>>does that mean that Visual Studio should not cost them as much as it costs me?
>
>No. But that wasn't really my point. Say MS had the Educational Version of VFP, selling for half the price as teh regular. Then all of a sudden removed the ability build a COM DLL in the next educational version. The solution, pay for the professional version which has even upped in price. Its not kosher, if you ask me.
>
>Its a hook for them to get more money, taking away what you've already had.

Mike,

Usually in the free enterprise system if you want more paying customers you lower the price of admission rather than raising it. By removing features from the non-paying members you are essentially raising their effective cost. That's contrary and why I'd recommend to Michel that he do two things:

1) Restore the removed features.
2) Lower the annual paying member amount.

He needs volume and the way to do that is lower rates, not higher. Airplane companies lower rates to fill seats, not raise them. If he's suffering from having to pay higher expenses on his end he needs more cash and the way to do that is make it easier for folks to spend and that's done (one way anyway) by making the cost more affordable for those outside our very prosperous economy.

Michel will eventually make it more cost-effective for his competition if he makes it more expensive (by removing features) for the average member.

That on the heels of raising the price for the paying members. I paid the higher amount as I think there is still value but each time this happens the Wiki looks more inviting.

Michel, if you're listening, you also need to publicly explain your reasoning IMO. To not do so makes you look high-handed and will help to cause damage to the general sense of community I'd think.

*shrug*

Best,

DD