Well yes, that is exactly what I mean. If you can't make money, a logic reply is to attack the platform when your money has gone. But basically that is telling your (potential) customers they are crazy. Not a solid business model. If you have a business you sell what your customers want to buy.
I might have been a tad vindictive, but you are pessimistic, lol. 99% of people on this forum are just normal people. If they are unhappy they will let us know, if they are happy they might left us know. And that is fine.
My issue was that in our forums, that we clearly position as company forums, not 'public', we have seen a lot of attempts to influence people with less than honest arguments. People complaining about things we do not support in P3D V5 while their own products barely support basic P3D V4 standards. People who talk down MFS wile we know the have been refused access to MFS beta programs (Microsoft is pretty strict, if you have a history of piracy, malware etc you won't get in). I understand these people are not happy about MFS, but just say why. Saying it is just a 'game' is something people will remind you about in 18 months.
The basic fact is that every company who is not fully on board with MFS has a reason for that. Some because they feel P3D still has a bright future, others because they simply do not have the resources. Some other companies might be locked on developments that are not future proof, some other because they have made update promises that are hard to keep. Most of these things are not hard to guess or hard to find. If you see a commercial negative comment about MFS, just check. If the company has problems updating to new version (or even a hotfix) of P3D it is clear they are hardcore outside the SDK and will have a seriously hard time in MFS. That might lead to very cool P3D products but it means the development is very locked to P3D.