MSDN Universal subscription changes (level and pricing)

[William DePalo [MVP VC++]]

MSDN Universal is changing it's definition.

Put up or shut-up, why don't you?

In other words, cite some claim that they have made that supports your
argument. Simply repeating a point does not make it so. Nor does your
personal spin on a matter.

Regards,
Will

 

[Jim Hubbard]

g- [Wed, 6 Apr 2005 09:16:33 -0700]:

understand the points we are making the so-called MVP's. I thought MVP's
were independent of Microsoft. Is that not the case?

You do know MVPs get all that you have to pay for, for
free, right? Don't byte the hand that feeds and all that
is a plenty-good reason to do what he's doing.

"On my own dime..", What the hell do you mean by that? Is there some
sort
of fee for these newsgroups now? I wouldn't be surprised.

Down boy. He's got as much right to complain about
you as you do about all the dough you don't want to
part with.

You could always say "I'm going to Linux". Lots of
free stuff, that's for sure. Of course, you have
to like to work for free, too

Not to really force the issue, but you can develop with REALbasic from
scratch and sell your apps just fine.

Steer clear of open source though... For learning, it's great. As a
business model....it's a failure.

Jim Hubbard

 

[William DePalo [MVP VC++]]

You do know MVPs get all that you have to pay for, for
free, right?

Not everything. I don't know that it has been decided yet what "we" will or
won't get.

Regards,
Will

 

[news.microsoft.com]

The whole point of the post was to make people aware of what MS has proposed
with the new pricing for VSTS and MSDN.

While it's true I haven't participated in newsgroup discussions much the
past few years, I used to participate a lot more around the time that .Net
was first released and previous to that. I've had at least 5 different
email addresses since then, so I'm not sure which one to look up, but you
can try some that contain gignet, appliedtel, britefutures, altavest,
hotmail, etc. However, trying to discredit me because I don't spend all my
time posting in newsgroups is pretty pathetic. I work for a living and like
most only use the newsgroups when I have a problem I need help with. I have
also helped others while I was waiting for my problem to be addressed. My
ambition in life is not to become an MVP. I'm sure your help is valued, but
the attacks are not. What personally set me off was the <sigh> that you did
in your post. I tried to reply with some humor, but you obviously didn't
get it. Try to enjoy life more Juan. Maybe you are spending too much time
in these newsgroups.

I've already admitted several times that we developers have been spoiled (up
until now). However, that has been a very advantageous thing for MS to do.
It has helped them in ways I don't think the MVP's quite understand. We
developers are the ones who have always stood up against MS-bashers. We
have been consistent in our support. I've always recommended MS products
to the various companies I've done work for over the past 20 years. I'm not
putting down the products at all. I'm questioning the price and level
changes. I would like to have the products to use and test, so that I can
recommend them to the companies I work for. I can't recommend something
that I haven't used. That is one of the ways in which SQL, Exchange, and a
few other products were able to be so successful and grab market share.
Word of mouth by those of us who had access to the products via MSDN
Universal played a part in getting companies to adopt those MS products. I
personally have been responsible for recommending MS products to at least 50
companies (small and mid-sized and even 2 hospitals). Those companies may
not have purchased MS products if I hadn't recommended them. Eveyone of
them was wary of lock-in and all the bad press MS received. I was able to
assure them otherwise. A handful of those companies had mainframe setups
that were costing them $100k-$1m. I was able to save them a tremendous
amount of money by switching to MS. And, I was able to show them how easy
it was to develop in-house programs based on MS tools. I won't be able to
that for the Team System line up if I don't have access to it.

I always believed in MS precisely because, as a developer, I was given
access to all the top-end products via MSDN Universal. It's a form of
grass-roots marketing. All I'm asking is for MS to continue to "Help me
Help them". I'm not asking for anything for free. I've paid an annual
$2100-$25000 for MSDN Universal for around 10 years. I'm not asking for
fully licensed versions, just single-user developer licenses, like other
products in Universal. I understand that the difference between VSTS and
other products is that I may actually be able to use VSTS for my daily work.
However, just make a VSTS+TFS Single User version available. We need to
know how to use the product for those times when we work on teams. We will
also be able to recommend full VSTS versions in those situations as well.

