Windows Mobile Development No Longer Free 75
Jacco de Leeuw writes "Windows Mobile developers have enjoyed free development tools like the eMbedded Visual Tools and that in turn has helped popularize Windows Mobile devices and a number of free or cheap applications. But now the SDK for the upcoming Windows Mobile 5.0 has a number of 'technical (not political) dependencies' on Visual Studio 2005, which starts at $299. Is it time for an open source Windows Mobile toolchain?"
You do realize... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:You do realize... (Score:2, Informative)
Yeah, free with an MSDN subscription. Or a "nominal fee" if you're not a subscriber. You're probably confusing it with the beta Express editions, which currently are free for the downloading. But it'll still cost you $50 per product when they're released.
Re:You do realize... (Score:1)
https://www.getthebetas.com/profile.aspx [getthebetas.com]
That's where I got my copy, and I recieved it on Friday.
Re:You do realize... (Score:1)
Re:You do realize... (Score:1)
I stand corrected, but I was merely quoting from Microsoft's own VS 2005 Beta page:
Sure enough, you can eventually get to getthebetas.com from their site, and I just ordered my copy--free of charge. Though it is for a "limited time" (until November? are they not expecting the final product by then?) and a once-per-person thing.
Re:You do realize... (Score:4, Interesting)
It is not the Express version.
Came with some SQL server software also.
Re:You do realize... (Score:1, Informative)
2. The EULA forbids distributing apps built with it.
3. It is time limited (or it builds apps that are time limited, can't remember).
4. People in some countries still have to pay S&H.
Re:You do realize... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:You do realize... (Score:1)
Is it time? (Score:2)
Re:Is it time? (Score:1)
When its time for "free" something?
No (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it is time to get developers to realize that there are other platforms one can use for a mobile computing platform that are NOT Windows.
Re:No (Score:2, Insightful)
Too bad windows is where the users are. It's the same reason I can't find cheap, reliable terminal emulation for my client's powerbook. There's not sufficient user base to make those sorts of apps profitable.
Re:No (Score:5, Insightful)
This is about mobile computing - i.e. palm-top computers, PDAs, and other almost embedded systems - not your client's Powerbook, or your client's x86 computer.
But Microsoft has brainwashed you into believing that all desktop computing is all computing, and that all computing is desktop computing - the idea that a mobile platform is different than a desktop is suppressed - is an "un-idea".
And before you respond "but porting software from Windows to Windows Embedded is easy" - no, it is not. There are enough differences between Windows Desktop and Windows Embedded that the effort of maintaining one code base between the two is non-trivial - and is about the same as porting your program to Qt or GTK and using that to build both the desktop version and the mobile version.
This is the great triumph that Microsoft has won - it is not merely a question of them being "The Only Choice", but rather that the whole idea of "choice" is suppressed.
you assume much..... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:No (Score:1, Insightful)
And your problem is you can't accept that he willingly chooses Microsoft. Microsoft isn't "The Only Choice" but he thinks it's "The Best Choice" and make ad hominem attacks because you disagree.
Re:No (Score:2)
Not on embedded devices. On embedded devices, Linux is where the users are.
It's the same reason I can't find cheap, reliable terminal emulation for my client's powerbook. There's not sufficient user base to make those sorts of apps profitable.
Well, you can get cheap and reliable terminal emulation for Linux, so just install that.
Re:No (Score:3, Informative)
> Not on embedded devices.
Microsoft Now Leads in PDA, Embedded OS [internetnews.com]
What about others? (Score:2)
Nah... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:All hail the 6 dollar IBM JVM! (Score:3, Interesting)
There were more figures on the slide I got this from; but since they were done on different architectures, they do not really compare. There are valid reasons not to rely on Java for everything; just try to explain this
This is actually how it used to be (Score:2, Informative)
However, the plug-in architecture seems to have been fixed in the latest VS.Net bits, so the original plan (to let the VS team do all the heavy lifting and the Mobile team to reap the benefits of a ded
Re:This is actually how it used to be (Score:2)
I've not really done much Windows Mobile development (I dabbled briefly a while back, but the app I wrote was just a quick hack to get a job done) but from what little I know I can't really see how it could require Visual Studio.
