Ed Leafe wrote:
> You don't follow the thought pattern of Microsoft. First, there are
> Microsoft developers and non-Microsoft developers. They want all of the
> non-MS people to switch to MS, of course, and the only dev tool they
> want them to use is Visual Studio, since that locks them into the much
> more expensive licensing scenarios for the products they develop. You
> see, Visual Studio is a very inexpensive tool that tends to make very
> expensive applications. VFP is a very inexpensive tool that tends to
> make very inexpensive applications.
>
> I'm sure that Microsoft couldn't care less if someone used VS
> instead of VFP, if they ended up with the same licensing revenue. But
> that's simply not the case, and as long as it is, they do not want *any*
> developers choosing VFP over VS. If they market VFP so that people
> outside of our community have actually heard of it, a good part of them
> might investigate it and decide to use that to develop their apps,
> resulting in a loss of revenue for Microsoft.
>
I *do* follow that thought pattern (knowing it anyway), but I'm just
being obviously unrealistic to that end to think that they might try to
get non-MS developers to use ANY MS product, *including* VFP. Do you
think if they would rather have a non-MS developer stay non-MS as
opposed to buying into MS VFP???!!! Along your school of thought,
perhaps they'd need to use SQL Server as the back end and then MS would
still get that licensing revenue!!!
<playing with fire with this idea, although not an original idea...>Ed,
do you think if MS did some sort of license for VFP that it would get
more attention from MS?
--
Michael J. Babcock, MCP
President/CSA, MB Software Solutions, LLC
http://mbsoftwaresolutions.com
"Bettering your bottom line by helping you work smarter, not harder,
with custom software solutions."
©2004 Michael J. Babcock |