As I stated, all these comments (and many more) have been made on the
feedback site. These posts have had some impact, so it's not a waste of
time. I have received email from Alec Cooper "lefty", VSTS Business
Manager, in part stating the following:Understood. We are listening and I appreciate you taking your time to tell
us your thoughts. We've done a bad job of communicating it thus far, look
for us to improve and clarify the story. I'm 100% confident that when we do
people will feel differently.
I'm trying to work with the licensing people to get TFS into the
subscriptions under a slightly modified license - for evaluation and demo
rather than putting a time bombed or trial version. That way, people can
play with it all they like, demo it etc before making the jump.
- Alec Cooper
<<<

The way Alec responded to all of our concerns is much better than the
attacks that I've received from the MVP's. It's not quite what I'm asking
for, but at least we've gotten their attention. It wouldn't have happened
if so many had not participated in the feedback. I was just trying to get
more to participate, so that MS would know that there are lots of us
concerned about this.

This is an important issue, and the developers are the ones who are
affected. That is why I chose to post the announcement in these newsgroups.
I wanted to reach as many as possible. There are opportunities to make a
difference. My posts have directed people to make comments on the feedback
site. For some reason, a bunch of MVP people have decided to attack me
("troll", etc). This is unfortunate.

I just wanted developers to be aware that these products we've all been
excited about for the past year or so are now going to be out of reach for
most of us. If they feel as I do or otherwise, make your feelings known via
the feedback site. MVP's don't want us to clutter their precious newsgroups
with matters such as this. Fine. All I did was make a cross-post
announcement, it was Juan who started the mess (then followed by other
MVP's). This will hopefully be my last post on this subject to the
newsgroups. You win Juan. Don't be such a lemming.

MS VSTS Feedback site:
http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/produ...edbackId=2b58b8db-5bba-4dfc-be10-78ad43686b3b

GClark

 

[Jim Hubbard]

The whole point of the post was to make people aware of what MS has
proposed with the new pricing for VSTS and MSDN.

While it's true I haven't participated in newsgroup discussions much the
past few years, I used to participate a lot more around the time that .Net
was first released and previous to that. I've had at least 5 different
email addresses since then, so I'm not sure which one to look up, but you
can try some that contain gignet, appliedtel, britefutures, altavest,
hotmail, etc. However, trying to discredit me because I don't spend all
my time posting in newsgroups is pretty pathetic. I work for a living and
like most only use the newsgroups when I have a problem I need help with.
I have also helped others while I was waiting for my problem to be
addressed. My ambition in life is not to become an MVP. I'm sure your
help is valued, but the attacks are not. What personally set me off was
the <sigh> that you did in your post. I tried to reply with some humor,
but you obviously didn't get it. Try to enjoy life more Juan. Maybe you
are spending too much time in these newsgroups.

I've already admitted several times that we developers have been spoiled
(up until now). However, that has been a very advantageous thing for MS
to do. It has helped them in ways I don't think the MVP's quite
understand. We developers are the ones who have always stood up against
MS-bashers. We have been consistent in our support. I've always
recommended MS products to the various companies I've done work for over
the past 20 years. I'm not putting down the products at all. I'm
questioning the price and level changes. I would like to have the
products to use and test, so that I can recommend them to the companies I
work for. I can't recommend something that I haven't used. That is one
of the ways in which SQL, Exchange, and a few other products were able to
be so successful and grab market share. Word of mouth by those of us who
had access to the products via MSDN Universal played a part in getting
companies to adopt those MS products. I personally have been responsible
for recommending MS products to at least 50 companies (small and mid-sized
and even 2 hospitals). Those companies may not have purchased MS products
if I hadn't recommended them. Eveyone of them was wary of lock-in and all
the bad press MS received. I was able to assure them otherwise. A
handful of those companies had mainframe setups that were costing them
$100k-$1m. I was able to save them a tremendous amount of money by
switching to MS. And, I was able to show them how easy it was to develop
in-house programs based on MS tools. I won't be able to that for the Team
System line up if I don't have access to it.

