They started off trying to build something people want (Basic for the Altair) just like any YC company. I wouldn't say that most YC startups display any less ambition than building a Basic interpreter.
Gates was hungry for that deal and beat Kildall to the punch, doing what he needed to, bending the rules/law to get his foot in the door at IBM.
The essay by pg about "doing good" mentioned by someone in this thread might ring true when the valves are open and VC funding is flowing freely but in the new financial reality that we are in, I am arguing that it is the companies that have this kind of ruthlessness that will be the ones who make it, not the ones who want to "do good". Microsoft is not an outlier in this practice. It is self-evident that this is the American way of business.
I still go back to my original comment, which is that when you boil this whole question down, it makes no sense at all.
You are asking me for "specific examples of a YC startup not being ruthless". But I am asking for the inverse - examples of aggressiveness. I haven't seen any at YC. Have you? Perhaps you don't believe it's necessary or important but that was the premise of my original question. I insist that this is not a troll but a sincere question and an important one in the current economic environment, even more especially for companies not privileged by YC funding.
The YC founders I've met in person have been plenty assertive, and when it comes to business, some are pretty downright ruthless. They are nice guys outside of business (which is probably why you don't see them as ruthless or assertive), but they have just as much killer instinct as any other entrepreneur I've met, and more than some. PG seems to select for that - perhaps that's why I was rejected 4 times. ;-)
When I saw the title, my first thought was "Umm, wow. People really think that?"
I mean, they haven't thrown any bricks through their competitors' windshields, but they haven't passed up any chances to make their competitors look half-baked.