To elaborate further, the point of this memo isn't to alert the shareholders of Microsoft's organizational changes, it's about easing this transition with a motivational message about innovation and what not.
Even if the corporation's main aim is to benefit its shareholders, that unnecessary line is going to come across as alienating to employees, who probably care very little about how these changes will affect wealthy shareholders.
Ah yes, I see now. I definitely agree with you then. That line will most likely not sit well with employees that don't give a damn about the shareholders and would rather just create amazing products.
I wouldn't say stupid things like this. I work in Windows Phone and I have a lot of faith in our product (and judging by reactions to the 1020 and our customer sat ratings, it looks like I'm not alone). The Xbox One is exciting, and Windows 8+ has definitely opened a new chapter for the company.
If you have something stupid to say, keep it to yourself.
After the NSA revelations, the absolute last thing I plan to do is install a high-resolution, always online camera from Microsoft (or any major US corporation for that matter) in my living room.
No doubt. I am, however, interested in using depth-sensing technology for less nefarious, non-cloud-based means (see my profile). I like the technology, but I strongly dislike what Microsoft might do and is doing with it.
I dunno, I work in the cloud space, largely with fortune 500 companies, and I don't know of any off the top of my head that are investing in Azure.
That doesn't mean the article isn't technically accurate, of course, but I'd suspect that MSFT is being very generous with their definition of "using" and counting any pilot project in some engineering team as "using" - in which case I'm sure that most of the fortune 500 have someone somewhere playing with Azure.
But that's not the same as using from the standpoint that we typically think about it.
It's a very odd phrase to stick at the end there. To make sense of it I think you have to link the end to the start:
We will allocate resources ... with maximum return to shareholders
You have to imagine the meeting where they discussed this and someone thought that this sentence was going to sound to investors like a giant money pit. So in true committee style, they voted for a camel and stuck this odd phrase on the end to satisfy that person.
Even if the corporation's main aim is to benefit its shareholders, that unnecessary line is going to come across as alienating to employees, who probably care very little about how these changes will affect wealthy shareholders.