The Case For Kendo UI

A safe and diplomatic strategy used by developer advocates, such as myself, is to promote a product by only speaking of its merits while sidestepping a direct comparison with its competitors. This is a legitimate and even honorable strategy. After all, all software is someone’s labor of love and there is no such thing as a zero sum game in any industry. However, there comes a point when, in order to advocate the quality of something, one has to compare it to something else. Without a comparative analysis, determining a definitive quality among competing solutions is nearly impossible. And pragmatically speaking, it’s plain human nature to ask the question, “which is the best?”  Developers rightly ask this question in the context of UI widget toolkits, and an answer should be proposed while maintaining diplomacy, but also seeking a true comparison.

My conclusion is that, Kendo UI is the highest quality, commercially available jQuery-based UI widget toolkit for front-end developers. In this article I will present a formal argument defending this conclusion.

The presentation of a formal argument is not exactly what most readers are accustomed to. I would imagine that some readers will think I’ve gone to an unnecessary extreme. My goal is to remain as factually objective as possible. I believe the formalities associated with having to form a proper argument will help me remain objective.

Let’s jump to the core of the argument by laying out some specific facts about Kendo UI and then establish the premises for my conclusion. I have also provided definitions for the terms used throughout this article and presuppositions I am using to make comparisons. These are available in the appendix to this article in case you are looking for additional context and clarity.

I will begin my argument by declaring a set of Kendo UI facts that give authority to my premises.  These facts are purposefully terse and to the point, focusing on the common criteria used by front-end developers when evaluating a UI widget toolkit for development.  I have gone to great lengths to make sure these facts lack any potentially subjective slopes which could negate my forthcoming argument and, thus, my conclusion.

Kendo UI Facts

The following Kendo UI facts are divided into 3 categories:

  1. General Widget Facts (generally pertains to Web, Mobile, and DataViz widgets, as well as Kendo UI tools for building applications)
  2. Web & DataViz Widget Facts
  3. Mobile/Tablet Widget Facts

1 – General Widgets Facts

1.1 – Kendo UI has one hard dependency (jQuery 1.9.1)
Kendo UI toolkit has only one hard third-party dependency, which is jQuery 1.9.1.  While newer versions of jQuery might not break Kendo UI, 1.9.1 is the official version shipped with Kendo. However as of Kendo 2013.3.1119 jQuery 1.10.x and 2.x work also, but keep in mind that 2.x drops support for IE7 & IE8.

1.2 – Kendo UI widgets are exposed as jQuery plugins
A jQuery plugin is a non-standard method added to the jQuery’s prototype object (e.g. jQuery.fn.method) with the intention of using the method on an HTML element or collection of HTML elements (e.g. $('div').method()).

1.3 – The bulk of Kendo UI is free and open source (Apache 2.0 License), but it contains a small, rich subset of commercial UI widgets
Most of Kendo UI is free (under the name Kendo UI Core), and can be found on Github under the permissive Apache 2.0 license. Telerik also offers a set of commercially licensed (under the name Kendo UI Professional) DataViz widgets (i.e. charts, gauges, barcode, QR code, stock chart, and treemap widgets) and the following Web widgets:

1.4 – Kendo UI source files are also AMD modules
Kendo UI can be delivered as one bundled JavaScript file or as individual source files. The source files are divided into a set of individual JavaScript modules, which have dependencies on each other.  Because each source file is an AMD module, a modular loading system such as RequireJS can be used to load and manage Kendo UI dependencies. Using a dependency loader alleviates having to manage dependencies by manually ordering inline <script> tags.

1.5 – Kendo UI widgets can optionally be instantiated via jQuery method calls or data attributes (aka Declarative Instantiation)
Kendo UI widgets can be created by invoking a method (i.e. jQuery plugin mehtod) on a jQuery object (e.g. $('div').kendoCalendar();) or by using Declarative Initialization (i.e. initializing widgets and configuring those widgets with data-role attributes).

Below I show an example of using Declarative Initialization to create a NumericTextBox widget:

<div id="container">
    <input data-role="numerictextbox" />

1.6 – Kendo UI provides an official Twitter Bootstrap theme
Kendo UI can be combined seamlessly with the powerful Bootstrap front-end framework by using an officially supported theme.

