Should We Fear Microsoft's Monopoly?
Key topics
The debate rages on: should we be wary of Microsoft's stranglehold on the tech industry? As commenters dissect the company's history and evolution, some argue that Microsoft's dominance is a double-edged sword - while it's been a boon for enterprise customers, it's also stifled innovation and prioritized shareholder value over customer needs. A nostalgic undercurrent runs through the discussion, with some lamenting the loss of Microsoft's product-centric focus under leaders like Ballmer and Nadella, who've instead emphasized lucrative deals and cloud-first strategies. The conversation is sparked by a link to an article questioning Microsoft's monopoly, and commenters are weighing in with their takes on the company's trajectory and its implications for the tech landscape.
Snapshot generated from the HN discussion
Discussion Activity
Very active discussionFirst comment
49m
Peak period
33
3-6h
Avg / period
8.9
Based on 62 loaded comments
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Dec 16, 2025 at 5:56 AM EST
17 days ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Dec 16, 2025 at 6:45 AM EST
49m after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
33 comments in 3-6h
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Dec 18, 2025 at 5:03 AM EST
15 days ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.
In some of the Microsoft lore there seems to be a split between Gates as an "end user" guy and Ballmer as an "enterprise" guy. Despite taking his lumps in the late 2010s, it seems like Ballmer has prevailed as correct in his "enterprise" push. Microsoft has gotten really good at selling over steak dinners. Now Azure and M365 are starting to dominate. This gives Microsoft a strong distribution platform to push crappy initial versions of any would-be competitors to drive them out. They do tend to iterate those into decent products around the 3rd version.
But will people tire of that? I think so. I've gone all in on the belief that Gates' "end user" bias will prevail in the end.
Nadella would rather sell thin clients into Azure OS mainframe.
IMO Visual Studio presented an incredible opportunity to sell Copilot. Implement a MCP server, give the LLMs in Copilot all the tools available to a human developer to analyze and debug a codebase. Instead it's just a shitty autocomplete you have to turn off in order to get the good, IntelliSense autocomplete working.
Our parent company went hilt-deep into Copilot and ... now they're backing off, because nobody likes it!
I just don't get it. They couldn't get the AI people and the Visual Studio people in a room together? I guess, cynically, probably not, because the AI people aren't on the same continent as the Visual Studio people?
Very frustrating.
If yes, that would be great! I've been trying to bodge that together with clangd and emacs LSP, but the amount of yak shaving to get clangd actually working on our codebase (on which Visual Studio just works for the most part) is prohibitive for actually accomplishing anything.
I am pretty sure the the file explorer is "slow" because it's doing cloud sync crap in order to collect my data.
https://businesschief.com/news/why-bill-gates-warned-microso...
I thought the whole MS-DOS thing happened due to Billy's mom being secretary for the law firm that had IBM as a client.
Anyone large organization has ever moved away from dependency on US BigTech has done so piece by piece. China is the prime example. They've been decreasing their dependencies every year back from when it was at its highest. Percentage by percentage. This is the way.
> “Besides word processors, Microsoft also has security solutions, cables, servers in data centers, access control, SharePoint, and AI across all of this,” De Jong explains. “So simply replacing Microsoft isn't an option.”
> And switching only partially would require a lot of extra administrative work and money, and wouldn't reduce the risk of data blocking. The American giant is the largest supplier of software and services to TU/e.
I'd be surprised if this article wasn't indirectly written by Microsoft.
That's modern academia for you.
And software is just a small part, the physical world is nuch more importance. There too they've become more independent incrementally.
>> De Jong believes this will prevent US from simply pressing the ‘block access button’. Such a thing causes a lot of unrest, with financial consequences.
Very (Neville) Chamberlain-esque. Makes me wonder if his search for alternatives is the modern version of the Phoney War.
It's hard to take this seriously given that the ecosystem of alternatives has never been richer, IMO.
Word processing? Notion for web natives; my kids are growing up on Google Docs and Canva and will never know Office.
Email? Same for Gmail vs Outlook.
Messaging? While Microsoft gets a big chunk of the market via bundling Teams, there's Slack and a slew of options on the market for enterprise chat and messaging. They've also been forced to unbundle Teams in the EU market[0]
Cloud? AWS still holds a commanding lead and there are other vendors like Google, Oracle, et al. that offer competitive products.
Operating systems? My kids are growing up on ChromeOS. My dev team is maybe 80% macOS and 20% Linux. All of our software is shipped as Linux containers.
