If I did most of my clients a logo like that I'd be embarassed knowing it took all of 2 minutes in Photoshop, but somewhere out there it's justified an enormous price tag for work like this based on the fact its got 'elegant typography' or 'clean geometric lines' and other such things. I know there are print friendly benefits and such as well but overall my feeling is a logo like this only works if you are a company big enough that you don't have to sell yourself and you can afford lots of whitespace and clean brochure type design work.
Pretty much most fo the time these things take longer. Your goal with a logo or website design is to refine it down to the most simplistic elements. That is actually quite hard and the best logos are the clever ones that are the easiest to do.
I do not think they spent millions on this. They have the "Metro" or what ever it is called concept of flat square tiles, you got the existing logo and you got their new font developed. Likely this was formed based on the brief by the designer as well as some possible other alternatives. Bet you this was one of the first ones made up and the rest did not get approval.
In terms of a logo to introduce more colour but also consider all the printing costs etc. I think it is pretty good.
The only issue I have with it is that the text font is not the new font MS are using in their UI. I bet the designer did do this original but had to comprimise betwen the old Arial variation font of the old logo which was quite fat and the new font style.
Corporate company, the logo does ooze comprimise.
