Congrats on your 100th episode of PING! (caps to simulate Laura's voice)
My favourite episodes were 16, 43, 71 and of course 100.
It's been a long, stange journey. I feel like I now know Laura like a sister, Paul like a kid brother and Max like that cousin that disappeared one week and neither our parents nor uncles or aunts would answer any questions about.
All the best for the next 100 shows!
p.s. Laura, why did you get such a big frickin' dog?
Hmmm... I think Sys.Observer was ( ) more "Silverlight-ic" and felt comfortable with it, but you MS guys are going to abandon the Ajax 4 js framework (sad about it) so we have to move on. Why then don't you put more emphasys on jQuery "link" plugin (which is being written by MS itself) instead of broadening the spectrum of js MVVM frameworks?
DId you miss the part at the start where he says that it's not a Microsoft project? It's the author's personal open source project - just because it's presented at Mix, it doesn't mean that it's official Microsoft policy.
Besides, why should there just be one way of doing any particular thing? Developers in the Microsoft ecosystem have really suffered in the past from Microsoft determining the 'one true way' to do a particular thing when Microsoft's choice of technology has turned out to not be very good (ASP.NET AJAX being a prime example). I rather like the new Microsoft way to let a bunch of different libraries slug it out and let the developers see which is more popular. I'll bet we see more community-driven libraries and tools win out over the 'designed in Redmond' equivalents.
The thing with the Apple stores is that they can offer the same prices as online because Apple does most of the online selling of Apple products and independent retailers get such a small margin that they can't undercut Apple either.
That's not the case with PC hardware and software. I don't know why Microsoft thought retail stores were a good idea - vanity maybe? But I don't think it would be a financial success, especially in Britain where the highstreet has been gutted by online sales.
I disagree somewhat with the assertion that people are annoyed about Reflector just because it used to be free and now won't be - there's a bit more to it than that. The extra hate comes from the fact that it was a personal project of one person who gave it away for a long time. To a lot of people it's like a park that the owner used to let the public use for free has been sold off to a corportation and now they're charging people to go play there.
When Lutz decided he didn't want to manage Reflector any more he could have open sourced it, but he sold it to RedGate instead. That's his right of course, but by the same right, people should be just as annoyed at Lutz for selling it to RedGate as they are with RedGate for charging for it now. Of course they're not attacking Lutz, partly because it's not directly his decision to start charging for it (even though this is the inevitable consequence of selling it to corporation), and partly because they're still grateful to him for making available for free for all those years.
Thinking about Dan's suggestion that companies should charge for software if they ever plan to charge for it in the future, I tried to think of examples of where this has been a PR problem in the past and I can only think of situations where an existing product or company was bought by a much larger corporation that then discontinued the free version. When Autodesk acquired Alias, they discontinued the free learning version of Maya. They later acquired Softimage and while the free 'modtool' verison of Softimage remains available, it's frozen at the version it was at when they where were acquired. I wonder if anyone has got counter-examples?