I agree that productivity trumps cost. Its clear that .NET and the rest of the MS stack (if you choose to use them) absolutely do provide value.
But so do Rails / Grails / Java / Django / MySQL / PostgreSQL / Redis / Cassandra / Linux / et al., with zero licensing cost (or headache), better deployment flexibility, and the ability to customize them or fix any bugs that are in your way.
Certainly arguments can be made one way or the other on which stack provides more value in terms of time/labor/skills/flexibility, etc.
That said, the article was much to quick to dismiss cost as a factor due to BizSpark.
To be clear, I'm not trying to argue which stack provides more value. I was really trying to say that one should pick which stack provides the most value for them (using whatever metrics give you and your team value). And then most likely just go with it. The SW costs are relatively minor.
I have a hard time believing that a company looked and said, "The .NET stack gives us more value, but lets save a few bucks and go with this other stack." Except for early-ramen startups.
My major point was that BizSpark tries take this issue off the table in the early days when you might be cost sensitive. But no value judgment between .NET and other stacks.
But so do Rails / Grails / Java / Django / MySQL / PostgreSQL / Redis / Cassandra / Linux / et al., with zero licensing cost (or headache), better deployment flexibility, and the ability to customize them or fix any bugs that are in your way.
Certainly arguments can be made one way or the other on which stack provides more value in terms of time/labor/skills/flexibility, etc.
That said, the article was much to quick to dismiss cost as a factor due to BizSpark.