>First MS has never said that IE is a part of the platform.

It is part of the OS, which is key to the platform...

>That was a major part of the basis of the anti-trust claim.

Actually, their basis was that it was part of the OS and that it could not be separated...

>MS always said that IE could readily be replaced by NetScape or whatever.

IE is ALWAYS in the background. It is important to distinguish between the back end components and UI browser parts. Regardless of whether you are using netscape, even if you don't have some parts of the IE browser, other parts remain in the background...

>
Why can't you see that VFP is also an "enablers of technology that rings the MS register"?
<

It could be an enabler but MS has chosen to not make it one...


>
Firstly, it keeps smaller outfits in the Windows fold where otherwise MAC or Unix might prevail.
<

No way... Windows is the cheapest/most cost effective solution for small business. Unix is a PITA to maintain and in addition to MAC, what applications are out there. Unix costs a boatload of bucks too. Smaller outfits will stay right where they are...

<
Secondly, it helps to sell SQL Server by providing a legitimate migration path.
>

If VFP ceased to exist today, do you honestly think the sales numbers for SQL Server would be impacted?

VFP is 100% irrelevant to SQL Server. People that adopt SQL Server do so because it is the correct solution.


>C'mon John. Would anyone expect Ken to say anything else?

In this community??? Yes... The fact is, nobody before from MS put it has bluntly as he did. I guess some of my charm started to wear off! < bg >

<
My point is that it isn't the ONLY issue.
>

It is not the only issue, but it makes up about 95% of the relevant issues.


>
Then IE and MSDE and others should go too. Like I said, there's more than just raw profit.
>

No they should not and you are comparing apples and oranges. They are material parts of a bigger picture.

How material. MSDE is given away and it has more strategic impact that VFP, which is not free. The same can be said for IE.

You are right in that revenue $'s are not the only issue. Strategic impact to MS is important as well. On that front, VFP is not even on the radar screen.




>And VFP could too.

Internally funded? It is a developer tool that is a product unto itself. Using that logic, VS .NET, VB, etc should be funded from other areas too. This is not a socialist environment...

<
And IE is not "part of the platform".
>

Yes, it is... How pervasive is IE in windows, VS .NET, etc? That is the platform, it is quite pervasive, ergo it is part of the platform...



>
Clearly only internal MS can answer those questions (except the third, which 99% of the time has to be "none"). For you or me to pretend that we can even come close would be stupidity of the highest order.
>

It is not stupid. Ken himself has said up here there are cost constriaints. I am spot on here. Bascially, it is the rule for any product at MS. It is not a well kept secret... Next time you ask for something and it does not make it into the product, ask why????


>
Boy I'm good - answered a question that I didn't even ask < s >. *My* point was, in fact, that we have done well with a very limited MS staff (and related) budget allocation for VFP but that others using dollars allocated as the yardstick see/report otherwise.
>

VFP has done well because it is managed very closely. If you spend a lot on innovating and marketing the product and you have a limited staff, it is not difficult to turn a profit. There are a lot of support services that Fox probably has to pay for, but at a reduced rate due to economies of scale for MS as an entity. The question is this: If Fox were in its own company, could it survive?

>
Maybe for insider advantage, but not for anything else. PowerBuilder and Delphi continue to 'grow' and there is no reason for VFP to do otherwise.
>

Are they growing in terms of market share??? I don't think so...


>I do think that if MS was going to do anything, it would have by now. It has NOT stopped development on VFP, has it!!
>

developing and maintaining vs. materially innovating a product and growing the market. As long as you understand the difference...

There is no reason to kill the product...at least until the upgrade numbers drop to a level where the product does not warrant new versions.


<
Sure XBOX and .NET and lots of others get more $ than VFP does. As I said earlier, people who use that as their only guide are doing an incomplete assessment.
<

As there only guide, sure. But it is a factor...one you cannot ignore..