Kendo UI Twitter Bootstrap- Responsive demo

1.7 – Kendo UI contains a class of data visualization widgets (aka DataViz)
DataViz widgets are SVG-driven and automatically fallback to HTML Canvas or VML rendering when SVG is not supported.

Kendo UI Chart controls application sample - Stock History

1.8 – Kendo UI contains a class of mobile-centric widgets for phones and tablets
Mobile widgets are supported on Android 2.3+, iOS 6.0+, BlackBerry 10.0+, Windows Phone 8.0+, and Chrome for Android.

Kendo UI Mobile ActionSheet Demo

1.9 – Telerik provides a getting started documentation for each widget
The Kendo UI “Getting Started” documents are separate from the API reference.

1.10 – Multiple demos for each widget
Each widget is accompanied with multiple code demos which are immediately editable in an official online code editor (aka Kendo UI Dojo) tailored for Kendo UI widgets.

1.11 – Official Chrome developer extension
An official extension to the Chrome browser is provided to aid in debugging and configuring Kendo UI widgets.

Screen Shot 2014-08-01 at 7.11.12 AM

1.12 – An official CDN is available for Kendo UI static assets (images, fonts, CSS, JavaScript)
Both minified and bundled files, as well as all the source files, are available on the CDN.

1.13 – Cultural packs for doing globalization on the Calendar, DatePicker, TimePicker, DateTimePicker, and NumericTextBox Widgets
Kendo UI provides culture specific overrides (aka Globalization) for widgets that make use of number formats, week and month names, and date and time formats.

1.14 – Localized widgets
By default, all widget messages are in English. This can be overwritten by including a language specific kendo.messages.<language>.js file along with your Kendo UI code. Kendo UI offers 20 official language packages or you can create a custom language specific file with the necessary translations.

1.15 – In addition to UI widgets, Kendo contains a set of tools to help build front-end JavaScript applications (aka a framework)
Kendo UI provides the following tools for building web applications: data abstraction, drag and drop abstraction, a Fx/Effects solution, MVVM abstraction, a templating solution, form validation abstraction, and SPA (router, layout, view).

1.16 –  Kendo UI officially integrates with AngularJS
Kendo UI has official directives for AngularJS that initialize an element as a Kendo UI widget using imperative initialization, allowing you to take full advantage of Kendo UI within the context of an AngularJS application.

1.17 – All Kendo UI source files have corresponding source maps

1.18 – Kendo UI provides an official public widget factory/pattern for creating custom widgets alongside official widgets

1.19 – All Kendo UI source files have corresponding TypeScript definitions

2 – Web & DataViz Widget Facts

2.1 – Full IE7+ support on Windows XP+ and Server 2003+ operating systems

2.2 – Full WAI-ARIA support
Following the W3C’s “Widget Design Patterns” in the WAI-ARIA specification, Kendo UI will automatically add WAI-ARIA support when the appropriate role value and additional attributes are needed.  For example, examine below the changes made to a number input when it’s converted to a Kendo UI NumericTextBox widget.

Initial number input before a Kendo NumericTextBox is initiated:

<input id="amountOwed" type="number" value="17" min="0" max="100" step="1" />

After Kendo UI adds WAI-ARIA support:

<input id="numeric" type="text" value="17" min="0" max="100" step="1" data-role="numerictextbox" class="k-input" role="spinbutton" style="display: none;" tabindex="0" aria-valuemin="0" aria-valuemax="100" aria-valuenow="17" />

2.3 – Supports accesskeys
Kendo UI recognizes and preserves accesskey attributes used to activate or focus elements in the page using the keyboard.

2.4 – Supports right-to-left languages
Kendo UI supports setting up right-to-left languages globally (i.e. an entire application) or on-demand for specific widgets.

2.5 – Keyboard navigation
The following Kendo UI widgets come preconfigured with widget-specific keyboard navigation controls:

2.7 – High-contrast CSS theme for users with low vision or other visual disabilities

ThemeBuilder for Kendo UI

2.8 – All Kendo UI widgets are developed to function on touch interfaces
The Web widgets and DataViz widgets have built-in support for touch events.  They remain functional on a tablet or phone.

