>That's all conjecture after the first sentence.

I can tell you...and I have not heard a single word about it...it's all because of dwindling market share and value of return on investment.

>Companies do keep products alive even if they are not "strategic".

Only as long as they keep making money or the company is willing to invest the money on it.

>Companies have to invest some in marketing to keep/increase market share.

I agree. How else do you explain why Coke and McDonalds advertise?

>Maybe theydid shareholders a huge disservice by allowing the market share to dwindle.

And maybe they did the shareholders a service by investing money in other technologies.

>Even on direct generated income there's a chance that VFP made *some* money. The team was so small for so long that costs were small.

How many people do you think were working on VFP? It's more than YAG, Alexsky, Calvin, Richard, and Milind. Don't forget the support staff in North Carolina. Don't forget the office space for all those people. Don't forget the servers where they store source code. Don't forget the costs of producing CDs and the people who handle them. Don't forget costs for phones, benefits, etc. And what about contractors that are being paid to work on Sedna? How about the QA people?

>And the indirect sales of other products were very good for sure. Neither the Windows marketing efforts nor the Office marketing efforts had a whit to do with a whole lot of Windows and Office install. But the VFP application that needed them sure did.

There have been some cases presented here about sites that are running Windows and Office as a result of VFP applications, but those numbers are very, very small compared to the other way around...people that are already running Windows and Office that get a VFP app.

>Strategic?... keeping Linux and other pretenders out of shops is an important strategy for Microsoft.

Microsoft has many strategies.

>
>Shareholder benefits?... I wonder what shareholders will think when they see how Microsoft handled this debacle. It could blossom into something Microsoft really doesn't need.

You're the only person calling it that. Actually, shareholders should be pleased to hear that the human resources are being used to take the great VFP technologies into other products.

>It's a BAD "business decision" no matter how you try to slice it.

You're the only one saying this. Instead of griping and whining (and it's not a fine wine...it's turned acidic) you should be looking at how you can extend VFP or more onto something else. I haven't talked to one single MVP or others (and I've talked to non-MVPs about this, that have said what you are saying. In fact, one response was "Yawn".

>And, please, do consider letting Microsoft provide the reasoning themselves. You could be way off base or you could be dead on. Only Microsoft knows. So let them tell us.

Microsoft owes no explanation. You're the only one that can't connect the dots and realize why it was done.