I suspect Visual Studio will give some extra added features, like the ability to remotely debug and to deploy directly at the click of a button, but all you really need to do development for the platform is the header files, libraries and a version of cl.exe that can build for the
Re:This is actually how it used to be (Score:2)
What Microsoft has done is just set some of the libraries in the WM 5 dev kit to be unable to be used with eVc4 (which supports WM 2002 and 2003/SE).
The grandparent has it correct though, the GUI and built in functionality of VC6 and eVc4 are virtually identical, (screen shots of the two compared side by side differ only by the icon, and only one line varies in there
$299 is expensive? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:$299 is expensive? (Score:1)
1) Devs and programmers shell out the hard cash.
2) Software IP infringement a.k.a. "Piracy." Yaargh
3) Move to open source platforms/packages.
4) Profit, at least MS does in 2 out of 3 of the
scenarios.
Re:$299 is expensive? (Score:1)
Also, $299 is a prohibitive price for casual free/ shareware developers for the platform.
As MS now has a majority marketshare with no free alternatives (samsungs are rather underwhelming for the price) with comparable capabilities. MS has lock in and can charge what they want
Re:$299 is expensive? (Score:1)
Wait, this is slashdot...I thought we were against casual developers, who should leave things to the professionals.
the part that's expensive... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:the part that's expensive... (Score:2)
Re:$299 is expensive? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:$299 is expensive? (Score:2)
Re:$299 is expensive? (Score:2)
Evidently, you have not actually used the closed source alternatives and compared them. GIMP is nice, but it is nowhere near as easy to use as Adobe's stuff. Maybe 80% of the quality, but that remaining 20% is worth every penny.
Firefox is nice, but the configuration interface is an abomination. "Just edit this
Re:$299 is expensive? (Score:3, Funny)
You're paying your Indians too much. Time to move on to China.
Sooo... (Score:1, Flamebait)
The end of the line for Windows Mobile and me. (Score:3, Interesting)
Charging for the OS, then charging for development tools is just getting ridiculous. Either developers producing for their platform is beneficial to them - or it isn't. The free command-line tools for Windows 32-bit were an awesome move (although I personally prefer MingW32 for cross-platform similarities). If Microsoft can update their free command-line tools to build for the Windows Mobile platform, I'll probably stay. Or if I can figure out how to build Windows Mobile apps with GCC (although I'm not looking forward to that mess).
Otherwise, I'll be looking for a new platform for my next handheld. And this was after me moving on from Palm. iSteve iJobs and Apple, please come out with a handheld pocket computer. Pretty please! I'll even take back everything I said about the splintered mess of APIs on OSX. Hello?
Re:The end of the line for Windows Mobile and me. (Score:3, Interesting)
Look inside your "eMbedded VC++" directory. In there somewhere is a version of Microsoft's C++ compiler which targets ARM (called CLARM.EXE if memory serves) which you can use independently of the IDE. You then just need the header files and libraries, which you can find by checking where the IDE is configured to look for them.
There's also the obvious option of just continuing to use the version you already have. It's not suddenly going to stop working just because there's a new release.
Hobbyist Software? (Score:4, Insightful)
As the majority of hobbyists must be aware, most of you steal your software. Hardware must be paid for, but software is something to share. Who cares if the people who worked on it get paid? Is this fair?
It has been thirty and you still can't realize that you are non grata? Your patience is unbelievable but why won't you just get over it and go somewhere [gnu.org] else [linux.org] where people actually want you? Crazy idea, isn't it?
*PEDANT ALERT* (Score:2)
You say "persona non grata" because in latin "persona" is feminin. If you replace the subject of the sentence with "he" you need to use the masculin form:
At the moment he's perfectly gratus.
Re:Hobbyist Software? (Score:2)
It is amazing the stark differences between Bill Gates's attitude about software and Steve Wozniak's attitude. Gates wanted people to not share software and was in favor of proprietary software, and called hobbyists thieves. Wozniak, on the other hand, made hardware and software that was marketed to the hobbyists. The Apple II came with full schematics, and the source (well, the BASIC or assembly source) was fully available to some of the programs; I've read a story about somebody interactively changing
Surprised? (Score:2)
Perhaps next time you won't put all your egg into a basket you don't even control.
