>>>I've read J. Booth's message a little more carefully and it doesn't really
>>apply to what I was saying. I am sorry. Let me try to be a little
>>clearer. I've been told that we are the ones responsible from keeping a
>>product from dying. Which means we would have to supply our own brand of
>>marketing. If we were to follow Mr. Booth's advice, the customer is not
>>going to really care what tool created the solution, so this would really
>>not help our cause.
>>>
>>>How much responsibity can we afford to lay on MS's shoulders. We have
>>spent the time and the money. If we really feel that VFP is a worthwhile
>>product than the least we can do is spread the word any way we can. The
>>point we don't have to sit and watch. We can play an active hand.
>>
>>What will keep VFP alive is one factor and it's not is VFP profitable
>>although it is related to that. The real question is: Can Microsoft make
>>more money with VFP than they would if they used the resources it takes
>>elsewhere. It's not enough for VFP to turn a profit. If MS can take the
>>people who work on it and use them on another product and make a bigger
>>profit, VFP is dead. I'm not saying that this is wrong, BTW.
>>
>>Of course spreading the word will help and we can do our bit in this
>>regard. Time will tell if our efforts are successful.
>>
>>
>>Gary J. Sibio
>>Mr. Travel, Inc.
>>
>> >>> Please Mr. Gates, can we have our computers back? <<<
>
>
>I disagree with this. Microsoft moves people from one product to another
all the time. For example, ADO was developed by former Fox people.
>
Why would Microsoft move them if they couldn't be used more profitably in
the new situation?
Gary J. Sibio
Mr. Travel, Inc.
>>> Please Mr. Gates, can we have our computers back? <<<
Précédent
Suivant
Répondre
Voir le fil de ce thread
Voir le fil de ce thread à partir de ce message seulement
Voir tous les messages de ce thread
Voir tous les messages de ce thread à partir de ce message seulement