> If there is competition MS seems to be playing a fair game. I hope it stays that way.
The structure of US corporations is such that they are fundamentally misaligned with playing a fair game. Corporations have two types of cycles: growth, and profit taking.
Regardless of who is in charge of Microsoft today, when Microsoft reaches a position of dominance, the leadership will be shifted by the board and shareholders to focus on exploiting that dominance, rather than continuing to play fair. We are only seeing fair play because Microsoft's position in the open source world is not yet entrenched.
Yeah, my most optimistic hope is that Microsoft and the other general software/services titans (Google, Apple, Amazon, Facebook) keep each other in equilibrium and in non-dominance, like 1984's Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia.
And hopefully there's room for smaller titans to provide specialized alternatives, e.g. Spotify, Dropbox, Gitlab, Zoom
I don't doubt that MS would take advantage of market dominance again if it was achieved somehow, and I am sure they are making these plays with increasing their ecosystem in mind.
One interesting acquisition to look at is LinkedIn which they have really tightened the screws on to the point where everyone looking for employees or trying to find a job is made to pay. This is especially vile for the unemployed IMHO.
On the other hand, the eager monopolist of the day is really Amazon, and MS taking them on is a good thing for the ecosystem.
If there is competition MS seems to be playing a fair game. I hope it stays that way.