microsoft does with Xamarin, you have to wonder if they will decide to shut down the tooling and have people use Visual Studio...

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  24. Re:Microsoft also owns microsoftsucks.com... by snizzitch · · Score: 1

    Woo hoo! XAML.

  25. Re:Microsoft also owns microsoftsucks.com... by blackpaw · · Score: 1

    Xamarin provides a rich mobile development offering that enables developers to build mobile apps using C#

    Oh. Here I thought that Xamarin was specifically intended as an alternative to Microsoft's proprietary implementation of C#. Oh, well, shows what I know. I guess we've always been at war with Eastasia.

    You thought wrong. Xamarin (and MonDevelop) are IDE's + libs for the .NET platform, on windows or mono. Additionally Xamarin enable creation of cross platform mobile apps using C# I presume underneath its Mono on Android and iPhone.

  26. Xamarin is irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Whatever. I was forced to use Xamarin in a previous job and it is the clunkiest piece of SW I have ever used. There is a mantra that every dev should chant - cross platform toolkits do not work at least if you are interested in writing UI once and deploying across multiple platforms . They are fine for an enterprise level piece of SW but ultimately they resort the LCD and you end up fighting the tool and wishing to god you could just write native code.

  27. Re:Microsoft also owns microsoftsucks.com... by LostMyBeaver · · Score: 2, Informative

    WPF is a library that is on top of the .NET framework. It isn't part of the .NET framework. Just like glibc isn't part of the Linux kernel.

    The entire .NET platform as well as the compiler is open source and pretty good stuff too.

  28. Re:Press Release? by LostMyBeaver · · Score: 2

    Honestly, I'm kinda with matty on this. I don't really see this as an advertisement. I see this as something that genuinely will be a boon to me since I do all my development using Visual Studio and C# and just yesterday was heading to Xamarin's website to purchase a license and now I think I'll hold off a little since I think it will be part of my MSDN subscription soon.

    If it is an advertisement, it kinda worked backwards, I'm going to spend like $2000 less (2 platforms) per year now because of this information. So, Microsoft kinda just lost the $2000 I was about to give them company they're buying.

  29. Re:Microsoft also owns microsoftsucks.com... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Not quite. Xamarin, formerly known as Ximian, actually built Mono, open source as it is. Only last year, when MS open sourced C# did Xamarin begin to look at moving to that rather than rely on Mono. That part of the Xamarin product has always been free, but their studio, and specifically the non-open source bindings from Mono to iOS are what you get for their license.

    I'd like to see MS make Xamarin free as part of their MSDN license.

  30. Re:Microsoft also owns microsoftsucks.com... by terjeber · · Score: 1

    Microsoft's proprietary implementation of C#.

    You really need to get your butt out of the 1990s, the world has changed dramatically since then.

  31. Re:Press Release? by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

    This is all over Twitter, why the fuck would they need to pay to advertise it?

  32. Re:Press Release? by terjeber · · Score: 1

    There's news, and then there's being given an advertisement

    If you don't understand the difference between a press release and advertisement you really shouldn't participate in any kind of discussion on Slashdot. Or any discussion about anything anywhere. Perhaps you should even try to put duct tape on your mouth for about five to six years, just to be sure. Almost any news you ever read anywhere is the result of a press release or similar of some sort. Slashdot is News for Nerds, quoting press releases is in fact on of the things it should do. If they are relevant for nerds.

  33. Re:what's MS incentive to put .NET everywhere free by terjeber · · Score: 1

    The 1990s called and asked you return your paranoia.

  34. That's a shame. Xamarin will probably die. by Qbertino · · Score: 1

    I don't know about you, but with me MS has burned a lot of trust. I mean a ginormous amount. I don't trust MS and I don't trust the judgement of anyone who isn't wary of MS. MS isn't looking as evil as a few years ago, and their surface hardware looks quite neat actually. But there is quite a bit more that has to happen before I trust MS again with running anything mission-critical for me.

    I don't know if this is going to help or destroy Xamarin - I'm sorta caught in the middle. Or so I wish. ... But glancing over to Nokia, I'm not placing any bets on Xamarin. Companies bought by MS too often die specatularly just a little bit later.

    I wish it were different, but the statistics clearly point against Xamarin surviving an akquisition by MS. That's the plain, simple and painful truth.

    It's a shame for Xamarin actually - it is a neat x-plattform toolkit and I've used MonoDevelop for some projects. Very cool and quick to set up.

    --
    We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
  35. Re:Microsoft also owns microsoftsucks.com... by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

    I actually consider unified XAML for every platform to be a major feature. You write the UI once and it works everywhere. A few things (mostly margins) might be off on one platform or the other but Xamarin provides a way for you to declare platform-specific values right in the XAML file. Very handy.

    Also, I prefer hand-written XAML over Apple's Interface Builder as I never got along well with IB for Cocoa Touch. That's just my personal preference, though.

    --
    USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
  36. Re:Microsoft also owns microsoftsucks.com... by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 1

    If Windows Mobile was in a dominant position like iOS and Android, sure, they might not bother with cross-platform compatibility. That's just not the reality of the market, so I don't see their commitment to cross-platform development going away anytime soon either. Make no mistake, you should never trust a company to continue policies that work against their own financial self-interest - but keep in mind that doesn't necessarily have to work *against* their customers' interests either.

    --
    Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
  37. Re: Microsoft also owns microsoftsucks.com... by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

    So how do you adapt such a UI to data? Applications I write are data-driven and the UI:s are generated out of interpreting data from a database. Does Xamarin support that?

    You can do UI in C# so a custom control written in C# is what you'll probably go for in this case. Once written, that control behaves like any other so it can be used in XAML pages/controls. The app I'm currently working on actually has some (tame) data-driven pages and it works well.


    By the way, since my last comment was downmodded as "Overrated": I'm not really trying to advertise Xamarin here. It's not the best thing since sliced bread. It's pretty good at what it does, though, and if your company is already using C#/WPF it allows you to apply most of your experience with that to app development. Since my company is a C# shop that's a big plus. (While I'm at it: MVVMCross is another framework you might want to consider if writing apps in C#. It goes well with Xamarin.)

    Before Xamarin we used Cordova for app development and the main reason why that didn't work out was that the guy who did the app back then barely spoke JS and had no clue about how the DOM works. The quality of the final product is why we decided to go with a more familiar language and framework this time around. Still, it's a good alternative and it avoids Xamarin's long compile times when targeting iOS.

    (In case you're wondering: Apple won't allow Mono on iDevices so Xamarin has to talk to a Mac to cross-compile everything to native code. This cross-compilation is done to the entire binary, of course, so even if one single byte is changed you still have to recompile everything. That's the "rickety cross-compilation toolchain" I mentioned earlier. Compiling for Android takes seconds. Compiling for iOS takes minutes.)

    --
    USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)