For example:
> 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).
Even though you say "cash cow" I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you mean both Windows and Office. It's fine that you haven't heard of all of MS's other billion dollar businesses, but perhaps that should leave you feeling unqualified to make sweeping commentary?
Here are some products off the top of my head that you've clearly never heard of:
* Business Productivity Online Suite (BPOS)
* Exchange
* SharePoint
* Office Communications Server (OCS)
* Dynamics CRM
* SQL Server
Exchange's market share is comparable to that of Google's market share of search (~70%), so I'm assuming that meets your definition of success based on market share.BPOS has 40 million paying customers compared to Google Apps' 25 million total customers (which presumably only a tiny fraction of which are paying).
SharePoint is part of the Office division but is an entirely new product driving billions of dollars of revenue.
Etc...
There's no reason for you to have heard of any of this. I only know all about MS because I work for MS. But there's also no reason for you to talk about how MS reminds you of the "starving artist dilemma."