03-11-2003, 09:27 AM
|
|
Pontificator
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,177
|
|
Is Free a Make or Break Issue?
Three years ago, not many felt Microsoft posed a serious threat to market leader Palm. One factor, of many factors, was the incredibly poor developer story Microsoft had. The older versions of Visual Studio and the mobile toolkits didn't really qualify as a real developer platform. If anyone caught interest in developing mobile applications, you would have to jump through hoops to get things done. If you first could overcome the poor toolkit implementation, that is.
Then something happened. Microsoft turned around and apparently decided to take the mobile devices market seriously. In my opinion, that shift in attitude happened in late 1999. Enter eMbedded Visual Tools. I remember the first eMbedded Visual Tools presentation I listened to in Redmond. It was a relief to see the improvements and the entirely new approach to development introduced. I was absolutely stunned when the presenter said that the tools would be free. Microsoft had realized, again, that they could not win without applications for their platform. To gain market share, you need to attract developers. Easy.
Today, I often hear Microsoft say: "We are winning in the PDA market!". While I see that Microsoft and their partners do quite well from a revenue perspective, they are still lagging behind in the market. Lagging. Lagging. Lagging. In fact, this is the first time I have ever come across a part of Microsoft that says: "We are winning!" when in fact they do not have more than 50% market share. Instead, it has been more common to hear: "We are losing" despite market share numbers above 50%. This is the healthy paranoia that has gotten Microsoft to where it is today. A paranoia that I have asked for in this market too, for such a long time. Back to tools.
Enter .NET. No more free tools. To develop .NET Compact Framework applications you will need Visual Studio .NET that costs more than $1,000. So far I haven't heard anything about a Visual Studio .NET packaging for mobile devices developers. This new attitude goes well in line with: "We are winning!", but I fear it is way too early to stop "assisting" the developers that are so critical in making this "win" actually happen. Do you agree? Should Microsoft come up with a continued schema of developer assistance, such as free or almost free tools, or are they on the right track charging premium fees for mobile application developer tools?
|
| |
|
|
|
03-11-2003, 09:33 AM
|
|
Thinker
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 354
|
|
I think they should do what they currently do with the full framework and make it available as a basic sdk with compiler, that way others can make simple cheap/free GUIs to use instead of the whole Visual Studio product.
Even microsoft have gone down this route with WebMatrix which is a free GUI for producing ASP.NET pages which works in conjuction with the .NET SDK.
|
| |
|
|
|
03-11-2003, 09:54 AM
|
|
Pontificator
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,177
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Peter Foot
I think they should do what they currently do with the full framework and make it available as a basic sdk with compiler, that way others can make simple cheap/free GUIs to use instead of the whole Visual Studio product.
Even microsoft have gone down this route with WebMatrix which is a free GUI for producing ASP.NET pages which works in conjuction with the .NET SDK.
|
Sure. But the fact is that ASP.NET provides a hundred times bigger market, if not more. I can't see how a third party tools builder could provide a high quality, free or low cost tool for the mobile devices developers that won't buy or can't afford the VS.NET. A small market with little or no money. Wow. That is a great idea! 
|
| |
|
|
|
03-11-2003, 10:40 AM
|
|
Ponderer
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 85
|
|
what makes PDA spin is not enterprise applications or some complicated vertical solution.
It's games and small apps. Look at handango, pocket gear, and especially Palmgear. Consider what makes Palm attractive. Those are apps that are made by small time developers and hobbyists at cost less than $8-10 bucks and sells only several thousands copies. Owning free tool means they can experiment and provide something that PDA users wants. Outlandish games, specialty calculator, personal helps are the heart of PDA (personal digital assitance) Buying a $1000 bucks tool to develop those type of apps doesn't make sense. And those apps are the very reason why people buy PDA.
If .net is beyond reach to these small developers, the answer is clear, seek alternative. The open source tools.
And who cares about .net as PDA environtment. .net would be just another Java wannabe. It's just another big idea with bad execution, interesting theoritically but really doesn't matter much to the market.
|
| |
|
|
|
03-11-2003, 10:50 AM
|
|
Pontificator
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,177
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cracknell
what makes PDA spin is not enterprise applications or some complicated vertical solution.
It's games and small apps. Look at handango, pocket gear, and especially Palmgear. Consider what continuously makes Palm continually attractive. Those are apps that are made by small time developers and hobbyists at cost less than $8-10 bucks and sells only several thousands copies. Owning free tool means they can experiment and provide something that PDA users wants. Outlandish games, specialty calculator, personal helps are the heart of PDA (personal digital assitance) Buying a $1000 bucks tool to develop those type of apps doesn't make sense. And those apps are the very reason why people buy PDA.
If .net is beyond reach to these small developers, the answer is clear, seek alternative. The open source tools.
And who cares about .net as PDA environtment. .net would be just another Java wannabe. It's just another big idea with bad execution, interesting theoritically but really doesn't matter much to the market.
|
I believe you got it half right. I agree that "Buying a $1000 bucks tool to develop those type of apps doesn't make sense", which is why I wrote this post in the first place. However, you need to win both Enterprise and Consumer to come out as #1. In the .NET framework you will find much more useful and robust technologies than in the Java equivalences to support both segments. Too bad that Microsoft seems to forget about the first.