AI? Microsoft has aligned themselves with OpenAOI, but it's not hard to see that Google is very competitive in this space as is Anthropic not to mention the Chinese companies doing stellar work with model advancement. Microsoft's open source VS Code and Copilot let you pick from a slate of Anthropic, Google, or OpenAI models.
Very hard to take this seriously.
[0] https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_...
Just another log on the fire: Microsoft holds a lion's share of market, but not a monopoly (anymore).
Sure they won't use it at school?
I also don’t find it very reassuring how many people here are saying “well everything they do is on Google.” Same problem, different flavor.
And to be clear, this is far from modern day truth. My wife "works for the government" and the municipality uses Google.
That doesn’t make it not a monopoly
People use MS Office because other people use MS Office. It's network effects.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly
[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/monopoly
I imagine everyone on HN knows that simply linking Wikipedia is generally considered little more than a snarky, passive aggressive response. I don’t need the dictionary or Wikipedia definition of a monopoly for this conversation. I didn’t ask for it and you know that it wasn’t necessary or productive.
If you want to have an actual discussion I’m all ears.
Microsoft knows this, and they make business decisions to ensure their position stays secure. They may not be a monopoly in the strict sense (and I never said they were), but they're not a passive player who accidentally fell into this situation. We don't need to give trillion-dollar companies the benefit of the doubt here.
If the cost of migrating results in "minimal gain", doesn't that mean that they have a top product and the market has other competitive products by definition?
If you can provide some evidence of how they actively use business practices to maintain a monopoly, it would go a long way to advancing this discussion instead of showing long-held biases and I'm sure some lawyers out there would be ready to make a name for themselves.
Ofcourse the existence of 10 alternatives is meaningless if they count for 0.01% of given market section. Lol
The notion of 'there are other choices' is simply not the measure of a competitive landscape in systems with very high switching costs, incumbencies.
The pedestrian view that we have for 'competition' is 'retail' - you move from one shop to the next.
Big Industry is nothing like that.
They entrench themselves, with standards, process, procurement, brand, strategic leverage at the Executive layer, regulatory capture.
My local 'pharmacy corner store' has the same 10 chocolate bars my whole life: KitKat, Coffee Crisp etc. It never changes.
Does anyone in the world think that KitKat has some magical 'product quality' beyond the 10 000 other variations of chocolate?
No - they have 'market power'. They control distribution, they have deeply entrenched relationships with retail, they have relationships with coco producers, which shows up in a lot of ways.
If a buyer want access to the release of the 'New Swiffer' - you can't just try to 'drop our other products' like KitKat, besides, consumers have not been trained on a different product.
Consumers have seen a lifetime of KitKat ads, we don't necessarily like it, but it's a known quantity and we basically 'submit'. There are other choices, but a bit further back, a bit more expensive, a bit more unknown.
The very fact that 'chocolate bars' are unambiguously a commodity - and yet - there is no 'apparent broad market' should well serve to starting thinking more about how these systems work.
Google pays Apple an absolute fortune to be the 'first choice' on iPhone.
Google pays a fortune to create/control Chrome - which makes $0 in revenue, but which is a critical distributional component.
So your kids use 'something else' because they're in a situation where they can - but when the go to the office - do they make their own choice? No - IT does.
If IT wants to move away from just Word - then they loose deep integration with so many other things: MS Office is designed to be fully integrated precisely to thwart off all of those individual incumbents - the only way someone can make inroads, is on the margins with something really powerful, like 'Airtable'. Even then, it's relatively niche.
Combine that with the Operating System, which integrates deeply with chipsets and scale, and you can see the power.
I think that Slack is essentially a superior product, but the law firms, energy companies, gov offices are going to be sold 'Teams' and that's it. I know a lot of people who use teams and have literally never hear of Slack.
Slack is the 'niche chocolate bar in aisle 3 that costs 20% more, that they have never tried and not sure about - just buy KitKat'.
I have colleagues - very educated - who only use Copilot for AI - they think that's AI. They're not allowed to use anything else - because 'security'. Copilot is a ridiculously inferior product, not only do they exist in the ignorance of that, they actually think it's 'great', partly because 'It's Microsoft'.
The power of 'Brand at Scale' is really hard to fathom - managers and executives particularly are moved by this. They probably believe in institutional power and legitimacy more than anything and so MS because a 'hard default' that becomes difficult to overturn.
If there's a problem with some 'uppity gov. official' somewhere - MS can make discounts, steak dinners, custom integration, talk to people higher up in government, and make a strong case as why disrupting the 'default' should not happen.
ERP like SAP ... are just interminably integrated, and AWS/GCP are practically different products they are so different.
