I forgot about that. I've never been part of a small development company and have the topic of license fees come up. That almost always factored into which tool we went with, the one with lower fees. I don't know if it's a cash cow or not, but I'm sure that's a significant revenue stream that MS doesn't see from smaller companies.

>It isn't just the number of sales, but the length and continuing license fees. Typically corporations sign agreements that require them to pay a "true up" fee every year for the length of the license contract. This true up fee allows the corporation to upgrade older versions of Windows, Office, etc at any time during the year. The corporation pays whether they upgrade or not. Before people go screaming and yelling about how Microsoft is evil to do this, corporations could say no and pay the upgrade fees when they actually upgrade or just pay the yearly fee. In a large corporation with thousands of desktops, it is often less expensive to pay the true up than to pay people to track every PC.
>
>
>>There are things that could be done with VFP that couldn't be done if marketed to corporations. But as I mentioned before, from an MS point of view, I would think marketing outside the corp. isn't worth it.
>>
>>One sales call to a GM and they sell how many licenses of Office? Versus having to do a sales job on you and maybe sell 10 copies, then come to me witht the same results.