(In looking at that part I have to wonder what graveyard would house an executive that bypassed Larry Ellison or Steve Jobs in this way).
As in most companies I imagine there is a lot of finger pointing going on and Ill bet the folks that were right are actually being pounded more for writing the memos than being congratulated for getting it right. This would be like the Democratic primaries criticizing Obama for voting against the war because he made the other Democrats who voted for it look stupid. Personally I think the focus should be on eliminating the tendency to do stupid things, but then what do I know?
In the end, however, these memos point to one sustaining advantage that Apple seems to have: they know who their customer is.
Microsoft, on the other hand, seems to have trouble telling whether their customer is a chip vendor, an OEM, the IT executive, or the end user. What seems to come through is whichever one is connected to the decision maker with the most power is the one who drives the decision. And that seems, particularly with the OS, to lead to serious problems and a conflicted product. Forget getting the product right, it is amazing they were (given these contradictory alliances) able to get the thing out the door.
For the Windows OS the OEM is the Only Customer that Should Matter
Desktop Options: Pros and Cons
The Death of the Ugly PC: Apple Inspires HP and Dell
Asus Eee PC: Why is it SO Hot?
The 2008 IT Salary Guide
Apple can focus on the end user because they sell a complete system, hardware and software, to that end user. But Intel, AMD, and Microsoft, all of which sell parts of a solution, have as their primary customers (primary customers being defined as those which actually are responsible for sending you a check) PC OEMs who own the solution.
I should point out that on the Server side the focus is clearly on IT and that, I think, helps point to why the Windows Server 2008 launch is doing substantially better.
The secondary customer is the user who has to live with the platform and clearly there has to be some effort to ensure that the OEMs will be as successful as possible if Microsoft is to be successful. But, since Microsoft only sells a fraction of their OS volume directly to end users, the OEMs should be their primary focus. And where theres a disagreement the OEMs should win out because they own their own success.
Developers are partners, who drive their own solutions, and they too must be considered particularly if you want a rich application base. But if you look at the success of the new iPhone which has no developers yet the customer experience is vastly better than any phone with them, which clearly indicates where the priorities should reside.
In Apple, which is a hardware company, you know that the hardware side drives how much the OS can push hardware. As Leopard came to market it was less and less backwards compatible with old hardware, which made it a better engine for new hardware sales, and created a greater opportunity to sell this new hardware. Apple customers appear to like this approach.
(Although it did get the short-term nick name Leoptard suggesting that even Apple had issues, generally its reception has been very positive.)
On the PC side, HP was the most aggressive on trying to create an Apple-like connection between Vista, their hardware, and related marketing and they were rewarded with the strongest growth. This further showcases the power of connecting the dots and letting the OEMs take the lead in providing direction. If Microsoft had focused on supporting HP and other OEMs more with Vista, the result would have likely been far more powerful.