Is Free a Make or Break Issue?

[Andy Sjostrom]

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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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?

[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.

[Andy Sjostrom]

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! :D

[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 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.

[Andy Sjostrom]

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.)

[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.

[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! :D

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?

[Peter Foot]

However, you need to win both Enterprise and Consumer to come out as #1.

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.

[Peter Foot]

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.

[Andy Sjostrom]

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"...

[VanHlebar]

Here is my take, sorry to jump in so late. I am a part time (hobbiest) developer. I used eVB at first then started porting my application to eVC++. I will never be able to use the new framework. Why, because I can not afford to spend $1,000 on development tools, when I have absolutely no real objective to make any money from my applications. They will either be released as freeware or in the $5-$10 range. Since I also only write applications that I would like to have, they tend to be very niche products that will sell very few copies on top of the small price per application.

With that said, M$ really should consider selling something at a "reasonable" price for those developers that want to continue as a "hobby". I can't help but think that this also is part of M$ way of trying weed out the free software in the ppc market. How can developer continue to offer quality application/games for free if they have to spend over $1,000 just to be able to develop?

Just my thoughts..
-Eric

[Andy Sjostrom]

Just my thoughts..
-Eric


Exactly. Just my thoughts, too. If there are any more out there who feel the same way, I would really like know!

[Hugh Nano]

Another hobbyist here. I must admit I haven't had time to do much with eVB, never mind eVC++, but the fact that the development tools were free kept them on my computer and opened up a whole new world of possibilities for me as an amateur programmer. Now that world is closed.

With the free development tools, there was always at least a possibility that I might be able to pick them up, dust off my rusty programming skills, and enter the development arena for fun and to give something back to the freeware Pocket PC community. With Visual Studio .NET and its unreachable price-tag, that possibility is entirely gone.

RIP, my dreams...

[unxmully]

Just my thoughts..
-Eric


Exactly. Just my thoughts, too. If there are any more out there who feel the same way, I would really like know!

I've been known to tinker with Apps for Pocket PC using the "free" toolkits available from Microsoft. Having to pay for VS.Net to carry on doing that would be something of a disincentive. In fact it would stop me stone dead.

On the other hand, I don't plan on using VS.net for desktop development for a while either. The .SDK and VIM is enough for me at the moment.

Andy

[Scott R]

I have mixed feelings about all of this. I'm primarily a VB developer by day. Microsoft's decision to release eVB for free was one of the big reasons why I jumped and got my iPaq 3630 shortly after they came out. But this tool was so poor, that it ended up just frustrating me. It was of beta quality and lacked important RAD features (e.g. - built-in menu editor, easy support for tap-and-hold menus, etc.). They never fixed it up and then announced (way too far in advance for their own good) that they wouldn't be fixing it up and that .NET would be the preferred platform. But they announced that so very long ago and .NET w/CF support is still not out yet (yes...I know...next month). That left the enterprise market, many of whom bought a bunch of PPCs before the bubble burst, with poor tools.

Now for the positives. Microsoft needs to grow the 3rd party application market still. For that, you need cheap or affordable tools. There's a couple of ways to go about this. First, it looks like eVC will continue to be supported (even upgraded?) and that's free. My understanding is that eVC is a decent quality tool (unlike eVB). Most 3rd party developers are used to coding in C++, and VB has a reputation for being bloated and slow by this community. So, they'd probably rather use eVC, anyway, assuming the quality is good. Someone correct me if I'm wrong about the quality of eVC.

The enterprise market, however, wants RAD tools. Well, the enterprise market has more money to spend, too. So, charging for VB.NET makes sense. However, I do think that the $1000 starting price for getting the Compact Framework is way too high to get small businesses to adopt it. It will also hurt them in getting students and hobbyists to get into the whole .NET thing. They definitely need to offer a more limited Visual Studio package in the sub-$500 price range (preferably sub-$300) which offers Compact Framework. It would be great if they would just bundle it with all standalone tools (you can get VB.NET or C#.NET standalone for about $100). Or, if that's too cheap for their accountants they could offer the CF as a separate add-on for another $100-200.

Scott

[Peter Foot]

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"...

Well at the moment all we have is the "ifs". If there is an SDK release with the Compact Framework libriaries then the little guys will use .NET, if they don't then they wont - this is both negative on the part of the hobbyist and struggling developer and on Microsofts big idea that .NET is the way forward. I don't think anyone expects MS to produce a "Visual Studio Express" in the free/budget price range but giving the very basics as they have with their desktop framework will open many doors.

