Hi Jim,I guess we look at the goals of a for profit business differently. My assessment is that they're primarily goal is to be profitable. That they have done.More or less...sure one could discuss search engines or popular angst over certain issues, but they've made the right moves to corner the market for OS systems, that's where it began and its still important.I tend to expect that the inner workings include factors you and I cannot be aware of, and your perspective therefore cannot be including the real logic behind the tactics.best,Bob

Hello Jim,You raise some very interesting points that are worth discussing.It is important to know that all Microsoft divisions are independent cost centers. Because the overall revenue at Microsoft is large does not mean that it can be divided up or allocated to certain products over others.The Games division is perhaps the smallest of them all (or maybe it is languages - those guys must really be strapped for cash) and they have extremely limited resources. They must budget for everything out of that division's revenue, including support costs, and probably do not have a lot left over to acquire titles from other publishers. The central management fixes revenue goals and projected margins and each division must meet those goals while limiting costs as much as possible.So, you are right, Microsoft as a whole is a huge enterprise, but Flight Simulator itself is relatively poor and underfunded.This perhaps explains in large part why the FS Team is ramping up their efforts and trying to expand the user base. Greater revenue equals more resources, meaning more manpower and an expanded game. We can only hope that they succeed because this will help to ensure the perennity of the title and its future growth.Best regards.Luis

<>Fair enough. I respect your opinion. But the other viewpoint is that MSFT has, yet again and in quite legendary fashion, allowed "third parties" to leverage off its installed base. In the search engine market alone, GOOG has achieved a total market valuation of about $123 billion which is nearly 50% of MSFT's total market valuation.That is one of the reasons why MSFT's stock is lower now than it was in 1989.Regards,Jim

Interesting points Luis but I again point to MSFT's dismal performance in the stock market. Mr. Gates can allocate funds to any division he chooses to and the company has clearly and systematically failed to allocate funds (or the work product of those allocations has been deficient)wherever he wants to.The concept of "line extentions" is as old as the free enterprise system. Some of the greatest resorts in North America were built by the Railroad companies who wanted ADDITIONAL profits from their passangers! And that is why there are at least a dozen different versions of Shredded Wheat!! :-)Regards,Jim

How many times has MS stock split since 1989? DOH!MS is in a different market position now, they are so big, that percentage changes are not as realistic as it was when it was smaller. This is a natural progression. It does not necessarily reflect on its business decisions.

<>So if I understand your logic, Mr. Gates buys up the 3rd party FS add-on developers, share holders rejoice, and the stock price rebounds?

Jim, you need to look at the record.Few companies have been as successful as Microsoft in recorded history. MS stock split 7 times since they went public (1986).Not sure how many were after your reference year of 1989, but I know it split in 92, 96, and 98.You seem to be looking at Ms business from a pretty simplistic viewpoint.

<>Excuse my typo. Of course, I meant 1998 not 1989. MSFT traded as high as $30 in 1998 adjusted for the most recent stock split in 2003.And over the past five years, (up 0%)MSFT stock has dramatically under-performed both the broad averages (S&P500 up 28%) and MSFT's peers in the tech sector (NASDAQ + 40%) over that period of time.<>We are probably now traveling far afield from the FS-related intent of this forum so we should probably get back to simming topics but the above statistics are simple facts not subject to debate (now that I have my 9 properly before my 8).But in closing, you are certainly correct that MSFT was one of the great growth stocks of all time however, so too were U.S. Steel, KMart, ToysRUS and scores of others I could name.But since 2003, MSFT's net income (2003 at the far right) has been down once and essentially flat once in spite of a near monopoly in the OS business and what SHOULD have been an ULTRA-competitive presence in the PC maintenance software business (virus, defrag etc.) andNet Income Available to Common 12,599.00 12,254.00 8,168.00 9,993.00 I could cite you a hundred examples but Kellogg is one which, from its position as the pioneer of breakfast cereals (Corn Flakes) now sells 8 of the 10 largest selling cereal brands in the world and has seen its stock rise 50% over the past 5 years in large measure because it did not stop with Frosted Flakes cereal but EXTENDED that brand to include, for example, 9 different "Frosted" Pop Tarts flavors and ditto for most of its other brands. You may view "Brand Extension" as a simplistic strategy, and I respect your opinion, but the fact of the matter is that brand extension is "Marketing 101" and is practiced aggressivley by virtually every growth company on the planet.I can just hear the howels from many venture capitalists when the major virus software companies presented their original business plans. "Microsoft will eat your lunch." many of them said and they said that TIMES TEN when the KIDS who founded Google wanted start-up capital to duke it out with MSFT in the search engine business. On paper, such an attempt was IMPOSSIBLE.But back to the original thesis of this thread, it is my view that NOT extending the MSFS brand to include VERY advanced add-ons such as those produced by the indie developers we all know and love is analagous to Kellogg not being interested in "Frosted" Pop Tarts or "Krispie Treats" snack food.FINALLY, if MSFS is the poor underfunded cousin as some have essentially described it in this thread, then IMHO they should spin the company off as a standalone public company and watch the entrepreneurial sparks fly and conversely, what they should not do...according to time tested business development is to create ANOTHER quasi-monopoly such as MSFS and allow 3rd parties to control virtually the entire brand extension market.My bottom line view is that AT THE RIGHT PRICE the sales of aircraft and scenery add-ons could well be as large, dollar-wise, as the sales of FS itself. We CAN agree though that MS does not seem to have considered that strategy seriously but that, of course, does not mean it is not the right strategy.Again, thanks for your views and comments. And let me add parentetically, that I AM NOT bashing MSFT. I have purchased virtually every OS upgrade since DOS and have been FAR, FAR less critical of those upgrades than most.I am just expressing the view that done properly, we could all be buying state-of-the-art add-ons for significantly LOWER prices and I doubt that there are many here who would be against being able to do so.Regards,Jim