I always believed in MS precisely because, as a developer, I was given
access to all the top-end products via MSDN Universal. It's a form of
grass-roots marketing. All I'm asking is for MS to continue to "Help me
Help them". I'm not asking for anything for free. I've paid an annual
$2100-$25000 for MSDN Universal for around 10 years. I'm not asking for
fully licensed versions, just single-user developer licenses, like other
products in Universal. I understand that the difference between VSTS and
other products is that I may actually be able to use VSTS for my daily
work. However, just make a VSTS+TFS Single User version available. We
need to know how to use the product for those times when we work on teams.
We will also be able to recommend full VSTS versions in those situations
as well.

As I stated, all these comments (and many more) have been made on the
feedback site. These posts have had some impact, so it's not a waste of
time. I have received email from Alec Cooper "lefty", VSTS Business
Manager, in part stating the following:
Understood. We are listening and I appreciate you taking your time to
tell us your thoughts. We've done a bad job of communicating it thus far,
look for us to improve and clarify the story. I'm 100% confident that
when we do people will feel differently.
I'm trying to work with the licensing people to get TFS into the
subscriptions under a slightly modified license - for evaluation and demo
rather than putting a time bombed or trial version. That way, people can
play with it all they like, demo it etc before making the jump.
- Alec Cooper
<<<

The way Alec responded to all of our concerns is much better than the
attacks that I've received from the MVP's. It's not quite what I'm asking
for, but at least we've gotten their attention. It wouldn't have happened
if so many had not participated in the feedback. I was just trying to get
more to participate, so that MS would know that there are lots of us
concerned about this.

This is an important issue, and the developers are the ones who are
affected. That is why I chose to post the announcement in these
newsgroups. I wanted to reach as many as possible. There are
opportunities to make a difference. My posts have directed people to make
comments on the feedback site. For some reason, a bunch of MVP people
have decided to attack me ("troll", etc). This is unfortunate.

I just wanted developers to be aware that these products we've all been
excited about for the past year or so are now going to be out of reach for
most of us. If they feel as I do or otherwise, make your feelings known
via the feedback site. MVP's don't want us to clutter their precious
newsgroups with matters such as this. Fine. All I did was make a
cross-post announcement, it was Juan who started the mess (then followed
by other MVP's). This will hopefully be my last post on this subject to
the newsgroups. You win Juan. Don't be such a lemming.

MS VSTS Feedback site:
http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/produ...edbackId=2b58b8db-5bba-4dfc-be10-78ad43686b3b

GClark

G,

Don't waste your time responding to the MVP trolls. They are not
interested in honest debate about the issues affecting the vast majority of
Microsoft's programmers.

If someone posts a valid concern, question or comment be sure to
continue to respond quickly just as you have done in the past. There are
those who have honest questions and welcome open discussions about these
subjects. and that is where we may get something done to address the issues
facing us because of Microsoft's new strategies.

As for the trolls that are attacking you.....simply ignore the posts.
They are not genuinely interested in your point of view or in looking at
anything other than what Microsoft tells them is best for them. They only
want to derail the discussion by attacking you personally.

Restrict your posts to thinking posters and we all may get more
understanding of the issues involved and just where Microsoft is going wrong
and what we can do to protect ourselves and our customers.

Thanks for the posts and the willingness to post your concerns and
thoughts. I have enjoyed reading your point of view and look forward to
further posts from you on the subject.

Jim Hubbard

 

[news.microsoft.com]

I was starting to feel a little beat up. I'm trying to keep a level head
about this, because it gets me off point if I don't.