You disagree with me when I say that Microsoft MUST consider releasing an SDK, and then agree with others who say that they would not spend $1000 on Visual Studio 2003. I'm saying exactly the same thing, $1000 is a drop in the ocean for corporations, but its no laughing matter for the little guys - like poor old me! :x

[Andy Sjostrom]

You disagree with me when I say that Microsoft MUST consider releasing an SDK, and then agree with others who say that they would not spend $1000 on Visual Studio 2003. I'm saying exactly the same thing, $1000 is a drop in the ocean for corporations, but its no laughing matter for the little guys - like poor old me! :x

I would love for Microsoft to release an SDK that others can use to put cheaper tools on the market. But I doubt it will work, and I KNOW it won't work if (see, another IF!) Microsoft doesn't express that this IS their strategy. It certainly won't just randomly happen.

[Paragon]

Words form someone on the other end, a non developer.

I think Microsoft should be very careful with this attitude. They are/were absolutely right in their thinking that having software developers on board was the key to the success of PPC. As a consumer it looks to me that there is a real trend by developers to shy away from developing consumer level applications for PPC. If you look a Handango, and the likes these days there are hardly any new apps coming to market at all. Those that are in it seem to be keeping up their apps with new updates. But there seems to be a real plateau at the moment. If everyone has to go out and spend $1000.00 USD to continue.....WE ARE DEAD IN THE WATER.

The one thing Palm has always had over PPC is the amount of available software....the real ZEN of Palm....1000's of people out there building apps for the platform. Tons for free, and ton's sold at a reasonable cost.

Not only do applications need to continue to be built for the PPC platform but they must be sold at a reasonable cost as well. As an example, I use Quickbook Pro as my accounting, and invoicing application on my PC. It cost me $300.00 CND. A handheld version has recently come to market, cost $1000.00 CND. I would probably consider this application if it was priced close to it's full featured desktop version, but for three times the cost, no way. If developers are going to have to pay $1000.00 for the tools to build PPC apps we are definitely going to see more, and more of this self destructing pricing.

2 cents by Dave

[Jimmy Dodd]

I have to agree with Andy here. I think it is way too early for MS to stop "seeding" the market with cheap or free tools. I'm not sure they are doing that, though. Just because the latest and greatest tools are out of reach doesn't mean something else isn't coming. The free/cheap PPC tools have always lagged behind the Big Windows tools. Hopefully we'll get some info after next weeks conference in New Orleans.

[Kirkaiya]

One interesting thing to keep in mind is that the .NET Compact Framework was included free with VS.NET Beta 2 (I think it was that version), and that version of the .NET CF was actually the final version (it was not beta, only the VS IDE was still in Beta).

This would imply that the .NET CF is a discrete set of libraries, and a discrete compiler, meaining that Microsoft could pretty easily release a free (a la "Web Matrix") stripped-down-IDE that is targeted only at the Compact Framework or Pocket PC.

I wonder if this is already in the works? I'll ask around with the Mobility people at MSFT, but if none of the MVPs here know (or can say) anything, then I doubt I'll have any luck. But - don't forget that most people didn't know that Web Matrix was coming before it was posted.

[lanwarrior]

If we look at the regular Visual Basic which was part of Visual Studio, it was NEVER free. Yet there are mnay VB (or even VC++) developer who churn out free applications for the Windows Platform. Hmm, wonder how these developer got a hold of the VS development tool. :lol:

But this aside, what MS should be doing is release the PPC Development tool for free, and if someone want to extend it to something else that is more enterprise level (client server, etc), THEn maybe MS can charge the $ 1000.00.

I, for one, will not need the full blown VS.NET 2003 if all I want to do is built a calculator app. in PPC. All I need is just a VB.NET tool to develop in PPC. I don't care if the .NET assemblies provided only cater to PPC (i.e. the Compact Framework), as long as I can develop in PPC, I am happy.

If later I decide to build the desktop equivalent, connect to an Oracle DB, etc..etc.., then I will shell out the money to get the full blown VS.NET 2003. By that time, I would have porbably have an intend to start a company.

Just my 2 cents...

[JonathanWardRogers]

...If everyone has to go out and spend $1000.00 USD to continue.....WE ARE DEAD IN THE WATER.

The one thing Palm has always had over PPC is the amount of available software....the real ZEN of Palm....1000's of people out there building apps for the platform. Tons for free, and ton's sold at a reasonable cost.

