[resu_nimda]

That seems like a somewhat inaccurate takeaway. A few of them "gave them back" because they didn't like the pressure and/or wanted to change their menu. Bourdain of course doesn't care much for them but he was the only one in the article that really took that attitude (and being a rebel is kind of his thing). Other chefs mentioned were devastated to lose them.

There are certainly some misgivings about the organization and process but it seemed like most of them still consider a 3-star to be the top honor in fine dining.

[mturmon]

It's really a mixed bag. Michelin favors a certain type of place -- posh, traditional, French -- and doesn't know what to do with other cuisines. This could be OK if you are in France, or if you share that taste, but it doesn't translate well and doesn't serve many diners well.

For a view of how this looks to a very adventurous and accomplished reviewer (look him up if you don't know), see Jonathan Gold's take here: http://www.laweekly.com/restaurants/michelin-tires-2151006

Teaser:

"Michelin is usually one of the guidebooks I take with me when I visit France, although I tend not to use it much. In Paris, Patricia Wells and the Pudlo guide are better at pointing me to the kind of restaurants I like best; in the rest of the country, I prefer Gault Millau. Outside France, Michelin is all but useless — in most of Italy, you could probably find better restaurants by sticking a pin into a map than you could by following the guide, and while Gordon Ramsay’s supremely boring London flagship gets three stars, Fergus Henderson’s splendid St. John, a restaurant that visiting chefs head off to the second they land at Heathrow, has none."