Because this would create an environment where an ethical alternative could appear. Although, looking back at the history of Google, a cynic in me says the users will lose in the end anyway.
>Because this would create an environment where an ethical alternative could appear.
That's exactly like saying "if we remove this dictator form this middle eastern warzone, a peaceful and ethical leader will naturally replace him".
No mate, you'll get no ethical alternative, instead Google and friends will immediately take over the power vacuum left by Microsoft before any start-up can even begin hiring.
Nah, your analogy would be replacing that dictator with multiple federal or city governments. Sure, it will not magically make things better, but having changes/competition get started at smaller scales is much easier. So having multiple "google and friends" is preferable over just one.
Sure, there are plenty of alternatives, many are superior, but because of inertia and policies it's difficult to eradicate Microsoft variants. That's why many of us have to put up with broken products like Teams on a daily basis even though everybody (i.e. users, middle management, top management) know they're broken and half-useful when compared to competition.
Changing Operating systems is not a small feat. Also there are MANY enterprise applications that depend on windows, windows server, or Microsoft SQL server. It is not an easy task to migrate away from those. That is why companies pay Microsoft $$$$$$ in licensing.
Because of a "dominant market position". Nobody says "can't appear" or says anything about a literal monopoly or literally not exist (or whether butterflies are made out of butter); that is just short hand and how language works. The point is that any alternative, ethical or not, is much too easily stifled in the current environment. Allowing competition to actually happen would be better.
Because the whole history of Microsoft is based on the EEE paradigm. And now because of inertia it's almost[0] impossible to move away from it for any org that has been using their products for years.
[0] "Almost", because I know some large orgs that finally managed to break away, but it wasn't easy at all.
I was thinking about this recently as someone suggested it might be an American thing. But I don't think so - there are plenty of unethical companies in Europe, too. They often manage to exploit some loophole in the law and, say, sell expensive things to old people under some apparently legitimate guises. Or they'll fake car engine tests.
But ethical (=ethically neutral) companies definitely exist, and there are many of them.