...2 cents by Dave

I think one thing to remember here is that there will still be a free development tool for PPC that is way better than anything Palm has to offer. (Seriously, has anyone here ever tried developing Palm software?)

I'm a developer, and I love .NET and VS.NET. It's everything a development platform and runtime environment should be, with none of the proprietary nonsense that is Java. I think MS is making a big mistake in not pushing .NET development on all of their platforms as much as possible. The fact that the .NET CF is not included in the standard SDK is rediculous.

That said, #develop is a great alternative to VS.NET (considering the price), and being open source, it would only be a matter of time before there was a PPC version if MS released the SDK. Please, someone here let us know what we can do to make MS change their minds. It wouldn't cost them much and it would probably lead to the .NET CF on other devices besides PPC as well. (although the non-multitasking Palm blOwS may have problems with it).

Come on! Take up the cry! .NET everywhere!

Sorry :oops: , I'll get off my soapbox now.

Jon

[Hans the Hedgehog]

(Seriously, has anyone here ever tried developing Palm software?)

Yup. I develop Palm apps for my company for internal use all the time... matter of fact, it's my main job. I also develop apps for the desktop using VC++. I can't speak on whether developing for the Palm versus PPC is easier or not, but what I can say is that using something like Metrowerks' products makes developing for the Palm quite easy... really, I don't understand why everyone thinks it is so hard to develop a Palm app.

Now, on the flipside, when I first started with VC++ (I had a previous life using various Borland tools) I had to beat my brain against the table trying to figure out why MS decided to do somethings the way they did...

Just different devtool strokes for different folks, I guess.

I'm a developer, and I love .NET and VS.NET. It's everything a development platform and runtime environment should be, with none of the proprietary nonsense that is Java.

Huh? .Net tis totally proprietary! That's why Andy posted this. There is no release (yet) of anything that would let a 3rd party create a cheaper development solution-- unlike Java or Palm!

But to get back on topic... $1000 is way too much for the devtools for the smaller programmer. Doesn't bode too well. The enterprise programmer won't care too much, but the small timer will simply have to keep producing apps (using the older tools) that simply won't be able to run on current devices, and will have a continuously diminishing market.

I believe that MS needs to keep some form of devtool cheap enough to allow for the hobby/small developer. Perhaps a limited release license (yuk!) or a more limited set of tools. Better yet, simply allow a 3rd party to create a more inexpensive tool... but we've all seen how MS deals with devtool makers... :(

Just my thoughts,
Hans.

[Peter Foot]

I'm a developer, and I love .NET and VS.NET. It's everything a development platform and runtime environment should be, with none of the proprietary nonsense that is Java. I think MS is making a big mistake in not pushing .NET development on all of their platforms as much as possible. The fact that the .NET CF is not included in the standard SDK is rediculous.

That said, #develop is a great alternative to VS.NET (considering the price), and being open source, it would only be a matter of time before there was a PPC version if MS released the SDK. Please, someone here let us know what we can do to make MS change their minds. It wouldn't cost them much and it would probably lead to the .NET CF on other devices besides PPC as well. (although the non-multitasking Palm blOwS may have problems with it).

Come on! Take up the cry! .NET everywhere!

I agree that Microsoft needs to take only one step here, then others will take other necessary steps - ship the compact framework in SDK form. Afterall Compact Framework is essentially a cut down version of the full framework - here is a comparison:-

.NET Framework SDK - Ferarri give you all the parts of its sports can and the necessary tools to build the car yourself for free
(you don't get robot arms or a conveyor belt but you can put all the stuff in your own garage and build a ferarri or two)

.NET Compact Framework - If you want to build a skoda you have to buy the factory, you get a load of robot arms and automated production line, helpful staff (who check your syntax and walk you through complicated proceedures) - It'll cost you $1000 (ok for a car factory you have to scale up the cost but you get the idea)


Quoting from microsoft.com (or the bible if you are really enthusiastic about .net)
"Microsoft .NET is a set of software technologies designed to connect your world of information, people, systems, and devices."

Ok its marketing blurb but it does insinuate that device constitute a key part of the .net way and therefore I think it should be part of the standard SDK.

