[9JollyOtter]

My original comment:

> The fact is that Windows isn't the cash cow it used to be for Microsoft

My second to you:

> Windows isn't a cash cow it once was

You really need to learn how to read or all you are doing is arguing about semantics.

[leptons]

Yeah, you're still just wrong.

In the 1990s Windows brought in $1.2 billion. In the 2010s, it brought in about $14 billion. In 2022 it was $24.8 billion, and in 2024, it was $29.1 billion.

So your assumption that Windows is somehow "not the cash cow it once was" is false. It's bringing in more money than it ever did before.

Windows definitely is still very much a "cash cow" for Microsoft. And they can have more than one "cash cow", they can have as many as they want and it wouldn't make Windows any less of a "cash cow".

[9JollyOtter]

> Yeah, you're still just wrong.

No. All you are doing is engaging in semantic wankery.

> So your assumption that Windows is somehow "not the cash cow it once was" is false. It's bringing in more money than it ever did before.

What don't you understand about being a smaller percentage of their business as a whole?

My entire point that it has gone from the basically a 30% (~2010) of the revenue to less than 10%. Therefore they are simply not going to care about it as much, because their strategy is basically to push as much as possible into the cloud.

Saying they make more money with that now, when the growth compared to other parts of the business is low is missing the point.

[leptons]

>"No. All you are doing is engaging in semantic wankery."

I'm not the one who first used the term "cash cow" here. It apparently doesn't mean what you think it means.

If you look up the definition, you will find this:

    "a business, investment, or product that provides a steady income or profit."

Windows definitely falls under that definition. This isn't "semantic wankery". Next time you want to use a colloquialism, make sure you look it up first.

>Therefore they are simply not going to care about it as much, because their strategy is basically to push as much as possible into the cloud.

Microsoft Windows still dominates the OS market. MacOS will never achieve anything close to Windows, never has, never will. Windows is Microsoft's bottom bitch, it's not going to be forgotten as you think it will.

Feel free to quit this conversation at any time.

[9JollyOtter]

> This isn't "semantic wankery".

Yeah it is. I never said it wasn't a cash cow. I said "it wasn't the cash cow it once was". I obviously meant relatively compared to other parts of Microsoft's business.

Considering you keep omitting that from what I said, I can only assume you are continuing to engage in bad faith.

> Next time you want to use a colloquialism, make sure you look it up first.

I understand what it means fine. I did use it correctly.

> Microsoft Windows still dominates the OS market.

On on laptops and desktops. The vast majority of people at home are using phones and tablets (outside of work usage). In that space Android dominates, then iOS and have done so for about a decade now.

> Feel free to quit this conversation at any time.

You are a clown.

[leptons]

>I said "it wasn't the cash cow it once was".

And that is wrong. It's even better than the "cash cow" it used to be, I provided some values of what Windows brings in over the years, and it has grown and grown. You ignored that.

>I understand what it means fine. I did use it correctly.

You seriously do not.

>You are a clown.

You are reported.

[9JollyOtter]

> And that is wrong. It's even better than the "cash cow" it used to be, I provided some values of what Windows brings in over the years, and it has grown and grown. You ignored that.

No and I've never ignored it. As the revenue percentage decreases because it is growing slow. It will become less important.

Relatively it isn't as much of a cash cow, which I explained ad-nauseam to you.

> You seriously do not.

It is correct enough for all intents and purposes. You are quibbling over semantics. It is totally unnecessary and pedantic.

> You are reported.

I don't care. If you make arrogant little statements like that, expect that response.