>>Heck, how did I load this into the "troubleshooting" section? Hopefully somebody can move it to VFP/chatter.
>>
>>This is from Andy Kramek's blog:
>>
>>
http://weblogs.foxite.com/andykramek/archive/2008/03/18/5731.aspx>>
>>Do you agree with AK?
>>
>>I agree with him that it would have been fantastic had KG written an article. Whether he'll respond favorably to the charming invitation in this blog is another issue. ;-)
>>
>>I'm not sure I agree that VFP's future is closely tied to FoxRockx. Surely people will buy the mag because of value for $, not because they believe they're somehow saving a programming language. It'll be interesting to compare with the free UT mag.
>
>VFP's future is not tied to that of FoxRockx. Hopefully it's just a wording/phrasing problem by AK; if not, he's seriously lost perspective.
>
>It looks like KG bought the first issue. He only liked Rick Schummer's article, apparently AK/MA contributed as well, so it looks like KG considered it not worthwhile. Maybe AK took that as an insult; not to mention there can't be much mutual love there considering the letter affair. So, I'm not surprised at AK's tone to KG, I agree it's not much of an invitation.
>
>If KG could follow up with his offer of detailed comments to Rainer, that would probably be a good thing.
>
>What I find sad about AK's whole post is its overall attitude. Back when I was "growing up", product development went something like this:
>
>1. Create a great product
>2. Advertise it
>3. Because it's so great, its value is obvious and everyone buys it
>
>Nowadays the process is like this:
>
>1. Advertise how great your product will be. Solicit up-front funds. If possible, play on "community" and "loyalty". Tell those who aren't communally loyal to STFU (optional).
>2. Product creation depends on response. If not "good enough", give up and blame the community.
>
>Unhappily, process #2 is what MS employed over the last few versions of VFP. How many times did we hear from MS staff that "if you guys don't buy VFP version X, there won't be a version X + 1"? Back in the day, other companies would have said, "Gosh - not many people bought version X - we'd better work extra hard on version X + 1 to regain their trust and build our customer base!".
>
>I hope FoxRockx's attitude is not that of AK.
Well said, sir.
I am surprised no one has mentioned that Andy has an obvious vested interest in FoxRockX, a financial one. Which is fine, we all have to make a living. What it is not going to do is shame me into subscribing. #1, the train already left the station, and #2, I have better uses for a hundred bucks than spending it on a FoxPro magazine.
