How Wolfram Alpha Notebook Edition fits into the mix is also not quite clear to me.

Hi Philip

Wolfram|Alpha Notebook Edition, or WANE, was designed to offer the simplicity of W|A but without the one-off/disposable nature of it. The dedicated development team did an incredible amount of work on this product so that the suggestion bar is tailored to this market, they can do everything they need via free-form input and it is a different overall experience from Mathematica. We are introducing the power and flexibility of notebooks to a lot of W|A users and they are responding well to it.

We are currently marketing this product to W|A users, High Schools, and Junior Colleges. WANE is cheaper but less powerful than Mathematica, which is what these markets are asking for as they are not ready for M/WL. Yet. What's great for traditional WL users is that "Wolfram|Alpha-Mode Notebooks" are available in the cloud and via the desktop clients for Mathematica and Wolfram|One.

I agree that the best user experience comes from using Mathematica on the desktop. Any graphics rendering, let alone Dynamic content, using the cloud severely compromises performance.

Using Mathematica (purchase the license rather than SaaS) is, as far as I can tell, less expensive in the long run as well.

The only case where I can see cloud computing as an advantage is in cases where you can make use of a kernel in the cloud that has access to the proper GPU and enough cores to make the computation significantly faster than on the desktop. The computations would have to be sufficiently complex and time-consuming that the communication latency would be acceptable. There has been talk about offering this as a service at some of the WTCs I have attended, but there has been nothing official. It's like any other add-on device or peripheral. For exmple,is it cheaper to pay to have someone else 3D-print an object rather than buying a 3-D printer? I can (or will be able to soon be able to) buy a Thunderbolt cage for putting any GPU card I wish into, for roughly $1000-1500 USD. The extra costs for doing the computations in the cloud would have to be competitive.

In this case, of course, the cloud computing is really just a (rented) computer peripheral. It is not at all like trying to run a Mathematica notebook in the cloud from a Web browser. It's nice to be able to do this occasionally, but I can't think of any realistic case where I would want to do more than I can get Wolfram|Alpha to do where I would not have my laptop with me.

It seems to me that all the cloud initiatives are really just gateway drugs to get users to purchase Mathematica on their desktops. This is not a bad thing, necessarily. Let a K-12 student try the free or low cost cloud version to see if there is any interest, but then get a proper version. It's just like a student learning a musical instrument. Start out on a $400 flute (for example), and then go for the $10,000+ flute if there is sufficient interest. The price bump for full desktop Mathematica is much smaller, of course.

Wolfram|One seems to be a product without a purpose, unless there is a marketing need to rebrand Mathematica so it doesn't seem so 'mathy'. You can have Mathematica with the identical subscription model as Wolfram|One, plus you can purchase a Mathematica license, which you cannot do with Wolfram|One.

In any case, if anyone is going to invest the time to learn Wolfram Language, the best course of action would be to get a desktop version of Mathematica. That way, there are no compromises at all regarding performance and flexibility.

Werner, in my opinion most users of Mathematica can do everything they need with desktop Mathematica and Workbench used solely for adding documentation pages.

Yes, there may be some projects that employ dozens of programmers with huge budgets and critical missions. Those kinds of projects are beyond my ken. They probably require a lot of 'computer science' and computer systems work, large scale debugging and validation - not to speak of good lawyers and business managers! But generally the more independent elements you have to integrate the more the concerns veer away from the core content to ancillary issues.

I believe the target audience tor Mathematica was originally scientists, engineers, mathematicians and anyone whose work contains substantial mathematics, probably mostly academics, working either singly or in small groups, and trying to build up a core of knowledge and capability in a specific area. And also wanting to communicate their work to other people in the field.

If you are such a person you might be interested in my essay on using Mathematica in that manner: A Mathematica Style.

I like to think of Mathematica not as a super graphical calculator or programming language (although it is partly those things) but as a magic piece of paper on which I am writing my material. Magic because it has memory, the ability to calculate, and the ability to transmit active routines to readers. It beats static printed papers by orders of magnitude.

As for debugging, I have always found it easy just by looking at output or inserting a few Print statements. I know this sounds primitive but whenever I've tried program supplied debugging I've found it more work than benefit. And I've developed a number of fairly large Mathematica applications, some with other persons.

