[Wytwwww]

Companies intentionally trying not to hurt their competitors can't really be described as anything else than a cartel (even if it's not explicit) that's almost invariably horrible for consumers (.e.g. telecom companies, banks, etc. in many countries).

Ideally you always want to see companies trying to run their competitors out of business by undercutting them and offering better products at lower prices. The issue when the playing field isn't level e.g. what MS is doing here is basically predatory pricing. But even then it's not exactly clear cut, e.g. did Uber running out many taxi companies out of business (or destroying their profit margins) was a net-negative or a net positive to consumers?

[rkuodys]

Net negative. Long term it's gonna be net negative due to lower competition, as now there are usually only 2 players in town. Inevitably they are going to raide prices for customers and reduce earnings for drivers

[Wytwwww]

> Net negative

Compared to taxis? Well I guess it depends on where you live, but I wouldn't' generally agree.

It's also a highly commoditized market with little real barriers to entry (at least on the local level) and drivers/users can pretty much instantly switch to a different app so I think it will be reasonable hard for Uber/etc. to do that without someone undercutting them.

> due to lower competition

Still better than no competition and prices being set by a legal cartel (i.e. how taxis worked/work in many places)