Because integration is very difficult to achieve in one company (just look at Google vs Apple products), let alone across multiple. I don’t see how that has anything to do with buying small startups.

However since you mentioned that, preventing M&A will not only prevent our bigger tech companies from being globally competitive by restricting their access to talent, it’ll shut off one of the main exit routes that’s made doing a startup far safer. It’ll mean failures will end up in $0 for everyone, less money in returns to a VC, which will mean less money in returns to the retirement funds and whatnot that invest in VCs (which is bad for all of our 401ks), so VCs will be even more careful about who they invest in, which means less capital going around for startups generally. That will reduce American competitiveness.

> Because integration is very difficult to achieve in one company (just look at Google vs Apple products), let alone across multiple.

This is clearly false. All sorts of industry defined standards work quite well. When companies don't create interoperability it isn't because it is too hard...

You seem to suggest that few giant companies are optimal. If so, why not take that to the full extend - have just one player in the market by the government nationalizing all tech companies and merging into one?

(I am not suggesting that as a credible alternative).

Because competition is good, and monopolies are bad. It’s just that we don’t actually have any monopolies in the tech industry, and people who say we do are wrong and/or pursuing an agenda that has nothing to do with market competition.

Because economies of scale, automation due to use of software, and near zero marginal costs mean the bigger you are, the more you can offer customers at a lower price.