[Kevin Daly]

As a professional programmer by day and a "hobbyist" by night, and having seen the innovative and high quality applications that have been built by many people for the Pcoket PC, I think it is a mistake to divide the Pocket PC development community into "Enterprise" and "Hobbyist" sectors - the truth is that the embedded Visual Tools enabled an explosion of creativity by democratising software development for the Pocket PC. Established software companies often regard handhelds as "toys" (it's just the mainframe syndrome one level down) and are reluctant to commit resources to development for them...the situation in the handheld software market is even now not unlike the early '80s, when possibly the majority of software for small computers was written by "hobbyists", some of whom went on to found major companies.
The Compact Framework and the extensions to Visual Studio to support it are not a Java wannabe...but instead a toolset that enables complex and capable applications to be written with minimum pain and sufering (and without the Faustian deals required for a master of C++). Making this toolset available at minimal cost would provide Microsoft with a legion of talented developers producing great applications for the PPC platform, and we all know that software sells hardware (and yes, so do flashing lights, I know). For this reason I don't understand why they don't make the Toolset Formerly Known As Smart Device Extensions available with the single-language editions of Visual Studio.NET, which are actually very reasonably priced (even within the capabilities of people unfortunate enough to be paid in NZ dollars).
I'm unconvinced that there's any particularly cynical purpose in Microsoft's strategy here (other than a belief in making lots of money, which is after all what being in business is about), but I think that key decisions on this have been made by people who have been working in the "Enterprise space" for so long that it now provides a filter through which they see the world.

[Mark from Canada]

If we look at the regular Visual Basic which was part of Visual Studio, it was NEVER free. Yet there are mnay VB (or even VC++) developer who churn out free applications for the Windows Platform. Hmm, wonder how these developer got a hold of the VS development tool. :lol:


Visual Basic was always available as a "Professional" version which had quite some features and wasn't priced that bad. You didn't have to buy Visual Studio to program in Visual Basic.
That changed with Visual Studio.NET. You either buy their "Visual Basic .NET Standard" WHICH CAN'T EVEN IMPORT YOUR OLD VB5/VB6 CODE!!! :evil: or you have to buy the whole Visual Studio .NET - even if you don't care about C# and C++ :( .
Microsoft is showing a complete disregard for many developers who helped getting Windows to where it is now.

Mark

[Kati Compton]

While I have been too busy the past month or so to do anything in the way of PPC development, I do plan to do some. But if I have to pay $1K for the tools, I won't be doing any. I only want to do it as a hobby, and I only want to create freeware.

[Scott R]

That changed with Visual Studio.NET. You either buy their "Visual Basic .NET Standard" WHICH CAN'T EVEN IMPORT YOUR OLD VB5/VB6 CODE!!! :evil: or you have to buy the whole Visual Studio .NET - even if you don't care about C# and C++ :( .
Microsoft is showing a complete disregard for many developers who helped getting Windows to where it is now.
Just as an FYI, I believe that MS is bundling the VB6->VB.NET conversion wizard (or whatever it's called) with the 2003 version of VB.NET due next month. The only piece missing now is for them to bundle the CF as well.

Scott

[Andy Sjostrom]

As a professional programmer by day and a "hobbyist" by night, and having seen the innovative and high quality applications that have been built by many people for the Pcoket PC, I think it is a mistake to divide the Pocket PC development community into "Enterprise" and "Hobbyist" sectors - the truth is that the embedded Visual Tools enabled an explosion of creativity by democratising software development for the Pocket PC. Established software companies often regard handhelds as "toys" (it's just the mainframe syndrome one level down) and are reluctant to commit resources to development for them...the situation in the handheld software market is even now not unlike the early '80s, when possibly the majority of software for small computers was written by "hobbyists", some of whom went on to found major companies.
The Compact Framework and the extensions to Visual Studio to support it are not a Java wannabe...but instead a toolset that enables complex and capable applications to be written with minimum pain and sufering (and without the Faustian deals required for a master of C++). Making this toolset available at minimal cost would provide Microsoft with a legion of talented developers producing great applications for the PPC platform, and we all know that software sells hardware (and yes, so do flashing lights, I know). For this reason I don't understand why they don't make the Toolset Formerly Known As Smart Device Extensions available with the single-language editions of Visual Studio.NET, which are actually very reasonably priced (even within the capabilities of people unfortunate enough to be paid in NZ dollars).
I'm unconvinced that there's any particularly cynical purpose in Microsoft's strategy here (other than a belief in making lots of money, which is after all what being in business is about), but I think that key decisions on this have been made by people who have been working in the "Enterprise space" for so long that it now provides a filter through which they see the world.

