I believe that MS needs a middle subscription that has a good set of tools
above Professional, something like what EA offers today. Moving people to a
higher or lower option (you either accept a team role or go to Pro) is not
1. The Team System tools are Enterprise level tools, far above what is
offered by the current Visual Studio product. Compared to the competition,
the pricing is very reasonable. If you want to test this, run some
comparisons. You will need:
a) An enterprise level source control tool.
b) Domain specific design tools, including application architecture, logical
design center and class diagramming.
c) Testing tools that fold into the IDE.
d) Code coverage tool
e) Load testing tool
f) Web testing tool
g) Project management system
h) Automated build system
2. A development shop that does not have the cash for the new tools can
circumvent the system with Open Source tools like nAnt, nContribute, nUnit
and Cruise Control .NET (or Draco).
I agree with the need for a middle ground, but this will likely take some
time to develop. In the interim, I do not see Microsoft giving away the full
team system, just to keep a few subscribers happy. It does not make sound
Gregory A. Beamer
MVP; MCP: +I, SE, SD, DBA
Think Outside the Box!
> I urge every developer who has an MSDN subscription (Universal) to petition
> MS to change their proposed ideas on Visual Studio Team Suite (VSTS).
> Depending on what you read, they are proposing to not include it or raise
> the price to between $5,000 and $10,000. Every developer who has helped MS
> make loads of cash of these past many years needs to write to them. Let
> them know they are about to alienate the one group that always and
> consistently helps them be successful. It is the most ridiculous thing
> they've ever proposed. Unbelievable!!!
> MICROSOFT PLEASE RECONSIDER. YOU WILL LOSE SALES. YOU WILL ALIENATE ALL
> CLASSES OF DEVELOPERS!
> We are the ones that stick up for you when everyone bashes MS.
> Help us help you!
> 1. The Team System tools are Enterprise level tools, far above what is
> offered by the current Visual Studio product.
I think it needs clarification; are we talking "normal" team
development, as in the SourceSafe replacement (sharepoint etc) coming up
in VS.NET 2005, or are we talking something way beyond that?
If the future subscription will cover team services and sharepoint for
VS.NET 2005 (a bit like source safe covers today) then it's not such a
big deal. If it means you can't collaborate, and have source control in
VS.NET 2005 then it would be a major problem!
Gerry Hickman (London UK)
Gregory A. Beamer
MVP; MCP: +I, SE, SD, DBA
Think Outside the Box!
> GC- [Tue, 22 Mar 2005 01:17:38 -0800]:
> >We are the ones that stick up for you when everyone bashes MS.
> Let's see . . . $55 billion in cash, a way to
> print their own money at whim, and a few
> governments in their pockets, with a few more
> wanting to be. And, you stick up for this?
> Volunteer in a hospital -- do some real good.
> Besides, for what needs up sticking? (heh)
> 40th Floor - Software @ http://40th.com/
> iPlay : the ultimate audio player for PPCs
> mp3,mp4,m4a,aac,ogg,flac,wav,play & record
> parametric eq, xfeed, reverb: all on a ppc
MICROSOFT PLEASE RECONSIDER. YOU WILL LOSE SALES. YOU WILL ALIENATE ALL
CLASSES OF DEVELOPERS!
We are the ones that stick up for you when everyone bashes MS.
Help us help you!
Yes, one can argue you are getting thousands and thousands of dollars worth
of Msft Products realtively cheaply, but these are explicitly only for DEV
use and those of us that do enterprise level app integration work probably
produce more production licenses than they realize. I'm assuming GClark is
in the same boat as myself and undoubtedly many others that would require
both the Developer Role and the Architect Role (and likely the Testing Role
to some extent depending on how formal a testing cycle your group goes
thru). I can name many people I've worked with that act as both the
Architect and as an actual Developer on teams. My question to Msft is which
version do they buy? The Suite for $10k?!
Before I even knew the price penalty I would experience, I simply had issues
with the fact that the Universal members had to pick ONE of the roles as
part of the free upgrade. Given the roles I play, it is impossible for me
to pick just one and, more to the point, I can't afford it, nor do I see
many IT dept's shelling out the dough for the full suite. First,
observations would show companies are already pretty stingy and likely share
MSDN licenses to save money. Secondly, I would say a strong majority of IT
groups don't follow a methodology as outlined by the Suite's products.
