>
This is why people don't like to talk to you. You make these claims and deny that proof exists to falsify them. For what its worth, every VS.NET advertismenst falls under the same "new version doesn't count" rule you just made up, and the VFP7 ads are still running in CoDe.
>

I don't deny the proof you offer. I simply deny the effectiveness you claim it has...

>
How do you define serious efforts? You're aboslutely nuts if you think that Microsoft is not serious about making money on Visual FoxPro anyway they can. That company didn't get rich by doing things half-assed.
>

I know MS is serious about keeping VFP profitable. If VFP ceases to be profitable, it ceases to have a life. With that said, I contend the amount of revenue VFP generates is tight and fixed. Perhaps VFP gets a cut of MSDN sales, but I suspect that is not enough. I would bet the lion share comes from upgrades and direct sales. That is why Ken has been up here telling folks the most important thing VFP developers can do is upgrade to VFP 7.

Ironically, the best thing for MS as a company are MSDN subscriptions. The best thing for VFP itself are direct sales/upgrades. I see a lack of goal congruence here...


>>Advertisements that highlight the new version of VFP don't cut it.
>
>Where is this written?

It is my opinion, my rejection of what you offer...

>>Show me sustained effort in a non-VFP source and you might begin to convince me.
>
>I already did. Unfortunately, you're in denial.


Code Magazine???? The preponderance of VFP-vender ads makes it a de facto VFP source. Show me a magazine that is not capture a good number of VFP readers, show me a sustained effort there...

>
>>My point is that MS is not interested in seeing the market place for VFP grow.
>
>I don't think that is true at all. You had a point that they'd rather sell VS.NET instead of VFP, but that doesn't mean they're uninterested in making money selling Fox. Given the choice, I'm sure they'd like to sell lots of both. Anything else is just bad business.
>

Making money with Fox and growing the Fox market are different animals. Today, Fox makes money. MS does not have to grow the market to make money. The market has not grown in many years. In fact, the market has declined. As the market declines, the direct sales fall off. That means there is less budget for improvements, marketing, etc. Eventually, a threshold will be crossed where the only way to keep the product profitable is to reduce staff. Compare the VFP team from 3.0 (7 years ago) to today. Try asking for changes that would on one hand be beneficial, but on the other hand, would break the budget. Ken has up here on more than one occasion stressed the point that the improvements to the product must fit under tight budgetary constraints. Every product also has to do this, but the upside on the revenue side of the coin in those areas is not fixed either. As a result, they get bigger staffs and can support more innovation.

To market this product as some people ask would do one thing: kill the product.

Liking to sell a product and expending the resources to make it happen are also different. If MS could sell lots of Fox without effort, MS would be happy. But do you think for one moment, MS would risk expending lots of resources Trying to sell a product that it is not likely to sell a lot of. *That* would be bad business.