You are right on target. If dividing the Pocket PC developer group into "Enterprise" and "Hobbyist" means going from $0 to $1000 as the only .NET schema, then I think the dividing will hurt Microsoft more than do good. I also agree with your view on the .NET Compact Framework as well as your analysis on the "Enterprise space" filter. Very well put.

[Rob Borek]

I definitely see MS distributing a free SDK for the .NET CF - much like they do for the desktop. It would make little sense not to. So, you still get a compiler - but not the Visual Studio tools, which would still serve many small developers just fine, and the large developers will buy Visual Studio anyways (if they don't already own it)

[Andy Sjostrom]

I definitely see MS distributing a free SDK for the .NET CF - much like they do for the desktop. It would make little sense not to. So, you still get a compiler - but not the Visual Studio tools, which would still serve many small developers just fine, and the large developers will buy Visual Studio anyways (if they don't already own it)

Hi, Rob! Hope all is well! What do you mean by "I definitely see MS distributing a free SDK for the .NET CF - much like they do for the desktop."? See? Where?

[Janak Parekh]

Hi, Rob! Hope all is well! What do you mean by "I definitely see MS distributing a free SDK for the .NET CF - much like they do for the desktop."? See? Where?
Right here (http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/downloads/list/netdevframework.asp). You're talking command-line tools like csc and ildasm, but certainly workable, especially if you come from a command-line development background.

--janak

[Scott R]

I definitely see MS distributing a free SDK for the .NET CF - much like they do for the desktop. It would make little sense not to. So, you still get a compiler - but not the Visual Studio tools, which would still serve many small developers just fine, and the large developers will buy Visual Studio anyways (if they don't already own it)
I don't see it. Call me skeptical, but if you go to MS' Visual Studio web site they clearly lay out what components are a part of the various Visual Studio packages, and which components are not. As I mentioned in a previous post, MS is changing course and bundling the VB6->VB.NET conversion wizard with even the standard $100 VB.NET package, which is good. But based on what I've read on their site, only the $1000 VS.NET package gets you the Compact Framework.

Scott

[Scott R]

Hi, Rob! Hope all is well! What do you mean by "I definitely see MS distributing a free SDK for the .NET CF - much like they do for the desktop."? See? Where?
Right here (http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/downloads/list/netdevframework.asp). You're talking command-line tools like csc and ildasm, but certainly workable, especially if you come from a command-line development background.

--janak
That's the .NET Framework, not the Compact Framework.

Scott

[Janak Parekh]

That's the .NET Framework, not the Compact Framework.
Yes, I know, and I knew it when I posted it. I now realize I was answering the wrong question. :oops:

Andy - when Rob says he "sees" MS doing it, it's a future-tense implication.

Scott - since the .NET CF should be able to run with a very similar VM to the regular .NET Framework, it's entirely possible MS can distribute an add-on set of libraries to the .NET Framework that will emulate the .NET CF, i.e., take the regular SDK and add the CF setup to it. It's too early to say just yet, since the .NET CF is technically not released.

--janak

[JonathanWardRogers]

(Seriously, has anyone here ever tried developing Palm software?)

Yup. I develop Palm apps for my company for internal use all the time... matter of fact, it's my main job.
I guess I should have asked specifically about the "free" development tools provided by Palm. Metroworks CodeWarrior is not free, nor is it provided by Palm Source.

Just different devtool strokes for different folks, I guess.
Too true, too true...

I'm a developer, and I love .NET and VS.NET. It's everything a development platform and runtime environment should be, with none of the proprietary nonsense that is Java.

Huh? .Net tis totally proprietary! That's why Andy posted this. There is no release (yet) of anything that would let a 3rd party create a cheaper development solution-- unlike Java or Palm!

No, the .NET platform (http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/ecma-335.htm) is an open standard, not proprietary. This thread is regarding VS.NET, not the .NET platform.

Better yet, simply allow a 3rd party to create a more inexpensive tool... but we've all seen how MS deals with devtool makers... :(

I'm not sure what you're referring to. I am unaware of MS hindering devtool makers. #develop is a good solid product, made possible in part by MS and the release and open source port of the .NET runtime and SDK. We just need them to do the same thing with the compact framework!

Jon

[Rob Borek]

Andy - when Rob says he "sees" MS doing it, it's a future-tense implication.

Yep... that's what I meant. Hopefully when the .NET CF is released, we'll see it up on the web site alongside the .NET Framework SDK.

[Andy Sjostrom]

Andy - when Rob says he "sees" MS doing it, it's a future-tense implication.

