Red Gate should have said…

Red Gate Software’s recent open letter to the .NET community has caused a bit of a stir. Here’s an alternate version that may have gone over better…

In August 2008, Red Gate took over stewardship of .NET Reflector, one of the most popular .NET developer tools around. At the time, we said we would “continue to offer the tool for free to the community,” and we’ve made good on that promise. Since then, we’ve invested heavily in .NET Reflector:

  • A Visual Studio plug-in, allowing you to jump direcetly to classes and methods in Reflector
  • Support for .NET 4 assemblies
  • Support for C# 4 and Visual Basic 10 language features
  • Support for opening assemblies from the Global Assembly Cache
  • Numerous bug fixes

Unfortunately, these investments have come at a higher cost than anticipated. As of version 7, due for release in March 2011, we will charge $35 for .NET Reflector. Version 6.7 will continue to be available for free—forever, but we hope you’ll find the new features of version 7 to be worth the investment.

We appreciate your continued trust in Red Gate to provide the best in tools for .NET developers.

Related Articles:

    About Keith Dahlby

    I'm a .NET developer, Git enthusiast and language geek from Cedar Rapids, IA. I work as a software guru at J&P Cycles and studied Human-Computer Interaction at Iowa State University.
    This entry was posted in red-gate, reflector. Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post.
    • Chris Sutton

      This would have gone over a much better.

    • Phillip

      They should give it to the community.

    • http://www.truewill.net/myblog/index.php Bill Sorensen

      Oh, it WOULD have gone over better – I would happily have paid $35 for upgrades if the existing version were free. The time bomb is the killer.

      But that isn’t what they said, or did.

    • http://siderite.blogspot.com Siderite

      To continue is the same with to not stop. They are breaking an agrement that was not only with the users (who, let’s face it, had no choice to begin with), but possibly with Lutz. Maybe he wouldn’t have sold it if he knew they were going to muck it up. And even if not unexpected, it is still a betrayal of trust. I guess I will have to use a cracked version of Reflector, crack it myself and even distribute it cracked only because they lied to me.

    • http://hackingon.net Liam McLennan

      Right on.

    • Stimul8d

      So come on then,..who’s up for the challenge of the rewrite so we can have this tool for free again?

    • http://codeclimber.net.nz Simone Chiaretta

      Agree….
      there is nothing wrong with charging for a premium version.
      The really bad thing is that the old version will self-destroy
      3..2..1…

      boom

    • http://realfiction.net Frank Quednau

      Siderite, cracking is not an option, as it devotes precious developer time to the feeble attempt to avoid such cracking, thereby minimizing the time available to add value to the product for those that bought it.

      There is a better option. If you want a free tool, make an OSS project. Fortunately it seems it’s already being kicked off: https://github.com/jcdickinson/Monoflector

    • http://siderite.blogspot.com Siderite

      Cracking is an option, because it punishes Red Gate. You might think it’s just an angry fist in the air, but it is not. It shows how much people really want that software and that RedGate are going too far on choosing the pricing.

      Creating a free solution sounds really cool, but then someone must do something to make it easily available. Lutz was great for that, but most open source projects suck when you need to install them.

    • JH

      I just wonder what Lutz is thinking about all this?

    • http://www.infocraft.net Joe Reynolds

      I just shared this with my Technical Editing class, and they all appreciated this example of re-writing something to sound more positive and upbeat.

      Thanks!