I do appreciate the help that the MVP's provide for programming issues in
these newsgroups. I consider this issue to be a "programming" issue as
well. VSTS can make us better programmers and promote MS at the same time.
It's win-win to include it (single developer version) in Universal. It's
lose-lose to not include it. It's that simple.

I have a feeling some of these MVP's haven't been in the industry for very
long (< 5 years) and didn't experience the whole growth of PC's, the
Internet, Windows, Microsoft, VB, C++, etc and all the dynamics that got us
to where were at now. Remember back before Win95 came out. Apple
(Macintosh) had a chance to own the world as MS does now. However, Apple
decided to keep the prices high and the system closed (hardware and API).
MS has been so successful because they kept prices low and provide access to
their API to developers. We developers were able to capitalize on that. It
was a huge part of making MS so prominent. Because we could make programs
for MS so easily and cheaply, we all used and recommended MS. Apple was
relegated to high-end graphics and publishing (not so much any more). I
feel I'm just trying to help MS realize the road they're on has been
traveled by others...not so successfully. If the ride has to end, then it
has to end. But I'll be damned if I'm not going to try to keep it from
ending by voicing an opinion on the matter.

I was young once, cocky, and thought I knew everything as well, so I'll just
try to keep that in mind. Oh, how naive I really was. All those cliche's
are so true. "The older you get the less you know." "The older I get the
better I used to be.", "The older I get the smarter my parents are.", etc,
etc, etc.

MS VSTS Feedback site:
http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/produ...edbackId=2b58b8db-5bba-4dfc-be10-78ad43686b3b

GClark

 

[William DePalo [MVP VC++]]

I have a feeling some of these MVP's haven't been in the industry for very
long (< 5 years) and didn't experience the whole growth of PC's, the
Internet, Windows, Microsoft, VB, C++, etc and all the dynamics that got
us to where were at now.

That's as correct as the rest of your argument. MVPs are a lot grayer and
older than most who post here. Personally I have been at this "stuff" since
'73 and have been getting paid for it since '77.

I was young once, cocky,

and thought I knew everything as well,

I never would have guessed that.

I do however remember the days when C6 was _all_Microsoft had to offer in
the way of development tools. Then I _much_ preferred the Borland tools
which were far superior. To my eyes, it looked as though not a lot of
resources were devoted to the developer tools. More than a decade later, it
does appear that sufficient resources are now being brought to bear. It is
also appears to me that the amount per developer customer that the tools
fetch the company is also up. Coincidence? You can decide for yourself.

Regards,
Will

 

[news.microsoft.com]

I knew I was setting myself up when I said that MVP's might be younger. I
just can't win with you guys. Dammit!

BTW - Didn't QuickC exist before C6? Not sure though. And I seem to
remember an early version of MASM around that same time as well.

GClark

 

[William DePalo [MVP VC++]]

BTW - Didn't QuickC exist before C6? Not sure though.

Good question for which I don't have an answer. Of the MS-shop clients
(international banks in NYC) I had then, none used Quick C or Quick C for
Windows.

And I seem to remember an early version of MASM around that same time as
well.

Yup, it shared the same awful (by comparison to Borland's IDE) "Programmer's
Workbench" as C6 or C7.

I could be wrong but I don't think it was until VB caught on and later
Visual C++ 1.0 that there was any move in the big house to do for developer
tools what they did for end users with Windows.

Regards,
Will

 

[news.microsoft.com]

I could be wrong but I don't think it was until VB caught on and later

Visual C++ 1.0 that there was any move in the big house to do for
developer tools what they did for end users with Windows.

I think that is spot on. VB changed everything. It gave access,
customization (vbx controls), and affordability to everyone. I'm trying to
think of VSTS in the same vain. The more developers that have access to
good tools, the better the software produced will be, and I believe the
better off MS will be. I don't think it will be as big as VB was, but it
could be significant if given a chance. It's a win for MS, and a win for
developers to have access to those tools.