Until now I was not aware of the important role of $UserBaseDirectory/Applications and did not use it. I will try that and see if my Programming Lab can work with local files there.

It's a pity (or a desaster): The Programming Lab desktop cannot save anything to any local Folder. Probably I would have to adapt your style to Wolfram cloud folders.

You would probably do better with a 'hobbyist' license for Mathematica, and then pay much less per year for the service contract. I'm pretty sure it meets all your requirements.

There is a separate debugger -- Wolfram Workbench -- which is based on Eclipse. The plug-in is now free. It works pretty well, but is a separate UI to learn and use. As far as I know, it only works with a desktop version of Mathematica.

Sorry for the short hand. I was referring to the standard Mathematica license with the pricing for Home and Hobby.

There is some debugging functionality built-in to Mathematica, but nothing like Xcode, for example.

However, Mathematica is not your basic programming language, so to think of it as an IDE may get you off into a black hole eventually. It took me a while to realize this, but once I realized what Wolfram Language really was, I do a lot better.

Hi --

It looks like Wolfram|One is a subscription product only, while Mathematica can be purchased outright. I have Mathematica now, with Premier Service plus, and as far as I can tell, I get all the functionality of Wolfram|One. The cost of the service contract for Mathematica is less than the annual Subscription for Wolfram|One. (I am looking at the commercial licenses only.)

I have been using Mathematica since version 1.1, before there was a service plan. I hope that the option of Premier Service Plus remains available for the foreseeable future. It provides the services and support that I need.

I can understand that the name "Mathematica" is no longer entirely descriptive of what the software can do. Changing the name may be hard from a marketing viewpoint, but I can see the value of making a change so that the software can escape the 'ghetto' in which it currently resides. As far as I can tell, Wolfram Desktop, Mathematica, and the desktop component of Wolfram|One are essentially the same. It might be useful to have the same name for these apps.

One last thing: the main marketing page for Wolfram|One has an icon showing portable devices (e.g., iPhone and iPad), but there is no reference to these devices in the rest of the marketing pages. Does this refer to the Wolfram Player, currently in beta, or does it refer to a version of Mathematica (by whatever name) that will run natively on an iPad? I remember seeing this demonstrated at a Wolfram Technology Conference. I remember that there were some issues with the first generation iPad, but the newer iPads -- especially the large one -- is much more capable.

george

Hi Murray

Mathematica with PS+ provides the same base capabilities as Wolfram|One. Desktop client, web access, and cloud resources. Obviously there are licensing differences, though, depending on the edition/plan. That dictates commercial vs. non-commercial usage, cloud storage, cloud credits, etc.

Yes. Notebook interface and the kernel.

Etc. = et cetera. There are many other limits such as the number of kernels for desktop, or the evaluation time limit on the cloud. They are listed on the pricing page - http://www.wolfram.com/wolfram-one/pricing/personal-use.php

Our Sales team could talk through your individual goals and needs to ensure you find the right product for your needs. Please email sales@wolfram.com or contact them through this form - http://www.wolfram.com/company/contact/sales/

"The only differences between Mathematica with Premier Plus Service, on the one hand, and Wolfram|One, on the other hand are with respect to licensing terms and limits (commercial vs. non-commercial use, number of kernels, evaluation time and space, storage, credits, etc.)?"

Yes, you are correct. Mathematica with Premier Service Plus is equal to W|O, assuming you are talking like editions/plans.

It is confusing and a big goal for this year is vastly simplifying it. Thank you for your feedback.

Great answer. As far as I figured by now, Mathematica is mostly sold, while Wolfram|One is rented (e.g. SaaS). As you wrote, this renders Wolfram|One -- which I see as an entry-level product -- worthless to me, being an avid user of Mma for some years now.

Where I do have difficulties is to choose between Premier Service Plus (PS+) and the Wolfram Development Platform (WPC orginially) with its flexible pricing model. Where exactly is the difference here that would tilt the scale to one side or the other? (e.g. with PS+ there are 25 Free Viewers)

I agree with Murray. Wolfram needs to clarify the differences among these products. It is very confusing. Please strip away the obfuscation and find a way to clearly define each product and service and explain concisely what differentiates each from the others! I'm encouraged by Clayton's statement that Wolfram recognizes the current situation as unsatisfactory and plans to rectify it in the coming year. I hope that happens.