MS "Limited resources..."

As I've read through various "Issues" here I keep running across comments alluding to Microsoft's "limited resources" (paraphrased). It comes up a lot in discussions about why MS seems to be losing interest or not investing in VB as much as other .net languages. Often used as an excuse like; "Well, there are only so many resources available so it's only natural that MS would focus on those products (languages) with the most users." Apparently, people making such comments haven't spent any time analyzing the premise with actual facts.

I don't know how many MS developers there actually are on the VB.net team but, just for fun, let's do a little math. Let's say MS hired 100 developers just to work on VB.net alone. Let's say with salary, benefits, and overhead, each of those developers cost $300,000.00\year. That would total 30 Million\year. MS net income for 2018 was 30.3 BILLION. After a "one time charge" of 13.7 Billion related to new federal tax laws, its net income was a "paltry" 16.6 Billion.

So now, let's consider the total cost of those fictitious 100 VB.net developers as a percentage of MS's net income. NOT Gross Income mind you, Net Income. And not the "real" Net Income for 2018, just the "paltry" amount left after the one time charge. **0.18%** LESS THAN 2\10th's OF 1 PERCENT OF THE NET PROFIT! Let's go crazy and add another 100 programmers to the various related teams just to support the VB.net efforts. That would still be LESS THAN 4\10th's OF 1 PERCENT OF THE NET PROFIT!

What percentage of total revenue is generated by all of the MS products and services businesses purchase due to the fact that their main business applications are written in VB.net?

I realize MS has a Lot of products and efforts to support. But PLEASE, let's stop stating, pretending, or insinuating that "Limited resources" has anything whatsoever to do with any real or perceived lack of resources dedicated to VB,net. That simply isn't true.