>Do we know these things about the people who made the cars we drive, the computers we use, our favorite cereal? No. Maybe this is the exact paradox. Some are feeling betrayal on a personal level. Ultimately it came down to a business decision which I think was announced as personally as could reasonably be expected from a large corporation. Maybe they do it differently outside North America but I never expected a full explanation of the whys and wherefores that led to the decision. To me it exceeded expectations that Alan Griver announced it personally on the UT and has stuck around to talk about it.
>
>Besides, would we really want to know what the reasons behind the decision were? Let me make a perhaps inapt analogy. We have probably all been dumped at one time or another by a lover or someone we wanted to be a lover. Would we really be happier if they had told us why in specific detail? Maybe "We seem so distant lately, maybe we should see other people" is the most humane approach.

I failed to explicitly make a distinction between the Fox team and Microsoft. While the team is just like you describe them, and YAG is here to explain as much as he can, it's the part that he can't (or is not allowed to) speak about. That part is marked as "strategic level" which IMO is necessarily above and beyond the team. From the stories of former team members I'm getting a picture of a team which was too good for where it was.

So these attempts to get the story behind the story are probably not a search for "what did I do wrong to make her leave me", but rather "when did she start this game, and what was true in what she said". I'd agree with Peter de Valença that we're told part of the story. I'd rather hear the true version from the source than sherlock my version out of scraps.