I read through and believe they are being earnest. It's still a one-sided take, but it's a side we hadn't yet heard and it makes sense. It also reinforces tod

I read through and believe they are being earnest. It's still a one-sided take, but it's a side we hadn't yet heard and it makes sense. It also reinforces today's general line of thinking vis-a-vis Microsoft's involvement (not to mention the Middle Eastern tour Sam was recently on). All that said, even if this is 100% true, if you put yourself in the shoes of one of the board members you still have difficult decisions to make. If Sam, especially with Greg's support, believed he could run things dictatorially, then it is/was up to the board to decide how to deal with that (or not deal with it). It makes sense that the board ignored megalomaniacal behaviors for a long time because everything was up and to the right, but at some point recently they must have started feeling completely disintermediated, which became an existential threat (for them and probably for their perception of adequate corporate governance). As they frequently say, this has the makings of a Havard Business School test case, but let's see how everything pans out over the next couple of weeks before jumping to too many conclusions.