2.9 – Kendo UI provides a Web and DataViz theme builder tool

3 – Mobile/Tablet Widget Facts

3.1 – Mobile widgets are officially supported on laptop and desktop web browsers
Mobile-centric widgets are not for mobile and tablet devices alone; they can be used alongside the Web class of widgets in IE10+, Firefox Latest, Chrome Latest, Opera 15+, Safari 5+ web browsers on Windows XP+/Server 2003+ and OS X latest.

3.3. – Mobile widgets will automatically adapt to a device’s operating system by default (aka Adaptive Rendering)

3.4 – A separate product called Appbuilder can re-purpose Mobile widgets for building native hybrid tablet or phone applications


3.5 – Kendo UI provides a Mobile theme builder tool

Comparing Kendo UI Qualities

In order to make claims of quality, I had to do a comparative analysis of Kendo UI’s direct commercial competitors. The table below takes many of the Kendo UI factors just mentioned, and reveals how the competition stacks up against Kendo UI. If the table is overwhelming, consider skipping it for now.  What is important is that most of the claims found in my premises are pulled from analyzing this table of data.

Note: The original comparison ( contains non-commercial competitors in addition to commercial, but the table shown in this article has been altered to only display commercial competitors.


Premises Establishing Kendo UI Quality

Premise 1:  As a commercial solution, Kendo UI provides the most comprehensive set of options for including Kendo in a web page.  You can include Kendo UI in one of the following four ways:

  1. A single JavaScript file containing everything
  2. Using an AMD module/dependency loader
  3. Individual source files
  4. A single, custom built, JavaScript file created using the Custom Download Tool (Note: you must create an account and be logged in to use the Custom Download tool)

This makes Kendo UI the most versatile commercial solution for developers of varying skill, creating varying types of projects, from simple web pages to complex applications.  Additionally, options 1-3 above can be done locally or by using an official CDN.

Premise 2: Kendo UI is one of two commercially sold toolkits offering a subset of completely free widgets (core widgets) for commercial use (unlimited developers, unlimited sites, for hobbyist or companies), backed with the same updates, maintenance, browser documentation, demos, and quality as the commercially-sold widgets.  All of these are licensed under the permissive Apache v2 license and can be installed using Bower or forked/downloaded from Github.

Premise 3: Kendo UI offers the most complete set of UI widgets and tools that go anywhere and do anything on any platform, handheld device, or computer (i.e. Web, DataViz, Mobile, and Framework-like tools).

To summarize:

  • Mobile widgets, by design, function on laptop and desktop browsers.  This makes responsive, mobile-first UIs trivial to implement on phone and tablet devices, as well as desktop and laptop computers (desktop support for mobile specific widgets: Chrome Latest, Firefox latest, Opera 15+, Safari 5+, and IE 10+).
  • The Web and DataViz widgets are supported on all the obvious modern browsers, but  also include full support for IE7+ on Windows XP and Server 2003.
  • The DataViz widgets function on iPhones and tablet devices.
  • The Web and DataViz widgets are designed to function on both a mouse-driven and touch-driven interface, and many of the web widgets (e.g. Grid and Scheduler) offer an auto-mobile mode (aka mobile adaptive rendering).
  • Kendo UI boasts the widest reaching mobile widgets by supporting the broadest range of devices/platforms (iOS 6.0+, Android 2.3+ (In Android 2.3 dataviz widgets support only Canvas rendering mode), BlackBerry OS 10+, Windows Phone 8+, Chrome for Android latest)

Premise 4: Kendo UI is one of the few commercial libraries that provides an open source channel to download, build, and contribute to a portion of the toolkit (via Github kendo-ui-core).

Premise 5: Kendo UI offers the widest range of support materials beyond the typical API document associated with a widget. Consider:

  • The Kendo UI forums (freely available to anyone to read) have close to 50,000 forum posts, which is 20k more than its closest competitor.
  • On Stack Overflow, Kendo UI has over 650 followers, 6.6k in community questions, and a total of 36 Kendo UI related tags. As a commercial solution none of the competitors come close to this kind of organic community involvement.
  • Each widget contains a plethora of demos (e.g. the grid offers 36+ unique demos), all of which are immediately available to be edited in an official live, online code editor. The fact that the demos are immediately editable in an official editor sets Kendo UI apart from its competitors.
  • Each widget and tool has a corresponding and in depth getting started document. Very few commercial solutions provide such a resource, and if they do, it’s nowhere as in depth as what is found in Kendo UI docs.