Getting clients to adopt a good methodology is hard enough, telling them
they need to shell out $10K for several of their team members will be next
my dime is up.
According to Heloise, it is proper etiquette
to lambast the devil.
Code analysis and testing aren't enterprise tools. They are developer
tools. (As someone said in the suggestions list for the product.)
> 2. A development shop that does not have the cash for the new tools can
> circumvent the system with Open Source tools like nAnt, nContribute, nUnit
> and Cruise Control .NET (or Draco).
> I agree with the need for a middle ground, but this will likely take some
> time to develop. In the interim, I do not see Microsoft giving away the full
> team system, just to keep a few subscribers happy. It does not make sound
> business sense.
My thought is that it's more of a business decision than an issue of
development. There are already several versions of Team System, and
it's likely easy to integrate a subset of the tools as a middle ground.
It's true that it's possible to use open source tools (or cheaper
offerings from other companies), but the question is: does Microsoft
want to encourage this? The current pricing scheme seems to suggest
so. Consultants and small companies might prefer to go the cheaper
way, meaning that a lot of people which may have influence on tool
buying decisions will be more comfortable with non-Microsoft tools.
On the other hand, some of the Team System products are really aimed
only at large enterprises, and high prices there probably make sense.
MS is still offering SourceSafe for small companies (though hopefully
improved -- we use CVS partly because SourceSafe is outdated).
Now Microsoft is becoming the new IBM, the question is
who will reuse Bill Gates original formula and take away
If you don't like the new pricing, take your voting
dollars to the next Bill Gates, that's what we are doing.
Just because businesses are large doesn't mean they are
stupid and will pay a lot to become even more dependant
on MS. This is certainly going to make it more difficult
to convince senior management to embrace .NET.
> Once there was the untouchable IBM, insensitive to small
> customers and small developers, along came Microsoft
> bringing better software, partnership friendly, and a
> better value. IBM lost business.
> Now Microsoft is becoming the new IBM,
I tend to agree. I was somewhat shocked at the new subscription charges
today, and the bosses have REJECTED our renewal of MSDN for the FIRST
I am not even going to try asking my boss to renew the Team System
subscription once my Universal subcription runs out - I know what the
answer will be.
It all looked so nice before the prices came out...
Regarding new MSDN Universal (I mean Premier) price and level changes:
1) Way too expensive for the small and medium developer Universal subscriber
(and some large ones as well). $10,000 - $15,000 per user?!? Forget it!
2) Do you (MS) honestly believe that the market you are targeting will just
buy this product on good faith? Without our recommendations? Think about
3) How do we write add-ins for Team Suite (VSTS or Team Foundation Server
(TFS)) if we don't have the products?
4) How do we learn how to use Team System for those times we do work in
5) MS trusts us with developer licenses for SQL, Exchange, etc, but not Team
System or TFS? Just give us a single user developer license for VSTS & TFS.
6) Leaves a really foul taste in our mouths about the meaning of
"Universal". Bait-and Switch! Feels like a major betrayal.
7) Don't box us into a specific "Role". Most of us wear many hats.
8) Why punish developers for supporting and promoting MS all these many
years? What the hell?
Bottom line...The product will not sale without our help. Our help can only
be provided if we have ACCESS to the full product.
Everyone, please look at all of the comments on the MS feedback site (Url
below). Many developers (large and small) have chimed in on this. We are
all trying to help MS keep from making one of the biggest mistakes they've
ever made. We need everyone's help on this. I have started to get some
feedback from MS, so keep up the pressure. I've also been contacted by some
developer website editors wanting to run articles about this issue. MS
better wake up soon. They could get some really bad press on this. They
will lose a lot of developer support and confidence if they do not rectify
this issue soon.
MS Feedback link on this issue:
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
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 alec...@microsoft.com, 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:
Again, thanks to all for helping to make MS notice this issue!
- Can a small group of dedicated people with a good idea change the world?
It's the only thing that ever has!
Now, if we can just get their help with the VB6 transistion issues......
> 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.