When are developers going to learn? (Score:2)
Until developers realize that past performance DOES indicate future results, they should reap what they sow by using MSFT products.
$299 (Score:3, Insightful)
If you're not, well, then the tool costs $299. Doesn't seem all that unreasonable. It's not like they're charging you a per-device licensing fee like some embedded tool vendors do.
Looks like a false alarm (Score:4, Interesting)
What is going to happen actually, in my opinion, will be similar to the situation with development tools for .NET framework:
Now on a personal note. I think, I am willing to pay $299 if this would give me a single tool that would provide coverage for all Pocket PC and Windows Mobile target platforms without the sheer madness of having to install eVC++ 3, eVC++ 4, VS 6, and VS.NET 2003 (let alone a half dozen of platform SDKs). This alone is well worth $299. ;-)
this is so contrary to the industry (Score:4, Insightful)
I find this interesting because Bill Gates himself actually uses as anecdotal evidence in the computer industry what would be the result if prices and productivity increased in, say the car industry at the same rate as the computer industry. Yet, I'm surprised more don't find Microsoft's pricing the most damning indictment of either Mr. Gates' thesis, or of Microsoft's pricing practices.
The gist of Gates' anecdote (and I'm just thumbnailing, there are far more accurate and detailed analyses available) is that if cars progressed as computers have, a car that cost $10,000 back in the early 80's today would cost about $100, would get four or five hundred miles per gallon, etc. Accordingly a glimpse at the progress in computers is quite amazing, but I find it curious why OS' prices haven't shown the same trend. Could Gates' anecdote apply ONLY to hardware? I don't think so.
Anyway, food for thought. I think this Mobile example is a pretty good indicator though of what happens when Microsoft continues to control so much of so many pieces of the industry. They put themselves out there as the benevolent "helpers", even going so far as to make it appear they will give things away..., but when noone is looking, and all of the competition has finally cried "Uncle", the kid gloves come off, and Microsoft can pretty much define the marketplace any way they want... as they've demonstrated yet again. Sigh.
Free vs. Personal Use (Score:1)
But, on the other hand- there's still VS that can be found on sharing networks and warez sites. For personal use- it's more than enough.
Open Windows (Score:1)
Aim, pull trigger... (Score:2, Insightful)
Ah yes, charging money for SDK's is the sure fire way to make your platform popular.
What the hell are they thinking?
Re:Aim, pull trigger... (Score:1)
4) PROFIT!!!
Re:Aim, pull trigger... (Score:2)
When you want people to buy your over-priced sun-hats in Florida in the summer, you offer them free water to lure them in. 90% will just take advantage of you, but water costs (almost) nothing, and the other 10% count as sales you might have otherwise missed.
When you have a monopoly on water (or more accurately, people don't realize they can get water from anyone but you), you charge an arm and a leg for the water, and
how to circumvent install restriction (Score:2, Interesting)
to edit the 'Property' table, and change 'SupportOnlyWhidbey' to '0'
then it will install without requiring vstudio 8.0
This discussion is stupid (Score:1)
Yes boys and girls in the old days of DOS, Windows 3.X and Mac System X. We had to BUY our tools, there were good free alternatives available.
Even products like DJGPP were out of reach for many of us in Europe without BBS access.
So, again, even though I don't like their move. I do understand it.
And just think what OS vendors do offer their development environments for f
No its not time! (Score:2)
No its not. Its time for open source to help open source projects, not help M$ keep their dominance in the market using their usual tactics.
If O.S. people want to contribute to mobile development there are several O.S. platforms they can target where the overall good to the open source cause will be much better than working on the enemy territory.
You can get it for less (Score:2, Interesting)
Open Source Mobile Platform (Score:2)
OpenBSD may not be your cup of tea, but if there is a port, it means they did it without signing any NDAs (they don't ever sign them). So the information required to do the port is freely available, implying that you'll probably also have good Linux support.
I've noticed that a lot of mobile hardware sellers will sell you a Linux SDK, but they charge a disgusting amount of money ($900 or so).
But if you go with the Zaurus (commodi