[raxxorrax]

The problem is that you can just starve any competition when you are large enough. Amazon did that with a lot of competitors. On the console market you can it see very clearly, although here two behemoths are fighting it out.

Following Microsofts own statements and that from their sales team, Teams was indeed free to lure more users.

I don't think this particular issue is a problem, but the overall structure of tech enterprises is a problem. At least when it hits consumers instead of competitors at one point.

[dcolkitt]

> The problem is that you can just starve any competition when you are large enough. Amazon did that with a lot of competitors.

Amazon did that by offering superior prices, customer service, product range, delivery, etc. That's only a problem if Amazon raises prices or cuts quality after it's competitors are vanquished. What we've observed is just the opposite. Amazon continue to relentlessly push lower prices, better customer experience and faster delivery.

Competition is not a goal in and of itself. It's merely a means to the end of improving consumer welfare. Antitrust law is careful about this distinction. It's not illegal to be a monopoly because you delight you consistently delight your customers much than your competitors. In fact just the opposite, restraining a superior product from growing its marketshare would be actively harmful to consumer welfare.

[raxxorrax]

No, there are clearly other limits as well.

You can also see it with in retail and agriculture. Producers get exploited in the name of the customer. Retails wants as few suppliers as possible and left unchecked, it just reaches unsustainable proportions that certainly are unhealthy in a lot of ways.