Does the cost of MSDN Subscriptions represent a deterrent to .NET adoption

Question

I know just the question is a bit of heresey, but I'm curious...

Sure, there are the express editions. But when Microsoft is effectively competing for 'hearts and minds' in an OSS world, it seems more than a bit counterproductive to charge devs who wholeheartedly support .NET high subscription fees for Microsoft software. It's hard to imagine that, in the context of Microsoft's overall sales, dev licenses represent such a significant revenue stream as to justify the downsides.

So my question is: do you know of any instances where MSDN subscription rates have deterred a team from adopting .NET for a project - where cost played a role in a decision to go OSS instead?

Answer 1

I think MS has made huge inroads to making .Net cheaper to access and work with. With competent Express versions of Visual Studio and Sql Server, the only thing you need to pay for is Windows itself (both in your dev environment and server/production environment).

The only thing holding .Net back now is it may not be the right tool for every job regardless of cost.

Answer 2

It does to me. It makes me ask maybe I should try and become a Microsoft MVP because they get all the software for free.

You can't buy Expression Blend and Design for anything but the highest level on the License and that just ticks me off.

Answer 3

I don't think so, especially with the empower program for small ISVs -- $375 gets you 5 MSDN licenses and other goodies. After that there are Microsoft Action Packs as well as the entire partner program.