FYI Stephan What an interesting little theory, except for one thing: it doesn't jibe with the facts. Why did MS buy FoxPro? MS buying FoxPro was as much about obtaining a powerful desktop database tool, the technology in it, and the people who built it as it was about duking it out with Borland. And, five+ years later, the product, the technology, and the people are still here. FoxPro technology You say no FoxPro technology has made it into other products? Wrong. Here are just two examples. Rushmore has been in Access since version 2.0, which means that more versions of Access have had it (2.0, 95, and 97) than haven't (1.0, 1.1). Let's be exact here. Rushmore is actually in the Jet engine, so that means VB has had it since version 3.0. Have you heard about the batch cursor library in RDO2, which allows users to retrieve a result set, make changes to it locally, and then send it back to the server and be told what records have conflicts? Where do you suppose that came from? (Hint: FoxPro). ADO (ActiveX Data Objects) uses the same cursor technology. Toss FoxPro aside If FoxPro served its real purpose three years ago, then: * Why did we come out with Visual FoxPro 3.0, which was 32-bit, changed from an out-dated procedural model to a thoroughly modern object/container model, added object oriented programming, introduced database containers and local views, added remote views for great client/server apps, and added ActiveX support? * Why did we come out with a Visual FoxPro 3.0 for the Mac? * Why did we come out with Visual FoxPro 5.0, which added custom COM component creation, improved the ActiveX support, added Internet support, had a completely revised debugger, and added offline views? * Why are we working on the next version, code name Tahoe, which will have support for Microsoft Transaction Server (apartment model threaded DLLs) and Active Document support? This seems like an awful lot of work and effort for a product that serves no real purpose. Sales So FoxPro is a blip on the bottom line and any day Bill might just kill it, huh? Sure, just like he might kill other products that are a blip on the bottom line, such as Internet Information Server and Internet Explorer, both of which are free, yet are pretty darn important around here. Could it be instead that sales are not the only thing products are judged on? Believe it or not my friend, we look at things like the strategic value of both the product and the customers. Maybe we are more concerned with the hundreds of thousands of FoxPro developers and how we can best move them forward and let them leverage the skills and knowledge they have accumulated over the years. Maybe building a tool that lets them partcipate in multi-tier web and client-server based applications is the most important thing. Maybe building a tool that gives FoxPro developers the same chance as other developers to build applications that fit into the Windows DNA architecture is the most important thing. That sounds like a better strategy to me than watching nothing but sales and the bottom line. Speaking of which, we are happy with both in respect to VFP anyway. <g> Robert Green Visual FoxPro Product Manager Microsoft Corp. http://www.microsoft.com/vfoxpro >-----Original Message----- >From: Michael Copeland [SMTP:mcopeland@sprynet.com] >Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 1997 1:43 PM >To: hourglass@magmacom.com >Subject: "And then there was one..." > >All, > >Ran across an interesting statement in John Dvorak's column in PC Mag, >10/21/97 issue that CLARIFY'S THE ENTIRE FOXPRO+MICROSOFT SITUATION >WE, >AS DEVELOPERS, ARE ALL WONDERING ABOUT. (At least I am...) > >In this article, Dvorak is "reporting" the going's-on at a retreat >held >recently by B. Gates and S. Balmer with some industry editors and >pundits. Everything said was strictly and officially "off the record" >so >Dvorak had to do some cajoling to get his scoop. Anyway, here's what >caught my eye and turned on my little light bulb: > >"At lunch Gates was asked if he enjoys crushing his opponents. He >remarked that it was fun to crush Phillipe Kahn shortly after Borland >bought dBASE. During that era, Kahn was a boaster whom Bill apparently >targeted." > >Now, for me, this puts EVERYTHING into focus. Gates bought Foxpro to >hit >Kahn over the head with. Sure, Foxpro by itself was superior to dBASE, >but without some money (and the MS name) behind it, it would have >continued to do battle with dBASE for years nose to nose. > >Or, for purposes that had nothing to do with "superior product >technology" or "market share," MS could buy it (and as a side note >ensure its near term success financially). With it, Gates could knock >the wind out of Borlands dBASE sales (pun intended) and then he >(Gates) >could toss Foxpro aside like a $5 lady of the night who had served his >needs. This also explains why the Rushmore technology that everyone >assumed MS was after has still not been implemented in any of the >other >MS products (at least, none they talk about). > >My conclusion to all this? >MS sees Foxpro as a blip on their bottom line. >If VFP becomes more tomorrow than it is now, fine, MS will be happy. >If >it disappears tomorrow, fine, because it served it's real purpose >about >three years ago. > >Yet, even at MS, business rules rule in business. If VFP is making >money >for MS, it will get enough investment to survive, but don't ever >expect >Bill to "kiss and smile." On the other hand, if VFP starts to wither >on >the sales vine, I predict VFP will NOT receive papers for divorce. >Instead, expect a nice, expedient yet respectful ceremony for the >immediate family only. Memorial donations can be sent to... > >Comments? Disagreements? > >Michael Copeland >Genesis Software