Yep... that's what I meant. Hopefully when the .NET CF is released, we'll see it up on the web site alongside the .NET Framework SDK.

I appreciate your comment, but there it is: Microsoft has us live with a lot of "ifs" and "hopefully", right now. I would much rather see Microsoft clearly explain their mobile application development tools plans.

[kfluet]

I'd just like to chime in with another "me too." I have recently come to the conclusion that Andy is talking about.

I'm currently brushing up on my programming skills (Java, patterns, extreme programming and other buzzwords), and want to fiddle around with wireless programming on the PocketPC. Visual Basic is, well, BASIC, and C++ seems like a lot of work when you have something like Java around. Fortunately, MS has come out with their C# Java clone.

I can get a copy of Visual C# for $109 USD for desktop development. That's a perfectly reasonable price, even for a hobbyist who wants to release freeware.

But I can't use it for developing for PocketPC. For PPC, I need to spend $1079 USD. That ain't gonna happen.

Java it is.

Now, the problem for MS is that people who are just "fiddling around" often don't stay in that state. Often once they have learned some things, they move on to developing vertical apps that need database access, etc. If I start developing real apps, and I need to choose between Java and C#, even if I can justify the cost of Visual Studio, I'm hardly going to jump over to MS products when I'm familiar with all the nice Java tools I already have.

[Janak Parekh]

I appreciate your comment, but there it is: Microsoft has us live with a lot of "ifs" and "hopefully", right now. I would much rather see Microsoft clearly explain their mobile application development tools plans.
... but more than just at a development level, anyway. I think MS is holding their cards close to their chest right now. Maybe that'll change when the NDAs expire and the next Pocket PC OS is released. Since that would presumably have the .NET CF built in, it might change the scope of the audience and as a result the scope to which developer tools should be released.

--janak

[sweetpete]

That's the .NET Framework, not the Compact Framework.
Yes, I know, and I knew it when I posted it. I now realize I was answering the wrong question. :oops:

Andy - when Rob says he "sees" MS doing it, it's a future-tense implication.

Scott - since the .NET CF should be able to run with a very similar VM to the regular .NET Framework, it's entirely possible MS can distribute an add-on set of libraries to the .NET Framework that will emulate the .NET CF, i.e., take the regular SDK and add the CF setup to it. It's too early to say just yet, since the .NET CF is technically not released.

--janak

Janak, your link is correct. I think I know where the confusion lies ... the .Net CF is part of the .Net 1.1 Framework SDK now and no longer a separate download. It is available for free and has compiler tools and all the necessary libraries and classes in there to develop FREE CF apps.

What is no longer free is the IDE which used to be provided as eVB and still is provided in eVC 4. I wouldn't be surprised if you saw a free IDE come out using the new 1.1 framework sometime in the future. For now you have 2 options:
Option 1 - Buy VS.Net 2003 for a full-features IDE
Option 2 - Download the 1.1 Framework SDK and use the command line compilers to create your free applications.

[Scott R]

I would much rather see Microsoft clearly explain their mobile application development tools plans.
I know that this will be the third time I've said this, but...As far as I'm concerned, MS has been clear about this. Go to MS' Visual Studio web site and you'll discover that the CF comes bundled with Visual Studio 2003, but not with any of the standalone products. If they were keeping things secret until the next version of PPC 2003, I would think that their VS page wouldn't specify that it comes with VS but not with VB.NET standalone.

Now, of course they can change their minds, and I hope they do. But it seems clear to me that someone at some point in time made the decision to bundle it only with the $1000 VS 2003 package.

Scott

[peterawest]

I am a part time (hobbiest) developer.

This is just the kind of developer that I think the Pocket PC communittee gets it's lifeblood from.

I will never be able to use the new framework. Why, because I can not afford to spend $1,000 on development tools, when I have absolutely no real objective to make any money from my applications.

Without free or inexpensive tools, we will lose many developers. I hope this price increase doesn't happen.

I've played around a little with building apps for Pocket PC's, but only for my personal use. Some of my friends have done the same thing, only to find that a simple little App that they made just for their use turns out to be really popular once it starts getting passed around.

I'm sure many of nice Apps you can purchase now started out that way and ended up being nice tools for many of us.

That kind of thing could be lost if the price goes too high.

[JonathanWardRogers]

I just thought everyone here might be interested in this discussion (http://www.icsharpcode.net/OpenSource/SD/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1159) on the #develop (http://www.icsharpcode.net/OpenSource/SD/) forum.

