You don't need to buy them: http://www.microsoft.com/bizspark/default.aspx
Prime example: Stackoverflow/StackExchange is built on the Microsoft stack.
Prime example: Stackoverflow/StackExchange is built on the Microsoft stack.
>This is the same selling scheme used by drug dealers.
Would you hold Google to the same standard and say that's true of their free Google Apps for education and how they use free email to sign you into Google.com so they can track you across different PCs?
If not, cool. But if so, would be good to be clear. You've suddenly become very active with what I'd consider an overly Microsoft approach (looking at your comments from the past few hours).
(ex 'softie here).
Please explain. The rules seem pretty simple to me and certainly something every company can follow:
- Privately held.
- Less than 3 years old.
- Earning less than $1 million per year.
- Developing software.
Disclaimer: BizSpark member.
While I suppose in theory Joel could have thrown a lot of money away just because it didn't happen that way. Stack Overflow was running on it's own income until the first round of funding ( http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/05/announcing-our-series-... ), excepting the pre-launch period (everyone might have just taken equity then, I don't know I wasn't around until just before the series A). I think it was mostly ad income, though Careers ( http://careers.stackoverflow.com/ ) was around fairly early too.
Disclaimer: Stack Exchange employee
Stack Exchange is cool and everything, but it didn't have the same difficulties that face most bootstrapped startups.