Hi Denis,

OK, now I better understand what you are saying, thank you. However I see it from a slightly different perspective.

As far as Microsoft reflecting the dollar amount between the products when comparing them. As developers the community knows what these different products cost. I don’t see any advantage in comparing prices except when one makes a decision on the product they are purchasing.

I also don’t think Microsoft is guiding their customers to the most profitable one for them. What I do see Microsoft doing is spending marketing dollars commensurate with the amount of money invested in the technologies they are creating, and putting the money behind their most versatile products in efforts to compete with other major software providers. This makes sense not only for Microsoft but for the Professionals they rely upon that purchase their products to make software. This software development community is in a sense the middleman, with Microsoft on the one end, and the consumer on the other. It is the professional software community’s responsibility to accurately inform the consumer what the community has considered from sources such as Microsoft so that the consumer who is spending money can make the best choice for their needs. It is the software community’s responsibility to pass on to the consumer an informed and unbiased opinion about all options available to the consumer even if it means the middleman will lose the contract.

I’m personally glad that Microsoft does not treat their product lines as if they were made by two different companies. Microsoft ultimately has the greatest insight into their products and I’m grateful that they can pass on an unbiased opinion. I’m also grateful that Microsoft can provide a product like SQL Server Express that can be freely utilized and redistributed by the community, which is in fact another valuable tool for the middleman to make them more valuable to the consumer. Now the developer/consumer have more choices, and now there is a solution from Microsoft that can provide an enterprise capable platform that can grow as the consumers business grows and it would not cost the consumer anymore than a pure dbf solution in the initial phase.

Anyway, thanks for the feedback.


>Hi John,
>
>You're right. Don't you think at some point it could be a part of a complete description?
>
>Mom & pop shops don't have the same needs as big corporations.
>
>So if the MS objective is really to get every potential customer the information they need don't you think that their description should reflect the $ aspect also? Don't you think that MS should guide their potential customers toward the NEEDED solution and not only toward the most profitable solution for MS?
>
>Looks like it's hard to please everybody.
>
>You want me to give you a complete description? I can't do that because I don't have all the facts needed in a thorough one. But you know who have all the facts? MS
>
>Here's an example that could explain the reaction about the incomplete/incorrect description:
>
>On our web site we had an agressive approach. We were comparing ourselves to the competition. Saying things they say they do but that they did'nt. Before making the site public we asked for friends and relatives to give us feedback about what they liked and did'nt like.
>
>Those comparisons came up as being too agressive and some did'nt like that. From a marketing point of view that approach is defendable (that's what we thought). But if those we know did'nt like it could we really afford the risk of releasing it the way it was? Hmm potential negative reaction is never good.
>
>So we removed that.
>
>You get my point? Some complained about a description to the HIGHER AUTORITIES within MS. The official reaction to it surprised me and did'nt surprise me. No money to make with DBF so any reason will be accepted to put FEAR about it's use and practically forcing everyone to spend $$$$ to get what was described as the SAFE solution.
>
>And who will really fight on this. Those protecting and caring for the small shops. This looks like a minority over here on the UT. So either it's the majority here is working with BIG businesses or are tired of working with small shops and would like DBF to disappear hoping to get too in the big $$$ train.
>
>So I guess that what I just said resumes to this:
>
>Either you respect your potential customer and propose the solution that is really needed or only think in term of $$ and try to make the most of it.
>
>
>
>>But the original statement had nothing to do with $$$$
>>
>>
>>>>Hi Denis,
>>>>
>>>>If you wouldn't mind I'd be curious to know how you would reword this so I more fully understand your point.
>>>
>>>DBF (VFP) = $, Client-Server (SQL Server) = $$$$$$$$$$$$$