All of that is the tip of the iceberg.
There is no 'free market' in the way our instinct may apply, which is mostly derived from our 'retail' position in the value chain - the market operates a bit more differently at that level.
At that level 'Market Power' is the dominating factor, and 'product' is always second, generally things need only be 'sufficiently good'.
MS is an ok company and can create 'workable products', Google has some 'great' (and some terrible products), it's all they have to do to perpetuate - there is absolutely nothing anyone could do to displace them without some non-market force (aka government regulates competition).
If this dependency becomes a problem , and I would suggest finally in 2025 it is, then the only way out is coordinated action.
After all that I just said, the true power of institutionalization is not always hugely critical: if KitKat disappeared tomorrow nobody would care. If MS word was removed ... and everyone just choose something else, the world would not miss a beat. I truly believe that if we all woke up tomorrow and had to use Bing, it wouldn't matter that much.
Aside from major market disturbances, like AI in which those 'adept players' will probably be ahead anyhow, then it takes coordinated action to disrupt these systems.
It's much better to view those things through the lens of 'power' and not so much 'product', unless 'product' is absolutely decisive, novel, and/or it exists outside of locked-down value chains.
OS: Ubuntu is British, Linux Mint is Irish, there are French distributions, and let's not forget SUSe from Germany.
Office: there is LibreOffice, which is not very good IMO, but also OnlyOffice, I think it is German, also Proton, and Infomaniak from CH.
For file sharing, NextCloud exists, but if you want cloud services, there's Jottacloud, Koofr, Proton Drive, and more.
For cloud, Hetzner and OVH may not be as comprehensive, but that just means you have to hire consultants and specialists to simplify deployments to something similar to AWS tools. Perfectly possible.
E-mail, you can self-host or just use Tutanota, Protonmail, Soverin, mailbox.org; there are thousands, really.
To believe that we can keep Microsoft under control just because there is a financial transaction in between is to believe in the more than debunked Angela Merkel policy or pacifying and democratising Russia through trade. Germany stood behind Angela Merkel for years, and at the end, Russia invaded Georgia and Ukraine anyway.
Peace through trade does not work. The question is whether the Netherlands values money more than sovereignty, because of course Microsoft offers an all-in-one solution to governments, but the other options are all small parts of the IT ecosystem, which can be difficult to keep together.
I think the point is to avoid dependence on US based companies as opposed to getting away from Microsoft specifically. You will notice they did not mention obvious Google products as an alternative either.
---
1. https://proton.me/drive/sheets
You don't need to match their product. You have a smaller user base and smaller number of functionally to cover than Microsoft.
> That gives American companies power.
Guess what happens if you don't do anything?
The trend of universities sacrificing long-term sovereignty for minimal short-term savings is concerning. I have observed this in my home country, where the strategic investment in national technology (which would return back to the country) is dismissed in favor of cheaper foreign platforms like Google. This approach naively puts sensitive research and institutional data on external servers, creating vulnerability where access could be compromised[^1].
Hopefully this person does not express the opinion of that university.
[^1]: https://agorarn.com.br/ultimas/google-bloqueia-acesso-ufrn-c...
152 TB is something you can self host in a closet rack server, no need to tie yourself up to Google.
The only possible alternative to the entirety of Microsoft/Google is a European monopoly that is similar in scale. Indeed, such a monopoly does not exist (nor should it). People go to Microsoft and Google because they're already spending money on one product of theirs and there happens to be this completely different product of theirs which you also need as a business user. Sooner or later you end up using 20 completely different products that are "well-integrated" because at no point did you look for an alternative to any of those use cases.
Your job is not to go from 100% reliance on Google/Microsoft to 0% reliance, that'll never happen. Your job is to look at their offerings in isolation and reduce your reliance one product at a time. And yes, paying for 20 products from 20 companies is gonna cost you more when each of them needs to be profitable separately, only monopolies can afford to offer some product at a permanent loss.
It's a procurement fallacy to let a corporation dictate what features should be there and not.
What alternative does anyone have?
Second source … is one of the example of a major strategy against this.
Come on, that is an University, there are many many students eager to learn the art-of-migration, for free. Migrate away, one by one, department by department if needs be. Disable M$ Excel, give everyone Libreoffice , python, r, or any-other-linux-stuff, and if the professors are so wooden, let the students find a way to replace that wonder.xls with something else. Then repeat with next piece of the entanglement..
But, no, only complaining (a.k.a. need more money)
This seems much less like a "monopoly" sort of situation and more of a "you explicitly chose to put all of your eggs in one basket" kind of deal.