GClark

 

[Guest]

Hi,
Whilst I don't agree with Microsoft's proposed licensing, I agree this is
not the place to complain about it. It's a little annoying for people trying
to get other stuff done.

One thing I find amusing (& I'm sure it's just a clarification that's in
order), is that you didn't have a computer, but you downloaded .....blah.
hehe...

ps. Whilst we have our differences of opinion, can we at least not criticise
one another & be childish.
The only criticism that's acceptable is one that's constructive.
Most of the stuff flying around is just bashing each other about.
For discussions on the licensing, go to:

http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/produ...edbackid=2b58b8db-5bba-4dfc-be10-78ad43686b3b

For ado.net problems, post here.
Reminder...we also don't want other crap here - Job Ads, resume's etc. Just
ADO.NET!!!

Have a nice day all! & can't wait till Beta 2

 

[Guest]

JTL- [Wed, 6 Apr 2005 15:14:28 -0400]:

I have to smirk when trolls post.
One troll claims .... What a laugh!
No record at all of *any* community involvement...
Then, *you* chirp in and, of course...all
you can pitifully manage is a broadside at MVPs in general.
You could have, at least, attacked *me*, and not MVPs as a whole.
What a couple of self-serving trolls you both are!
Go ahead. I won't be surprised at your next broadside.
I won't waste any more of my time
answering any reply you or your pal make, either.
It's quite clear what your motivations are.

Do you always want to see conspiracies, or
everybody's out to get you, or you're always
right and everyone else who thinks better is
a troll? My, there must have been a recent
pilgrimage to Mecca, because you are still
100% indoctrinated, and self-important enough
to rank and rate others by your own scale. If
you find any factual errors in what I've written,
I suggest you argue with those, and leave the
grassy knoll out.

 

[Guest]

g- [Wed, 6 Apr 2005 20:53:41 -0700]:

BTW - Didn't QuickC exist before C6? Not sure though. And I seem to

QC came with, I think it was, C5, and also separately.
Early 1988 or around there. From what I remember, it
was simply a fast, non-optimizing compiler -- no
threaded-interpreted byte code like the early VB compiler.
It had to compete somehow with TurboC/BC, and QC was
MS's attempt in the compile-time speed department.

remember an early version of MASM around that same time as well.

The MS OSes used to come with MASM included right on the
5.25" disk pack, back in the DOS 2.x days (1983 or so).
debug was the debugger. CV came with C4 (I think that was
the first compiler version MS sold, licensed from Lattice).
There was another debugger from MS in between debug and CV,
but I can't recall its name -- maybe symdeb. MASM didn't
get CV until later, well after the C compiler got it.


Sidebar: After 20 years, and all the resources available,
you'd think there'd be better stuff available today.

 

[Guest]

I've been reading all of these posts, and I just cannot believe that anyone
would really have the gaul to fall for this kind of marketing scheme. It's
purely theft on the small developer. Even big businesses cannot just fork
over that kind of money for a single line of products on a yearly basis.

Anyone who thinks that it is not typical for one programmer to play the
Developer, Architect, Tester, and Debugger is very, very misinformed. You
don't program in teams when you learn how to code. It just doesn't work that
way. The "Team System" has very little to do with actual "teams" and
everything to do with security and management, which is why the 'small'
developers need it just as much as the large corporations. The asking price
is just too outrageous. You cannot justify competition, because regardless of
the physical price set of other products, none of them are making the kind of
change that Microsoft is making here.

It's one thing for this to be a fresh market that has previously been
unexplored and to place the product in with a high cost. You can't just make
the jump from "MSDN Universal" to the new pricing schemes like that. The
industry isn't going to tolerate it, and neither will the consumers. Visual
Studio isn't a good enough product to justify this kind of expense or
division. It's the same thing as telling us that our opinions, work, and the
value of our products are completely worthless because in the end, we're
bound by Microsoft's decision to price atrociously. I don't care what
industry you are in, $10,000+ is not cheap. And it still does not include the
User Licenses needed. So it includes 5 User Licenses? If you're assuming that
5 Users is all a company will have, then why are you targeting the
mega-corporations? The kind of corporations that will need multiple licenses
are going to have closer to 100/200 Users, Not 5.

