Starbucks, were the company to own up to the history of coffee, owes its origins -- not to the cafes of Italy where Howard Schultz drank the future -- but the coffeehouse culture of Central Europe. It wasn't as glamorous in the 80s and 90s to admit it, perhaps, and certainly there was no culture, coffeeshop or otherwise, to be had until McDonald's opened in Warsaw in the early 1990s.

Ironically, then, the Polish youth are embracing the newly-opened Starbucks cafes. Washington Post op-ed columnist Anne Applebaum is in Warsaw, and says that the new Starbucks there are met with open wallets and customers eager to buy the expensive brew and flaunt it, with "the famous green label facing outward."

I was drawn to a story in my local paper about New Hope Community Church outside Portland, Oregon -- two of my sisters have attended services there regularly, and it's a landmark in the metropolitan area. But what struck me as culture-changing was a quote from the developer who's working with church leadership. He has one goal as he plans an entirely new church-centered commercial complex: "We hope this will be a Starbucks experience from one end to the other."

Starbucks Corporation (NASDAQ: SBUX) has a funny relationship with God; after all, the chain famously offended a woman so much she boycotted its coffee. So how is purchasing and drinking a caffeinated beverage in a Starbucks outlet similar to going to church? Part of it is about the audience; churches (at least in my hometown) have moved away from the formal experience in which the members of the congregation are simply watching a show put on by the "cast" of the church, and toward more interactive experiences in which small groups, focused around common interests, meet to discuss Bible passages or work together on a project -- from feeding the hungry to overcoming addiction. The parallels in retail? Yep, less convention center, more coffee shop.

This is where Starbucks comes in.

Microsoft Corp. (NASDAQ: MSFT) is known as a stifler of individual culture in many ways, and why would it not be? Most companies that are decades old, global, and are billion-dollar enterprises emerged from a shifty, risk-taking entrepreneurship to bureaucratic, slow-moving, corporate monstrosities with so many layers of management that they would make the world's largest sheet cake jealous. Unfortunately for Microsoft, that apparent corporate culture is not sitting well with Bungie Studios, the game studio that created the Halo game series and have made more gaming and entertainment money for Microsoft that all other efforts combined. Halo 3, the latest in the series, has made $300 million for the company -- and it's not even two weeks out of release yet.

Is Bungie really trying to split away from its large corporate parent? Bungie pulled away from its parent to develop Halo 3 and even blocked entrance into its studio by Microsoft employees as development ramped up. Is this a sign of a small company not wanting to be ruled by its corporate overlord. Yes, it is -- but the best product sometimes comes from non-interference from the top brass. It's when you let Harvard MBAs and other folks out of touch with the real world start mandating things that innate innovativeness becomes trampled upon.

This is precisely what Bungie developers probably recognized. But to go as far as stating they want out of the marriage with Microsoft? That's intriguing, to put it mildly. I agree with Dvorak here -- in contrast to Google, Inc. (NASDAQ: GOOG), which encourages innovation and non-meddling from its employee population -- and then lets those ideas become actual products -- Microsoft is acting like some anti-innovation dinosaur in this case from all appearances. The world could stand to let smaller divisions do what they do best without interference from the large, ill-equipped bureaucracy.