>The implication is that all that's necessary to make VFP successful is to spend more money on ads people don't read, and hold more seminars that most people don't attend.

If this is true, then why should they spend money on marketing anything. This goes beyond ads and seminars. For example, when was the last time you saw the word "Visual FoxPro" on the MSDN Home Page - there are continual references and links to the other VS Tools. VFP ommissions are the rule (not the exception)within the MS developer tools media.

>I don't think so. People want browsers, so MS was able to "dictate" that market. They also want a GUI OS, so once again, MS was able to use its might (and technical skill) to "dicatate" that market. Many developers wanted an easier way to create Windows programs, so MS could "dictate" that market.

People didn't want browsers until they saw one. People didn't want spreadsheets until they saw one. People didn't want GUI OS until they saw one. In general, people only have a fuzzy idea what they want until they see it for the first time. But that is not the point.

>However, the PC database market is small, and to try to "dictate" that would mean spending more resources (possibly) than would be worth it.

This is not true - it is like saying that the spreadsheet market is small. But that is not the point.

>The bottom line is: how much money would Microsoft make if every PC database developer used VFP?

VFP comes with VS so your point is moot - what happened to all the "right-tool-for-the-right-job" chorus MS had us all singing? Is not VFP one of the tools?