And how can you call it SPAM for users and developers to voice their
opinions? I suppose that the C# vs. Java arguments are SPAM, and the people
trying to promote a certain style of coding are also SPAM. That's total bull.
Flaming is irrational and uncalled for response based on predisposed bias.
This argument is putting a foot down and trying to stand up to the impossible
Goliath that is attempting to crush every village we have.

With Trolling/SPAM/Flaming, you're just out to deride, not persuade. We're
angry. We're furious about what new license system, and we have every right
as Microsoft's customers to be as protagonistic as we can be until something
happens about it. That's how the Market works. If you don't like something,
you fight it by suggestion, or boycott. A good company would rather hear the
anger of its customers and rectify the situation, instead of losing a lot of
money by no one buying the product.

 

[Kevin Spencer]

We're furious about what new license system, and we have every right

as Microsoft's customers to be as protagonistic as we can be until
something
happens about it. That's how the Market works. If you don't like
something,
you fight it by suggestion, or boycott. A good company would rather hear
the
anger of its customers and rectify the situation, instead of losing a lot
of
money by no one buying the product.

You have every right to say anything you wish, regardless of whether or not
you're a Microsoft customer. Of course, this is not the issue. In fact, by
the same logic, Microsoft has every right to set the price for their product
as they see fit. It works both ways. It's called liberty.

The odd thing to me is that so many people see this issue as a "right or
wrong" issue. Is it wrong for you to voice your opinion? No. Is it wrong for
Microsoft to determine their pricing scheme? Well, apparently, some people
think so. To them, I would ask "Whose right IS it to set the pricing scheme
for Microsoft's products? Who should set he pricing scheme for any software
product YOU create?"

Again, it all comes down to supply and demand. Believe it or not, Microsoft
doesn't answer to their customers. They answer to their stockholders. And if
Microsoft shoots themselves in the foot with a bad price, believe me, the
stockholders will set things right.

In the meantime, can we lose all the vitriol and nastiness? Since this is
NOT an issue of right and wrong, can we all treat it like what it is? A
matter of simple agreement or diagreement, without the unpleasant
characterization of the opposition.

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
What You Seek Is What You Get.

 

[Guest]

Unfortunatly, you're right. They don't answer to their customers, just their
stockholders. I apologize if my post seemed hateful or nasty. While it may
not be a 'right or wrong' issue, it is certainly a very important issue for
us.

 

[Kevin Spencer]

Unfortunatly, you're right. They don't answer to their customers, just

their
stockholders.

Well, Derek, that's not unfortunate at all. The stockholders are the owners.
If the company does well, they make money. If it doesn't, they don't.
Therefore, it is in their best interest to make sure the company does well.

Think of it this way. Have you ever been an independent consultant? If so,
YOU were the owner of the company. Now, who should logically set the prices
for your company?

Note that I didn't say that Microsoft doesn't LISTEN to their customers.
They most certainly DO! And your feedback is valuable to them. But
ultimately, it is their owners that they are responsible to, not their
customers. That said, as I mentioned, if the price scheme doesn't make more
money, due to a drop in sales, the stockholders will make sure the problem
is corrected.

In the meantime, feel free to offer your opinion to them. If they are indeed
mistaken, I have seen Microsoft change their minds pretty quickly!

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
What You Seek Is What You Get.

 

[news.microsoft.com]

First, I'd like to thank everyone for participating in this discussion.
Second, It looks like we've made some progress; not everything we asked for,
but it is something.

