This is a surprisingly well-produced video given the likely audience. That said, a similar line of reasoning was also applied to Microsoft in the 1990s and Internet Explorer, which was distributed for free.<p>I didn't buy the argument then, and I don't buy it now. What's happened is that an area of software has evolved to the point that the profit from selling it outright has turned negative.<p>In the early 2000s Microsoft's cart was upended in a two-pronged attack. Apple developed the iPhone and Google developed Search. Both were entirely new platforms without any connection to Microsoft. Microsoft has tried and utterly failed to enter these markets.<p>That's what monopoly in software encourages - radically new platforms rather than incremental improvements to existing products.<p>With VS code, there's nothing to be done here. At some point a fundamentally new way to write software will take shape, and VS Code will fade into the background.
Well-produced. Don't really agree with the points the author is making, but see where they're coming from. Charging a fee won't solve the problem, though, they had the most expensive operating system in the world, but I won't get into the details on that, as I think it's the wrong approach.<p>Seems to me the "simple" fix here is for MSFT to hand vscode off to something like the Apache Foundation (independent organization) for management and oversight. The community could/should push for that to protect it's interests and then we can close this case.
I like vscode. C or C++ coding with it is better than most editors I’ve tried (thanks to clangd), and it doesn’t force you into a complete IDE-based toolchain.<p>What’s to complain about? It’s free and better than your products that sell for money? I can’t perceive any lock-in. It’s just as easy to use it to target entirely non-Microsoft platforms, which is what I do.<p>I’ve never heard of this Omatum Studios. With the recent turmoil from Slack, I wonder if there’s some connection to the ire.