Premise 6: Kendo UI is the only toolkit offering developers a Chrome DevTools extension for debugging and programming widgets.

Premise 7: Kendo UI is the only toolkit offering a free, public, online HTML/CSS/JS runtime for immediately creating, running, storing, and sharing custom Kendo UI code. Think or, but crafted specially for Kendo UI code. The Kendo UI Dojo even has built-in coding tutorials.

Premise 8: Kendo UI stands alone in offering source mappings to be used in production debugging, which becomes vital when creating massive JavaScript applications containing bundled AMD modules.

Premise 9: Kendo UI is one of only two solutions in the space that provides data visualization widgets which render in SVG where possible, and Canvas or VML when needed.

Premise 10: Kendo UI’s accessibility offering sets the standard for widget toolkits, with its built-in keyboard support and accesskey recognition, RTL support, WAI-ARIA support, and high-contrast theme.

It’s the totality of the aforementioned premises that has lead me to my conclusion.


My conclusion is that Kendo UI is the highest quality commercial jQuery-based UI widget toolkit for front-end developers. The quality of an argument is judged by its premises and the objective nature of the facts that support each premise. If the premises are true and indisputable, then the conclusion that follows is more than likely true. Do my premises inconclusively lead to this conclusion?  Well, no, not absolutely. The argument technically does not result in an indisputable conclusion. Therefore, a judgment call is necessary. You be the jury.  I’ve presented the argument.



The following terms are used throughout the article.

Fact: a thing that is indisputably true.

Argument: logic built upon rational premises that lead to a conclusion.

Premise: a previous statement from which another is inferred or follows as a conclusion.

Objective: not biased by personal feelings in considering and representing an argument.

Subjective: an argument that is influenced by, personal feelings and tastes.

Qualities: the standard of something as measured against other things of a similar kind.

Factors: a circumstance, fact or influence that contributes to a result or outcome.

Official: from the source, while independent is from third parties.

Presupposition: something tacitly assumed beforehand at the beginning of a line of argument.


Below are the details of the criteria used to make the competetive comparison.

  1. I am excluding UI toolkits that are not jQuery-based from this argument.  This article presupposes that you are already familiar with the following benefits (listed below) of using a jQuery-based solution that works in tandem with established jQuery patterns (e.g. Bootstrap’s JavaScript modal window could easily be used to replace Kendo UI’s offering if needed).
    1. The jQuery find-something-then-do-something pattern is likely the most prevalent pattern for working with the DOM today.  It is likely impossible to find a developer who is not familiar with jQuery and its plugin architecture.  Developers who have never used a jQuery-based UI toolkit, including Kendo UI, will already be familiar with it because of its similarities to jQuery and the jQuery plugin pattern.
    2. The jQuery community contains the largest selection of JavaScript plugins available for doing front-end development. Just consider, that on Github there are 19,257 repository results for the search “jquery+plugin”. As well, the jQuery project itself provides a repository of 2400+ community plugins. If a jQuery-based UI widget toolkit doesn’t have or do exactly what you want, you legitimately good options.  It’s even programmatically reasonable to pick and choose parts from multiple jQuery UI widget toolkits with little to no fuss, overhead, conflicts, or fear of duplicating code.
  2. This argument is tailored to front-end developers doing front-end application development in a professional manner (i.e. likely enterprise development). This article does not seek to cover the scope of comparisons that are relevant to backend engineers and backend development. Neither am addressing the developer who is after a free solution. My argument is targeted at developers who require the features (things like advanced widgets, speed, and official support) typically associated with a commercial solution.
  3. It’s assumed that detailed head-on comparisons between individual widgets would be pointless, given the discrepancies between toolkits in regards to naming conventions, features, and the categorizing of widgets. Each toolkit labels and categorizes groups of widgets and individual widgets differently. Given this reality, I’ve steered away from evaluating if X toolkit has Y widget and if that widget has A and B features. This certainly should be done given the problem you are trying to solve but it’s almost always a very case specific type of comparison.
  4. Only official features of a toolkit are taken into consideration. I’ve excluded factors relating strictly to third-party extensions for a toolkit from my thinking when evaluating quality. For example, if support for a feature is offered via a third party add-on, I do not consider this an official feature or quality of the toolkit. All of this to say, I’m focused on qualities that are officially supported by the same group/person(s) responsible for the development of the toolkit itself.
  5. You have a clear understanding of the purpose and role of Kendo UI in the context of front-end development. Briefly (in case you do not), Kendo UI is a set of jQuery UI widgets and tools for helping front-end developers build web applications.  It is not a framework.  There is no overarching opinionated programmatic or architectural mandate.  Kendo UI, practically speaking, is a set of jQuery plugins and JavaScript micro-solutions that can modularly fit into any front-end solution. In other words, you write code that calls Kendo UI widgets and tools into action; Kendo UI does not pull your application-specific code into its own overarching system and then execute it (i.e. the difference between a library and a framework).


