The only company that leaps to mind that acts like they are actively afraid of Microsoft is Valve. It's the only explanation for keeping the SteamOS alive I can think of (and developing it in the first place, for that matter), and the way it has neither been shut down, nor really given the push it needs to succeed. It's insurance, and as long as it's a half-viable insurance policy, it's doing its job.
Everywhere else, either Microsoft is still the underdog against some very strong incumbent or incumbents (Azure, mobile), or the competition is a decade-old corpse (Office).
Valve isn't afraid of Microsoft, they're just critical of their motives. Steam will always be the destination for digital PC games and there's nothing Microsoft can ever do to change that. Everytime Microsoft has tried to challenge Steam they've failed spectacularly. Microsoft and PC gaming just don't go together.
Well, I think this is a bit rude. I myself am not a PG fan, but let's not be mean people about it (I come here because the decency high water mark is usually higher than other forums).
Some people have a track record, and you might trust them more because of it. They might still be wrong. Don't hold people up as demigods?
I'm not expressing an opinion about anyone with this; I would like to point out that being a genius is no bulwark against being a tedious windbag. Or heartbreakingly stupid. Or anything, really.
"No one is even afraid of Microsoft anymore. They still make a lot of money—so does IBM, for that matter. But they're not dangerous."
Which I think remains largely true?