The problem here is not just when they quit but how they quit. I think MS is going to take a hit in their reputation over this and it is going to carry over into soured trust from crucial carrier partners (and really any other business partner) going forward.
Had they gone to Verizon and said "hey, I know we had a deal, but our business plans have changed and here is something that will be much better for both of us" then they could have killed it cleanly. It might have cost them some amount in terms of a dollar figure but it would have cost them a lot less in terms of reputation. Deliberately sabotaging something that you are doing in collaboration with a partner so that it fails on launch is a real trust breaker. How much faith would you put in Microsoft for the launch of WP7 now if you were Verizon? You certainly wouldn't be putting your business on the line.
Even without the Kin debacle, if I were being paid $1,000 an hour to advise partners about their relationship with Microsoft, I would suggest they look at PlaysForSure. It is NOT news that Microsoft will screw its partners, and they know it when they go into business with Ballmer.
Your father did business with Hyman Roth, he respected Hyman Roth... but he never trusted Hyman Roth!
My sense is that good products come out of groups where individuals are personally attached to them. Maybe in a large enough group of people it's impossible that a critical mass or at least the critical people are attached to the product.
There is a difference between quitting due to politics and design decisions. Some designs simply aren't feasible for the real world, and smart people know when they see one.
I doubt that mr. Kamen was talking about VCs on power trips.