  • There is a reason we vendors don’t do this, Cody, and it’s not because we all can’t compete with each other. The main reason is that general feature matrices are a very unreliable and questionable tool in making investment decisions. The second reason is that they are a pain to keep up to date. For instance, as I told you, we are shipping Bootstrap themes in our upcoming release. As soon as that happens, this post is out of date and misleading. And that’s just one example.

    Full disclosure to all: I am on the product management staff at Infragistics, the makers of Ignite UI, and many other UI dev and UX tools. I am reluctant to respond to this post, but I did want to offer everyone some alternative perspectives given the claims in this article, in order to arm you with more information in your deliberations.

    At any given point in time, one vendor will have this or that feature while the other does not. Doing a comparison based on a general feature checklist/comparison is going to be very point-in-time dependent. You all know what you really need to do to invest in third party solutions: know what _your_ needs are and then find a solution that meets those needs, which should include considerations about longevity, support, responsiveness, philosophy alignment, etc.

    Any comparison like this is laden with the values of the person doing the comparison. The simple selection of criteria for comparison implies those values; it is called cherry picking. We all know that when we look at a feature matrix on a company’s site, it doesn’t tell us the whole story. Furthermore, each criterion selected does not have equivalent importance, objectively and certainly not subjectively. So it should be expected that Kendo would come out on top, even in a purportedly objective comparison, when Telerik picks the criteria for comparison.

    Value is a subjective judgment, not an objective measure.

    To elaborate:

    Premise 1 – Ignite UI is pretty much on par. Cody makes a personal value judgment in his definition of formal AMD support. Practically speaking, it’s not clear that it matters much, as long as a dev can use the library with an AMD loader.

    Premise 2 – So what? This assumes implicit value in having this open source set of components. It may play well to certain OSS advocates with strongly held opinions, but it has little to no bearing on quality of software. In fact, there are still many enterprises who inherently shy away from open source.

    Premise 3 – I seem to recall Cody’s making the point that particular features and so on don’t matter so much (on his original site referred to above). Different offerings focus on different aspects/strengths, but there is a lot of core overlap. And again, practically speaking, it’s not clear that what Kendo may offer additionally is very compelling; it may be that what Kendo is missing is _the killer feature_ for this or that customer. It depends on the needs of the customer. If Kendo, ignite, or any other option meets your reach needs and has the components you need, it is irrelevant how it compares to others on those points.

    Premise 4 – this is remarkably related to Premise 2. Is this padding? 😉 Again, so what? Does it make the product practically more valuable for a company? That is, as we know, a big debate in the industry (i.e., the value of open source). From a business perspective, it’s even more debatable.

    For the record, I am not opposed at all to OSS, but I’m just objective about the real business value of something being open source. Making something open source does not magically make it better software, and there is far more low-quality OSS than high quality. Ignite UI has some open source stuff, too, like our AngularJS directives, our rich application samples, and so on, with more to come.

    I think it is at least worth pondering why some software from a company is open source while other software is not. I guarantee it is not because of altruistic reasons.

    Premise 5 – I challenge this one on the implication that Kendo has more than Ignite. Both products have a plethora of available online support in various formats, and Infragistics 100% stands behind our stuff with our extensive support staff. Doing some kind of article count or the like is irrelevant. As long as customers get the answers they need, it’s a moot point. (And amount/kind of online support, too, is an always-changing metric.)

    Premises 6-8 – that is cool, but it’s debatable how much real value it has. If our customers wanted us to do it, we would.

