>>Several things:
>>
>>"Not a strategic product" is a conclusion rather than a reason. There are one or more reasons why it is not (or no longer) regarded as a strategic product. What are those reasons?
>>
>>As Alan explained, it was already years back not seen as a strategic product. Nevertheless they published several new versions since that idea ("it's not a strategic product") was born in the heads of the decision makers. What has changed in the conditions since that time? For what reason(s) did they not draw the conclusion to stop development back then?
>>
>>Are the reasons that underly the conclusion that it's "not a strategic product" the only reasons? I doubt. And if I stick to the officially published arguments, I certainly cannot communicate a strong story to my clients. It will gonna be 'uhhh' and 'ehhh' all the time.
>>
>>And finally, why doesn't Alan answer my request for the WHYs, the reasons? I understand he doesn't want to reiterate things time and again, like why the source code won't become openly available. But as to my knowledge the REASONS have nowhere been published, by him or another official MS spokesman.
>>
>
>I think we can safely assume that one reason it's not a strategic product is that they don't sell enough copies to make the cost of continuing development worth it. (And yeah, I know the argument that they didn't market it, and thus didn't sell it. But how many of the people wailing and moaning here and in other forums have yet to upgrade to VFP 9?)

Other have argued that revenues came most notably via indirect sales (Windows, Office, SQL Server, to name some). E.g., without Windows no custom VFP applications. It was Ken Levy himself who agreed on this one some years back. So, what has changed since then? Has their market research department concluded that decision makers in company IT departments vote against VFP as development platform anyway, even if MS restates their commitment to the product time again and again?