(I can already now hear people replying to my first post that eVT 3.0 will continue to available for some time and that eVT 4.0 will continue to evolve. But eVT 4.0 is C++ only and none of them will be able to reap the benefits of the .NET technologies which is where Microsoft is heading.)
|
| |
|
|
|
03-11-2003, 11:25 AM
|
|
Ponderer
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 85
|
|
One thing doesn't make sense with Microsoft strategy:
what will happen to the .net minitable like Samsung Nexio? How will it get apps? It needs something fast before consumer lose interest, enterprise or no enterprise.
In PPC, at least there are alternative or the old tools.
|
| |
|
|
|
03-11-2003, 12:00 PM
|
|
Thinker
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 354
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Andy Sjostrom
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Peter Foot
I think they should do what they currently do with the full framework and make it available as a basic sdk with compiler, that way others can make simple cheap/free GUIs to use instead of the whole Visual Studio product.
Even microsoft have gone down this route with WebMatrix which is a free GUI for producing ASP.NET pages which works in conjuction with the .NET SDK.
|
Sure. But the fact is that ASP.NET provides a hundred times bigger market, if not more. I can't see how a third party tools builder could provide a high quality, free or low cost tool for the mobile devices developers that won't buy or can't afford the VS.NET. A small market with little or no money. Wow. That is a great idea! |
Thanks for the vote of confidence Andy :wink:
Okay, we already have free tools for the full framework, and I'm sure that there are plenty of commercial cheap ones too, this is similar to the way that Java works, the sdk gives you the libraries and the compiler - you want more there's plenty out there. I didn't suggest that microsoft should offer a free tool for .net cf, just indicated that they had done something similar.
Take a look at tools like sharp develop:-
http://www.icsharpcode.net/OpenSource/SD/Default.aspx
If MS made the libraries available in the .NET SDK you could use something like this to develop for the CF too. All that Microsoft need to distribute is the libraries, now if you are telling me that its not commercially viable to ship .net cf runtimes in sdk form then how can they justify doing this with the full framework - other than a simple attempt at quickly building market share... If MS wants to attract customers to buy into its Pocket PC platforms it has to make the raw materials to build software for it available to a wide audience not just big corporations. The more software there is available for Pocket PC, the more sales MS make. Visual Studio does have compelling features that make it desirable for many developers, there are however features which are redundant to a pure device developer and there are other features which don't cater at all for device development - setup project anyone?
|
| |
|
|
|
03-11-2003, 12:05 PM
|
|
Thinker
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 354
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Andy Sjostrom
However, you need to win both Enterprise and Consumer to come out as #1.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Andy Sjostrom
Too bad that Microsoft seems to forget about the first.
|
I disagree, I think they have very firmly targetted the first (Enterprise) and completely disregarded the Consumer market, and I believe this was probably their intention for .NET CF v1.0. The problem is the small developers want to use the newer better tools to, eVB is too simple and not kept current and eVC++ is not everybodies cup of tea.
|
| |
|
|
|
03-11-2003, 12:13 PM
|
|
Thinker
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 354
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cracknell
One thing doesn't make sense with Microsoft strategy:
what will happen to the .net minitable like Samsung Nexio? How will it get apps? It needs something fast before consumer lose interest, enterprise or no enterprise.
In PPC, at least there are alternative or the old tools.
|
You can use eVC++ 4 on the Nexio if .NET CF is not an option.
|
| |
|
|
|
03-11-2003, 01:20 PM
|
|
Pontificator
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,177
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Peter Foot
Thanks for the vote of confidence Andy :wink:
Okay, we already have free tools for the full framework, and I'm sure that there are plenty of commercial cheap ones too, this is similar to the way that Java works, the sdk gives you the libraries and the compiler - you want more there's plenty out there. I didn't suggest that microsoft should offer a free tool for .net cf, just indicated that they had done something similar.
Take a look at tools like sharp develop:-
http://www.icsharpcode.net/OpenSource/SD/Default.aspx
If MS made the libraries available in the .NET SDK you could use something like this to develop for the CF too. All that Microsoft need to distribute is the libraries, now if you are telling me that its not commercially viable to ship .net cf runtimes in sdk form then how can they justify doing this with the full framework - other than a simple attempt at quickly building market share... If MS wants to attract customers to buy into its Pocket PC platforms it has to make the raw materials to build software for it available to a wide audience not just big corporations. The more software there is available for Pocket PC, the more sales MS make. Visual Studio does have compelling features that make it desirable for many developers, there are however features which are redundant to a pure device developer and there are other features which don't cater at all for device development - setup project anyone? |
All this sounds sweet. But I am worried that it is a "constructed" way of reasoning. I would have preferred if Microsoft had clearly expressed their tools strategy a long time ago. Now, it is all speculation and a whole lot of "ifs". For example, "If MS made the libraries"...
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
