[cooldeal]

You don't need to buy them: http://www.microsoft.com/bizspark/default.aspx

Prime example: Stackoverflow/StackExchange is built on the Microsoft stack.

[eduardordm]

BizSpark has rules many startups cannot follow and is only valid for 3 years. This is the same selling scheme used by drug dealers.

[harryh]

If your startup is around 3 years in the cost of paying for the tools won't matter.

[cmircea]

"BizSpark has rules many startups cannot follow"

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.

After 3 years you can afford to purchase extra licenses (you get to keep the BizSpark ones). If not, your business sucks.

Disclaimer: BizSpark member.

[CloudNine]

There's a LOT of startups here http://www.microsoft.com/bizspark/Partners/Startups.aspx

>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?

http://www.google.com/enterprise/apps/education/

[randomfool]

Do you happen to work for Microsoft?

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).

[cookiecaper]

Not sure if that is a prime example, since StackOverflow was built with the wealthy businessman Joel Spolsky as a primary backer. That doesn't diminish anything they accomplished, it just means that they didn't do it without access to sufficient resources.

[kmontrose]

At Stack Overflow we ran on Bizpark til sometime in 2012, it really is a very nice program (everyone seems to forget that you keep the licenses you get, it's not like you have to re-buy everything when you graduate).

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

[cookiecaper]

No matter how disciplined Spolsky was with the funds, nothing's ever the same if you know that you have the option to just inject a bunch of money into one of your projects should the need arise (and of course, SO had another non-cash leg up: the blogs of Jeff Atwood and Joel Spolsky as major marketing avenues, i.e., the instant attention of large swaths of the developer workforce). If you don't have that option, regardless of if it's used or not, you play by different rules.

Stack Exchange is cool and everything, but it didn't have the same difficulties that face most bootstrapped startups.