BizSpark is really great. In the article's case, they're not using Microsoft technologies, but in my case, I use Microsoft at work and I'm very comfortable with their tools.<p>For a side project, we'd started out with an unfamiliar stack (Grails + Postgre hosted on Amazon AWS), and kept running into roadblocks (not the tech stack's fault), but we missed some very nice enabling technologies with Microsoft software.<p>So, when we signed up with BizSpark, we started using Azure, and we're now leveraging the SQL geolocation capabilities (which Postgre also has), and our knowledge of .NET.<p>As the article says, you don't need to use the Microsoft stack, but if you're used to it, it's a HUGE enabler (we had discarded using Microsoft at first due to the perceived cost).<p>I'm a believer that, for an MVP, you have to keep to whichever technology you're comfortable with. In my case, it was the Microsoft stack.
Hey guys, Felix from Microsoft here. Some of you may know me as the guy who's working with YC companies. A quick PSA:<p>We sponsor YC companies with $60,000 in free Azure usage.<p>Get in touch with me at felix.rieseberg@microsoft.com if you have any questions!
We used BizSpark and a MSFT stack for our first iteration of the MVP (C#, ASP.NET MVC3, ServiceStack, etc.). It always raised eye-brows in a negative way when taking meetings with VCs and Angel investors. I'm not sure why, but they almost always asked a question "why MSFT? stack" and not XYZ that all their other companies were building in. I always felt like we should leave the tech stack off our slides... And they almostnever liked the answer I gave which was something along the lines "because I could build it fastest this way"<p>We've since transitioned into a Python/Java/Postrgres stack. With no real complaints.<p>I wonder, though, if there's any stats on companies not liking to aquire tech built on MSFT vs companies built with Java. I did a project once for one of the biggest names in enterprise software security, mostly a Java shop, and they had acquired a C#-based product, and I heard nothing but gripes from the tech team about that...<p>At the time, one thing annoying was licensing Bizspark to run SQL server on AWS. From what I understand, this is fixed now, but back then we had to pay for a SQL Server instance, despite being part of Bizspark plan.<p>Another thing that I wonder, if anti-MSFT bias is a regional thing. LIke if we were based in Seattle, would it be beneficial?<p>For the record, I still like a lot of the MSFT stack, and it's great to see them embracing some other technologies, like say Node.JS on Azure and feel they'll do a lot to promote some of these newer OSS technologies into the enterprise world.<p>EDIT: one other thing, we didn't have access to Azure at the time (it was just starting out, and I don't think it was part of the program). But Azure as a hosting option for managing the MSFT server licenses and such is a pretty enticing option.
Thanks for writing this. A small feedback: "The power of transformation over APIs... without the hassle." does not really convey what you do to a potential customer. People have very short attention spans and you have only a few seconds at most to convey what your service does. Most people will not scroll down to read more otherwise.
That's cool, but you could also build an MVP using PHP and MySQL on cheap shared hosting or a cheap $5/month Digital Ocean instance. Unless you are on the Microsoft stack, you probably aren't saving a ton of money that you couldn't save by making different decisions.<p>Probably the more valuable opportunity in BizSpark would be to get any extra marketing out of the relationship with Microsoft. Being a "success story" can get you press, links, etc. which is very much more valuable than saving money on hosting.