    Premise 9 – SVG has serious negative performance implications. The Ignite UI data chart intentionally chooses canvas to offer the greatest compatibility and, more importantly, performance for huge data sets. We do this without sacrificing important features/capabilities. I fully invite folks to do deep comparisons of our DV products. Another benefit of Infragistics is the significant parity of our DV depth and performance across platforms.

    Premise 10 – Again, practicality wins on this one. Ignite UI has a lot of accessibility support, and customers should look at the details to decide if any difference here makes a real practical difference for them.

    Here are a few other points to consider, that do have practical business implications:

    Infragistics offers a mind-boggingly immense breadth and depth of offering across platforms. I highly suggest looking at our Ultimate offering and comparing that with corresponding offerings from other vendors.

    Infragistics values UX highly. We offer the best interaction design/UX prototyping tool on the market–Indigo Studio. We work to empower our customers to make great software with a quality UX-driven process and high performing, highly functional, highly extensible components with great styling.

    At Infragistics, we focus our efforts on solving real business problems. Our customers pay us to help make them productive in solving these real business software challenges, and we do our best not to waste our customers’ money on things that have debatable real value (they are, after all, our clients who fund our software development on their behalf). We listen to our customers and focus our efforts.

    Infragistics has been in business for over 25 years. We are a private company that is not beholden to external investors. This means we are free to focus on what our customers want, rather than what our investors want (which is typically more industry-analyst-driven than customer-driven), and it means we are not going to be sold off or shut down or have to make huge cuts because an investor pulls out/we run out of investment money.

    At Infragistics, we have a core value of performance, especially in key components like our grids and charts. This is because our customers have repeatedly told us over the years that this is important. I invite customers to do POCs with the various vendors to ensure that the one you pick will be able to meet your performance demands.

    At the end of the day, you have to determine what is valuable for your company based on real business needs and concerns. No generic feature list cherry-picked by this or that vendor can make that decision for you. Infragistics is here to stay. We want to partner with you, our customers, so that we can empower you to make awesome software that your clients and users love.

    • Ambrose, thanks for commenting. I’m glad you have offered some competing thinking here. I’ll briefly respond to a couple of thoughts you offered.

      Change invalidates evaluations/comparisons…

      I don’t accept this notion that information shouldn’t be gathered and assimilated in a systematic fashion in order to evaluate quality at a given point in time because, well, of the change over time reality. What you are asserting is a fallacy. At some degree we all gather facts and make decisions regardless of the reality that factors change over time. Your complaint here simply points out that information is subordinate to time. This reality is not a reason not to do something or else we’d have no reason to do any sort of fact finding, ever. For example, what good is any of the information we post online about anything if what you are asserting is true. Based on your complaint, time and change would render most facts today, “unreliable and questionable” given we know they could change in the future. A degree of truth is found in what you are saying but it’s a truth that applies broadly to everything that occurs in time. Can a fact today, change tomorrow? Of course. But this is not reason not to evaluate, objectively, at a moment in time for the purpose of evaluating quality. I would assume you’d admit that facts that once existed on the Infragistics site have changed. Does this conclude that no more facts should be posted on the infragistics site?

      Cherry picking and subjectiveness…

      I’m not finding your values/cherrying picking point very convincing. Especially given that you submitted input and I updated the data and criteria given your input. This was not a closed door braindump by one individual. It was done publicly on Github and a site where people were queried for input. You are only one of many people who had input. I’m not clear how you could make a claim that the criteria or values suffer from subjectiveness when the information and outcome was not the result of my input alone (i.e. the subject). Had I not accepted input from outside sources I could see your point. But this is not at all what happen. If you are simply suggesting that some degree of bias exists, then I agree. That can’t be avoided. Everyone has a bias. The closest we can get to avoiding some degree of bias would be to do nothing. And even that could be consider a bias to a degree. I think you should examine the criteria again and ask yourself if the information logically is either true or false. If you think a comparison is missing, suggest an addition, and I’ll add it.


      Premise 1 – I’m not clear what the personal value judgment is here. Can you explain how one AMD module is on par with a system of modules where complex dependencies are define. Kendo uses AMD at the source resulting in 100+ AMD modules with complex dependency trees (i.e. the entire point of AMD). This is factually different from a solution that wraps it’s all in one file in one AMD definition. Is it not? Not clear how this difference is subjective or equal. One of these solutions is clearly not like the other.