I guess we've all been debating a moot point. :oops: There is a free way to develop for PPC using .NET, and it is exactly what we've all been saying MS needs to do. Release the SDK and let some 3rd party make an IDE.

[Scott R]

I just thought everyone here might be interested in this discussion (http://www.icsharpcode.net/OpenSource/SD/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1159) on the #develop (http://www.icsharpcode.net/OpenSource/SD/) forum.

I guess we've all been debating a moot point. :oops: There is a free way to develop for PPC using .NET, and it is exactly what we've all been saying MS needs to do. Release the SDK and let some 3rd party make an IDE.
I read that thread. What am I missing? There are only three posts there and yours is the last one (with you asking a question).

Again, let me remind folks, 3rd party development is typically done using C++. eVC++ is still being supported and (I think) is supposedly decent quality. The "problem" is that there is no decent RAD tool for free (or even affordable). VB.NET is the official RAD tool of choice for MS and they've priced it outside of the hobbyist and many small businesses.

So what does this mean? Well, we won't see much PPC freeware/shareware developed using .NET. But given the fact that .NET PPC apps thus far appear to be slower, and most "serious" freeware developers seem to code in C++, I'm not sure if this will really have much of an impact on life.

Scott

[dphilli4]

I used Palm for a few years and developed some freeware using NSBasic (which ran about $100). One reason I switched to PPC (besides the hardware) was the promise of free eVB so I could continue to develop my freeware programs. Needless to say, there is no way I'm forking over $1000+ to continue this little hobby.

Since moving to PPC, I've been very disappointed in the variety of software that is out there. I would think that MS would do everything possible to correct this. "It's the software, stupid" - the best hardware is useless unless there is something you want to run on it. I think the reason the Apple // line lingered on for so many years after it was totally obsolete (and yes, I had one for many years) was that there was a huge catalog of free and cheap software, much of it written using the built-in Applesoft BASIC.

I'll go out on a limb and compare Apple // to Palm: hardware that had no right to compete that was supported by an overwhelming superiority in software. PPC software is generally slick and polished, but you're usually out of luck if you're looking for a "niche" application. Most Palm software is still black and white at 160x160, but there are multiple programs for ANYTHING that the hardware is capable of.

RAD tools have a place especially for a hobbyist like me. Not that my programs are that great, but the PPC software platform will suffer without freeware and low-cost programs developed by hobbyists.

[baralong]

:?: Forgive me if I'm wrong but look here Visual Basic .NET Comes to Devices (http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnnetcomp/html/sdeforvb.asp)

Applies to:
Microsoft® Visual Basic® .NET
Microsoft Visual Studio® .NET


It looks to me that someone with VB.Net can download this and away they go. I'd try it but I dont have VB.Net installed, neither do I have a machine or time to give it a try on (I spend too much time reading these forums as it is).

...

OK I just tried it with VS.Net and I need the project type .VBDproj installed our friendly neibourhood MicroSoft guy said he believes you will be able to get it but will "get back to me" next wednesday at the latest (when a MS expert is giving an MSDN Update about the Smart Device Extensions)

[Bradskey]

I'm a hobbyist. I personally don't care beans about anything .NET, but C++ and I have a long and ongoing love affair, and I want to make sure I'll be able to continue to develop C++ for the PPC. I know eVC4 is there waiting when the next PPC is released, and I expect/hope that an appropriate SDK is released for the new platform, but I don't feel 100% certain about it. :x

[Peter Foot]

... the .Net CF is part of the .Net 1.1 Framework SDK now and no longer a separate download. It is available for free and has compiler tools and all the necessary libraries and classes in there to develop FREE CF apps.

Hate to burst your bubble but this currently is not the case. But we'd all like it to be :wink: . The only product which contains the CF libraries is the full Visual Studio 2003 package :x .

I think the general consensus is that the CF should become part of the .NET SDK - or a separate mini SDK. That way hobbyists can at least have some fun with the command line, and the various free and cheap tools for the full framework sdk could be adapted to work with the compact framework.

Added to this I think the individual language products - VB and C# should have the compact framework functionality too. well you gotta have a dream :way to go:

[Tim Allen]

I agree that the 'standard' versions of VS should support CF development. There's no way I'm gonna fork out $1000 but I'd certainly consider spending $100 - especially as I only need one language (C# of course :) ).

If Microsoft don't provide a low-cost IDE that supports .NET device development then I think they risk losing out to Java.

