Interesting points about making a buck and capitalism. This gets to one of my chief concerns about VFP. On one hand, VFP makes money. On the other hand, its costs have to be kept to an extreme minimum to achieve profitability. To make a profit one of three things needs to occur:

1. Increase Revenues
2. Decrease Costs
3. Combination of 1 and 2

I see nothing to indicate option 1 is feasible. This immediately knocks out option 3. As Ken stated several months ago, there is only one thing the community can do to ensure the survival of the product: purchase upgrades. From my perspective, that means things like plaques, airplane banners, conference attendance, magazine subscriptions, etc, don't have a direct impact on the viability of the product. In order to take this discussion to a more "elevated" level, perhaps Mr. Black would like to address the question of whether the VFP market is growing at a rate that allows MS to realize increased revenue on the Fox product.

IMO, when the innovation of a product needs to be stifled in order to fit into cost parameters that allow the product to survive, to put it kindly, you have what could be said to be a less than ideal situation.

The irony is that if MS did what the community is asks for, the costs incurred would not be recovered and the product would then be unprofitable.

I see the flaw in Steve's position as follows:

First, he personalizes a discussion that has no personal content whatsoever. I think I am conflicting with a message that he is forced to defend. I get the idea that he has made assurances about matters and issues that I call into question. Simply a theory on my part but looking at all of this in a rationale matter, I cannot understand why he gets so riled up. From my perspective, I only get PO'd at those who have a direct impact on what I do. That is why after all of the personal attacks, etc, I am not PO'd at Steve. He has no impact on me (direct or indirect) and when he gets like this, I chock it up to Steve being Steve.

Second, he says that objective measures are on an upward trend (user groups, conference attendance, etc). My response is two fold. First, while I don't believe there is an upward trend, assuming there is and conceding the point, it is starting from a deficit that is highly unlikely to be recovered. It is like the poker play who is 100K down and has won 2 hands for 2K. The idealist only sees the past 2 hands and the upward trend. The realist sees that the player is still down 98K. Even if I conceded the point and ignore the deficit, the question has to be asked whether it matters or not. All the user group attendance, magazine subscriptions, and conference attendance does not materially affect MS's coffers. Although, it would appear that MS may in fact be getting into the conference business again. From a community standpoint, this is a good idea. There is a SQL Server conference I know about. I suspect there will be conference on VS .NET and Office, etc. The question is whether MS would undertake the lead role in a Fox Devcon?

One could argue that people that have not upgraded, once they go to a conference or read a magazine article, they might then upgrade. I will concede this point. The fact is, the population of people that are likely to go to a conference or subscribe to one of the magazines is fixed. And while there may be new people coming into the fold, they are at best replacing people that have left. And, as time goes by, it seems that less and less people are upgrading. My theory on this is that less and less new development is going on in Fox, thus obviating the need to upgrade. I also think that more and more shops have switched to MSDN. MS encourages customers to buy MSDN and in fact, it is a good deal for developers. The irony, as I have stated before, is that Fox developers that buy MSDN dillute the direct revenues the Fox lineitem gets. To give Fox the maximum help he can, the Fox developer should by the stand-alone upgrade. The irony is that the developer does not get the best value. I see these opposing goals as troublesome for Fox. A market is either growing or dying...there is no third direction...

Third, I think Steve argues primarily from a technical perspective. There is some business jargon thrown in, but for the most part, the thesis of the argument is from the technology standpoint. Over the past several weeks, I have been onsite at a major Fortune 10 company that is adopting and implementing .NET solutions. While it was clear before, it is crystal clear to me today, while Fox can play in that sandbox, from a business perspective and what I will call a "perceived technology" perspective, Fox would be laughed out of the building. Web, SQL Server, Win32 apps, wireless, etc. You name it, they are doing it. Any developer with an interest in learning would jump at the chance to dive in. IMO, developers who get involved in these type of projects (over 7 figures in the aggregate) are riding the correct wave. I have asked some folks about their impressions of Fox. Most of the opinions are favorable, to the extent it applies to small/medium apps for small/medium size companies. At the enterprise, where this company is focused, Fox is not an option. It does not matter whether Fox is technically capable of doing the same things. What matters is that their chosen toolset CAN achieve what they want.

With all of this said, are there examples here and there where Fox is involved in a big project? Sure. In fact, I have been involved in several and some of the biggest. I would dare say that I have probably been involved in the biggest project as far as size of company and reach the various applications have in the company operations and management.

In the end, I still don't think the fortunes of Fox change. There is only one entity that can change the landscape, and that is MS. There is nothing to indicate the current course will change. MS wants one thing, happy customers. As long as customers are not complaining, everything will continue as-is. The numbers of Fox developers will continue to erode. The numbers of new/significant apps will continue to erode. The list of new feature sets will continue to erode. Etc, etc, etc... In the end, while many have been asleep, by following MS's advice, many Fox developers became MSDN customers. If you were ever wondering how the dilemma with MS would be solved, that's it.

While Fox is technically a good product, the business world at large does not see it as being a credible solution for the reasons I enumerate in this post. And, as long as MS continues to push VS .NET and the .NET framework as THE credible solution, what makes anybody think:

1. the course will change or
2. that anybody or anyone can do anything about it...

This is how this Fox developer sees the world. And that is why this Fox developer will continually stress that people get on board with .NET NOW, so as to avoid the pitfalls that some have and more will run into. People can call me a liar, skumbag (changed spelling so that I could post!!), and ethically unsound. All of the ad-hominum/strawman tactics won't change the reality of the landscape. There is a lot to chew on here. I eagerly await colorful and thought-provoking responses.