No Diva, SA is not a carrot
http://msmvps.com/blogs/bradley/archive/2007/12/26/sa-is-not-a-carrot.aspx
It should round out the solution. Could Microsoft just offer this kind of stuff up, free-of-charge, as a value-added proposition, maybe, but then, other third party software providers can't compete. These kind of solutions already exist and there's a market for charging for this kind of thing, why should Microsoft just give it away.
But this does bring on a larger debate, the value of Software Assurance. I for one like the model. It gives customers choice; unleaded, unleaded plus, and premium unleaded. You don't want or need SA, that's fine. You want it, here ya go. You want a little bit more; we got your hook up. Software Assurance is not pre-paying for the next version of X. Software Assurance is the promise that they will continue to add value, and lest you thing that Microsoft is the only one in this boat. Most Software developers sell 'service' on top of their product; whereby you get 1 year of free-upgrades and service.
I for one am sick of FUD. If you can't or don't use the added value of SA, then by all means don't get it. But don't whine about its existence, and don't whine that the thing you want and think ought to be free is in SA and not freely downloadable. Microsoft makes, or at least owns the rights to it, and can purvey it by any means necessary.
I agree it is frustrating, mostly because in the past, Microsoft simply gave that stuff away. But they have to answer to stock holders and produce dividends. Whether it is charging Partners for marketing materials, or cutting back on the swag at events, they have a bottom line to meet. Will they lose some customers? Maybe. Will they convert others? Probably. Will they lose their market share? Time will tell.