[sweetpete]

... the .Net CF is part of the .Net 1.1 Framework SDK now and no longer a separate download. It is available for free and has compiler tools and all the necessary libraries and classes in there to develop FREE CF apps.

Hate to burst your bubble but this currently is not the case. But we'd all like it to be :wink: . The only product which contains the CF libraries is the full Visual Studio 2003 package :x .



What exactly are you basing this on? I quote from the .Net 1.1 Framwork SDK beta documentation available freely for download and use:

The .NET Framework version 1.1 extends the .NET Framework version 1.0 with new features, improvements to existing features, and enhancements to the documentation. This section provides information about the key additions and modifications.

In This Section
New and Enhanced Features
Describes new technologies, such as the .NET Compact Framework, that are included in the 1.1 version. This topic also describes changes to existing features such as ADO.NET and .NET Framework security.
New Documentation
Describes some important additions to the 1.1 documentation, including secure coding guidelines, information about application deployment, and information about the .NET Compact Framework.
Version Compatibility
Provides information about backward and forward compatibility. For a list of the public API modifications to the class library for version 1.1 that might affect the compatibility of your application, see Compatibility Considerations and Version Changes.


This is exactly what you want and it is available today in beta form. Once VS.Net 2003 releases, the RTM Framework SDK will also be available for free download, just as it was in 1.0. :mrgreen:

[Peter Foot]

... the .Net CF is part of the .Net 1.1 Framework SDK now and no longer a separate download. It is available for free and has compiler tools and all the necessary libraries and classes in there to develop FREE CF apps.

Hate to burst your bubble but this currently is not the case. But we'd all like it to be :wink: . The only product which contains the CF libraries is the full Visual Studio 2003 package :x .



What exactly are you basing this on? I quote from the .Net 1.1 Framwork SDK beta documentation available freely for download and use:

The .NET Framework version 1.1 extends the .NET Framework version 1.0 with new features, improvements to existing features, and enhancements to the documentation. This section provides information about the key additions and modifications.

In This Section
New and Enhanced Features
Describes new technologies, such as the .NET Compact Framework, that are included in the 1.1 version. This topic also describes changes to existing features such as ADO.NET and .NET Framework security.
New Documentation
Describes some important additions to the 1.1 documentation, including secure coding guidelines, information about application deployment, and information about the .NET Compact Framework.
Version Compatibility
Provides information about backward and forward compatibility. For a list of the public API modifications to the class library for version 1.1 that might affect the compatibility of your application, see Compatibility Considerations and Version Changes.


This is exactly what you want and it is available today in beta form. Once VS.Net 2003 releases, the RTM Framework SDK will also be available for free download, just as it was in 1.0. :mrgreen:

The .NET Compact Framework (I'm not talking about the full framework here) is not available in SDK form - that was the point of Andy's post in the first place, the Compact Framework is only shipping with Visual Studio - NOT the single language packs, and NOT the SDK. :cry:

And since when were Microsoft Beta readme files accurate :lol:

[sweetpete]

My fault ... upon further digging into the docs:

Note Although the .NET Framework 1.1 documentation includes information about the .NET Compact Framework, the .NET Framework SDK does not include the .NET Compact Framework product. The .NET Compact Framework product is included with Visual Studio .NET.


note good :evil:

[Terry]

It's unclear, but it appears that to distribute the compiled app will also require a license for each copy of distributed software. You can't just go out and buy it either... you have to license CE .net from a specific vendor like bsquare...I have some questions pending with them related to Smart Display dev.

[Dr. Grabow]

I'm a physician who bounces back and forth between Palm and Pocket PC. I have CodeWarrior and the Microsoft Embedded Tools. What do I do? I write small useful (to me) apps, such as medication schedulers, dosage taper generators, clinical scoring apps (generating disability scores, etc).

No way can I justify spending $1000 for developer tools for writing apps that me and some colleagues use as conveniences. In fact, should the free or low-cost tools disappear (yes, I'm willing to pay up to a couple hundred bucks for a good developer tool suite), that would basically make me abandon PPC and stick with Palm.

Of course I'm a *very* small market segment, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are a lot of others in similar situations.

Ciao!

[Mark from Canada]

It's unclear, but it appears that to distribute the compiled app will also require a license for each copy of distributed software. You can't just go out and buy it either... you have to license CE .net from a specific vendor like bsquare...I have some questions pending with them related to Smart Display dev.

Yes, CE.NET needs a special license. What we need free is the CF.NET.
One is the operating system, the other one a runtime.