Jim, I must point out one more fact from a different perspective. The quality and quantity of addons available is possible because there is an outlet for beginners to learn the skills, tutors available to teach the skills, and opportunity to practice those skills because the addon concept is outside of microsoft.If it were captured, you wouldn't see those beginners, so you wouldn't get to enjoy their work 4 years later when they are making addons that take your breath away.Personally, I'm confident I wouldn't have ever had the extreme pleasures learning scenery design if the only place to do it were within Microsoft's walls.Best,Bob

Of course, Jim, I think that you are right. You have made a reasonable and intelligent proposal with evident benefits for all concerned. It is obviously the correct thing to do.Except that Microsoft doesn't work that way. Microsoft never markets other company's products. Ever.That is just their corporate policy.If they see a market opportunity, they: - 1. acquire a title and develop it. This is what they did with Flight Simulator, for example (and Mosaic, and Excel, and DOS, etc.); - 2. create content in-house; or - 3. do nothing (they do often miss opportunities, don't they? But, then, so does everybody.)Microsoft never cooperates with the market, they compete against it. And when they do establish partnerships with others (OS2, Apple), the other company inevitably comes out the loser.And the FS Team has made abundantly clear that even were a company or individual to offer them a quality add-on for free (!), Microsoft would not accept it.Given that and the knowledge that Flight Simulator is not awash in cash, one would imagine that the only option left to the FS Team is number 3.Of course, the solution is obvious, the same as for any business. Flight Simulator must grow. There is no way around it, they must generate greater revenue or they will not be able to develop the title.You can insist that your proposal is the correct solution, and I don't disagree with you, but it is puzzling what you seek by posting it here. After all, we can all agree with you easily enough, but the ones you want to convince are third-party publishers and Microsoft itself, one would think.Have you tried convincing them of the great interest that your idea has for them? Undoubtedly, Steve Ballmer (who is the real head of Microsoft, not Bill Gates) is interested in business opportunities. While I do not know Mr. Ballmer personally and very little of him at all, I have doubts whether he would be open to your idea in its present form. After all, he can simply point to his record, and while many do not agree that he has done things the right way, there is no doubt that the bottom line is on his side.Best regards.Luis

<>Right Bob. The appropriate structure would be a joint venture, funded by MS but where the creative inputs are accomplished off campus.The vast majority of of growth companies have such "incubator" programs in place.Regards,Jim

<>Well, this is a forum for discussing matters related to flight simulation so the topic is appropriate and I am quite positive that this forum is monitored by decision-makers representing both MS and all of the commercial developers.So frankly, I am puzzled by why you are puzzled. There could be no more efficient way to present the topic than right here.As for Ballmer running MS, I think you are VASTLY underestimating Mr. Gates power and influence over the company.With respect to your analysis of MS's basic operating strategy, I think you have described it quite well...and the results of that strategy over the past half dozen years are there for all to see and to assess in any way they see fit.Regards,Jim

>While at, say, $5.00 for an add-on the profit margin>PERCENTAGE would decline dramatically, the profit margin>DOLLARS would skyrocket. (and we buy our pork chops with>dollars, not percentages.>This may not pertain to this topic totally, but I need to share something...But wait, I've been and will probably always will be on the "make more GP margin %" bandwagon...here's why:I'm going to show a quick example why it's better to WORK LESS, and MAKE MORE!Competetor A says "Let's go crazy!" (thinking our GP dollars are going to also skyrocket) and sell this 737 add on for only a 13% GP margin. Our cost to produce this 737 is $40.00 per unit. We'll sell it at a low-low price of $45.98 Each. Keep in mind that we made $5.98 gross profit dollars per unit.Holy moly we sold it to 30,000 people! That's AWESOME! We made $179,400 in gross profit dollars (5.98 x 30,000 units). WHOA!-----------------------------------------------------Competetor B says, aw heck, let's put this thing out at at LEAST 25% gross profit percentage, because our production crew is worth every sale we make. Let's work SMARTER, not HARDER!Competetor B ONLY SELLS 12,000 units (MUCH LESS THAN HALF of Comptetor A above, dismal sales huh?) of a 737 add on @ $69.44 sell price (I can hear the whining in the FS forums now!). Our cost of producing this aircraft is $50.00 per unit (one more person on the team to make a better quality product). Approx 25% GP margin or $16.67 margin dollars per unit. This comes to $200,040.Wait a minute, Competetor B sold MUCH LESS THAN HALF the units of Competetor A and they MADE MORE MONEY?? WHAT!?Yup.*** That's 18,000 LESS opportunity calls to support, that's 18,000 LESS downloads (bandwidth $$$$), that's less work but more money!

Hi tom,<>One of the flaws in your argument is that B would sell 12,000 units at almost $70.00. Your correctly cited the howls that would appear on this forum but your sales volume is wildly optimistic IMHO. At that price, they might sell TWELVE UNITS (assuming the developers had that many family members) but not TWEVLE THOUSAND.<>Fortunately, for WalMart stockholders, Sam had the opposite view.Regards,Jim

>100,000 units x $500=500,000.00>What is that? The NEW math? :* Try:100,000 x $500 = $50,000,000 ;)