From my perspective, uninteresting. The fact that the colors represent products, as opposed to reflecting something that the company is about or is dedicated to, seems to reflect the most common criticism of Microsoft, which is that the company is a big pile of products and doesn't really mean anything.

I agree with Mark2 on this one I'm afraid. But then I'm sort of cynical when it comes to rebranding exercises, having experienced some utterly frivolous ones in places I've worked in the past. I imagine I'm not alone in this.

Since we're on the subject, reposting the Vanity Fair article for anyone who hasn't seen it yet:

http://www.vanityfair.com/business/2012/08/microsoft-lost-mojo-steve-ballmer

I am reminded of the NBC logo way back when: the network paid about $300 000 for two rhomboids, one red, one blue. Then a affiliate sued them because the had trademarked the exact same logo a year or so before. Invoice from the local graphic designer: 50 dollars.

Someone got paid for this...

Looks fine. I wonder however if this new trend for minimalism and simplicity will bounce back in the next decade with a rush for ornament and exaggeration in graphic design. Can't wait!