      Premise 2/4 – I think you have made a major misstep in thinking. jQuery is OSS. You sell jQuery widgets to enterprises organizations. The fact that infragistics is a jQuery based widget toolkit invalides most of your generalizations about the value of OSS. It’s not logical to me at all anything you asserted about OSS when the bases of what we are talking about is built on OSS. If anything you asserted about OSS was true I would seriously have to question why Infragistics built it’s solution on top of an OSS project. And why you personally think any enterprise would think that of value or pay for it. You see the contradiction here in your thinking? Most of what you said invalidates jQuery itself, yet it’s the cornerstone to all of these solutions, including Ignite UI.

      Premise 3 – Are you trying to prove this premise false? If so, what is your proof?

      Premise 5 – Can you challenge it with some sort of attempt at objective data? Saying something is irrelevant is easy. Proving it is another thing. Why is the data I am using not relevant? If you can think of another way to measure community content we can examine that together and add it.

      Premise 9 – Can you provide evidence here for your assertions?

      I’ll again for the second time extend an offer to you to improve, add, or update the data in the table. Being that this would be the second time I take in your input, if provided, I would hope you might reconsider you claims of subjectiveness.

      • Cody, if you think I was complaining, you were reading me wrong. If I were going to complain, it would be that you misrepresented why you were gathering the info you asked for. To pretend that you are putting together an unbiased, open site to help people compare on the criteria you selected is quite different from your apparent real intent, which was to use that info on your company’s site to attempt to make the case that your product is superior. That’s pretty sneaky. Well played and duly noted.

        In the effort of clarifying rather than arguing…

        What I was doing above in my comment was merely pointing out the realities involved in what you’ve done here and offering more information for people to factor in. You picked out the criteria for the comparison that you think are valuable and then asked us to fill in accurate values for them. And I did. I participated because it is important that our product be represented accurately for the criteria you selected, even if it is only valid for a short time.

        About AMD, I didn’t say our AMD offerings are equivalent; I said the majority of Premise 1 is on par, and I said I don’t think your distinction about the kind of AMD support has much practical value. I’m happy to let the distinction stand on its merits and let each dev decide based on what they judge to be valuable on this point.

        About OSS, I did not say that no OSS is valuable, I said that something being OSS does not magically make it a better product and is not, in itself, a business value proposition. About the value/quality of OSS in general compared to closed source, I assure you we will not resolve that industry-wide dispute here. 😉

        Lastly, the subjectiveness I refer to throughout is the subjectivity involved in the _value judgment_ about which offering is superior. That judgment is inescapably subjective, both because it is a judgment made by an individual and because it is based on what is considered valuable in particular contexts of use, i.e., for this developer at that company working on these projects. The reason selected criteria may be irrelevant is that they are not relevant to an individual in his or her context. To give a more concrete example, if my company/project does not care about supporting Opera, then the fact that one offering officially supports Opera while another does not is irrelevant.

        I am all for providing information to people and letting them make their own informed decisions. That is why I responded above as I did.

        When you invited me to fill in the data, you did not suggest that I expand on the criteria, or if you did, I missed that. As I recall, you only asked me to fill in/verify the data. Perhaps I misunderstood your intent. In any event, seeing as how I am making the case that I do not think such lists are terribly useful in making vendor selections and are inescapably biased, I will decline to spend more time on expanding it. It would make for an epic peeing match I’m sure that would sink a bunch of our time (more so than it already has) that is better spent on making better products.

        TO ALL: I repeat my invitation. See which products meet your needs–we all have our features listed and readily available for your inspection. We offer online browsers like for you to try stuff out and kick the tires. We offer free trials. Please try them out to see if you like them and make an informed decision. The best way you can be sure is to experience the products and see which one fits you best. If you want to talk to me about how Ignite UI and our other products could meet your needs, feel free to email me personally: ambrose at infragistics dot com.

        • I’ll let your comments stand as the last words in this dialogue.

    • burkeholland

      Thanks for the comments Ambrose! Kendo UI has wildly exceeded our expectations, but that’s mostly because Telerik always has and always will be about customers. At the end of the day, they are the ones who have formed Kendo UI into what it is today.

  • Pingback: Planning A Front-end JavaScript Application -Telerik Developer Network()