> Microsoft has a wonderfully lucrative cash cow that allows them to not be successful at their other endeavors (with success for this argument being defined as a similar market share as their primary business).

I disagree with this basic premise. Let's put our investor hats on. There are these businesses, Windows and Office. They throw off a certain cash flow. It doesn't last forever.

So what to do? First, we re-invest some of that cash flow into extending the life of the cash flow from the profits themselves. Advertising, new versions, and so forth.

Second, we can pay a dividend to investors. If the taxes are onerous, we can do magical things with trusts or some such to reduce taxes.

Third, we can invest the cash flow in new businesses, basically treating ourselves as a VC or startup lab. We hope to turn the new businesses into streams of cash flow.

WHy do we assume that options one and three are always on the table? If investors can get a better rate of return investing the cash flow from Office and Windows than Ballmer is delivering, why are we asking Ballmer to 1. Generate cash from Office and Windows and 2. Produce better returns than we can?

I think the time has come to stop expecting so much from SteveB. Get him to generate tons of cash from Office and Windows and give the money to investors. Let them decide whether to invest that into Google stock or Apple stock or the next YCombinator round or whatever they like.