I'm talking more about "peers" than what I think you're referring to as "partners". E.g. 3Com as I cite elsewhere, Verizon WRT to the Kin, the company they licensed the start of Internet Explorer from (expected royalty payments never materialized when the gave it away for free), the examples go on and on and on.
But I suppose with Balmer the salesman in charge in between Gates and Nadella they'd avoid sales channel betrayals like that.
With regards to the Kin, I think Verizon shafted MS on that one. The device was good for it's time (something with photos and music targeted at teens that didn't have a full web connection), but Verizon forced you to buy a full $30/mo web plan to use those features (this was back when the web options were $30/mo unlimited plans or no web connection at all).
If there was a cheaper connection just for the Kin, it would've done reasonably well as a replacement for the Sidekick.
The lateness of the Kin is supposed to be one of the reasons Verizon did that, the market window had passed. It was also only a fraction of what was promised, heck, what Danger and T-Mobile delivered years earlier (as far as I know you're wrong about what it actually delivered at launch vs. what was promised).
Microsoft's database blunder with the Sidekick less than a year before the Kin's release (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Sidekick_data_loss) also contributed, I'm sure, at that time few were willing to trust them with their data. It's a testament to how far Microsoft has come that that's apparently changed with Azure.
In this case, I view Verizon as replying in kind. Which is part of my point, when you treat your peers like s*, there are consequences.
But I suppose with Balmer the salesman in charge in between Gates and Nadella they'd avoid sales channel betrayals like that.