Thank you to the supporters and even those that were opposed. The
opposition helped make this discussion even larger and more noticed. Thank
you MVP's for blindly following whatever MS wants you to. You unwittingly
added value to the discussion even though that wasn't your purpose in some
cases...Just kidding, thank you, really! When some of you MVP's weren't
just bashing us, you did have some good points. Ours were better, though<g>

And, Thank You Alec Cooper for hearing us! We will continue to give you
feedback in hopes of coming to a good resolution (compromise) for everyone.

Here is a recent post from the feedback site by Alec Cooper, VSTS Business
Manager, (e-mail address removed):I just wanted to post that I have gotten a number of emails from customers
and I really appreciate people taking the time to do that. I'm also sorry I
haven't yet replied to them all (MINA, I have your mail & I will reply).
I've been trying to solve a few of the problems you all have been pointing
out. I think I have figured out a few things we can/need to do better in
this. First, we have done a poor job explaining all of the aspects of this.
I do apologize for this. An example: I got an email stating displeasure at
having to buy the role products to use Team Foundation. This isn't true, you
can use Team Foundation outside of the role products, simply by buying a CAL
and the server. The Team explorer software can be used as a standalone
client. So what we haven't done ( and what I've been working on) is a better
site that explains in detail the features and the scenarios which I think
will help ease at least some of the concerns - I think of the mails that I
have been sent, 25% have been caused by our poorly explaining the situation,
25% regarding Team Foundation and 50% generally po'd about the pricing. Look
for this in a couple of weeks. One of the things that will get addressed in
more detail is how different the editions will be in 2005 versus 2003. Pro
is a much more robust tool, more like EA 2003 than Pro 2003. Another is how
to get developer tools through all the partner programs - not just empower,
but all of the programs (http://partner.microsoft.com/). So regarding the
Team Foundation bit, this has been really good feedback; I think this is a
good example of where developers provide some feedback to Microsoft and
Microsoft does something about it. I think we need to figure out a way to
get this into subscriptions for developers to evaluate, demo etc -
essentially the way we do with other servers, without sticking some kind of
time-bombed bits in there. I am open to suggestions on how to do this, I
would love to figure out a way to do this so customers are happy with it. I
think people understand the issue, let's try to solve this one together. On
the general pricing thing, we are going to announce in relatively short
order aggressive pricing to get exisiting subscribers the suite. We've done
extensive analysis of the lifecycle tools market and I can say with great
certainty that we are providing these tools at substantially lower entry
points than the competition - you are getting a ton more in the
developer/architect/test products than today. But yes, we need to get the
suite to our core set of developers, we're going to create good pricing to
do so. Again, I apologize for not having answered some of the mail yet, I
will do so. again my email address is (e-mail address removed), I am very
interested in the feedback. - Alec Cooper
<<

While it doesn't appear that the Suite is going to be included in Universal
(Premium), they do seem to be getting the message that we need access to it.
I hope the "aggressive" pricing for the Suite is very reasonable (<=$500).
Also, it looks like there may be some version of Team Foundation Server
included. At this point, we're all going to have to wait and see what the
landscape looks like in a few weeks when they come out with the revised
pricing and product list. I, for one, will be eagerly awaiting the
announcement. I'll hold back any further judgement until then.

MS Feedback link on this issue:
http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/produ...edbackId=2b58b8db-5bba-4dfc-be10-78ad43686b3b


Again, thanks to all for helping to make MS notice this issue!

GClark

- Can a small group of dedicated people with a good idea change the world?
It's the only thing that ever has!

 

[Jim Hubbard]

That's great news! I'm really glad that Microsoft is listening to their
customers concerning the subscription issue.

Now, if we can just get their help with the VB6 transistion issues......

Jim Hubbard

 

[Cor Ligthert]

Jim,

That's great news! I'm really glad that Microsoft is listening to their
customers concerning the subscription issue.

Microsoft has in my opinion always listened to their customers.

It is not an Open Source company, they need to earn money by making what
their customers want.

Cor