ROI for WCF and WF

This spring I had a lot of time and no job. So I was lying on the floor, weighting the possibilities: I could become a bum, sell my yacht, dig deeper into Windows Workflow Foundation (WF), or I could go with Windows Communication Foundation (WCF). I had all the books I needed to decide -- three on WF, two on WCF. I carefully looked at those books, read all the introductions inside, and it became clear to me that WCF had a better return-on-investment (ROI). First, books about WCF are 20-30% thinner than those about WF (you invest less time). Second (you get more possibilities in return), WCF seemed to be more valuable for a whole lot of my possible employers: I think WCF-services will become no less popular than web-services pretty soon, and WCF is a unified platform (there are limitations) for building distributed applications. Those are in high demand these days.

WF, on the other hand, provides a unified platform for running and designing workflows, for automation of business processes. If you decide to spend time learning WF, you will end up with business process logic decomposed into workflows, which are made out of activities. If the design will be ok, you will be able to get the stuff automated with less software developers and more analysts. But it's not clear to me who would want to translate business logic from, say, pure C# to a well-designed workflow with corresponding activity libraries (let's assume those will also be created with C# code) -- the effort required to do the job is substantial. At the same time when you're migrating from, say, a web-service to a WCF-service, almost all code just stays the same in majority of scenarious.

I must also note that if you want to automate business-processes, all you need to know is C#. That's a great unified platform by itself. WF adds value, but increases costs, while WCF adds more, and it decreases costs, as it really provides a common model for coding distributed applications. WCF isolates you from excess information to a degree: you don't have to be intimately familiar with ASMX, WSE, MSMQ, IIS or whatever to start creating distributed applications, all you need is WCF (and an experienced architect). Therefore, WCF seems to be more newcomer-friendly and a great investment.

In short, I'm sure it takes longer to see the benefits of WF in action, than it is with WCF. I may be wrong, and I haven't covered all bases here, but that's what I was thinking while choosing between WCF and WF.

P.S.
Maybe WPF or Entity Framework, or another fancy new thing is great too, but it's out of my area of expertise. And for me it's one thing at a time.

P.P.S.
I had some experience with both WCF and WF, when I was lying on the floor.