[flagged]
The idea that completely unencumbered markets would actually give good outcomes for society is a complete fantasy.
Let's say company A is monopolizing a market. New company B finds a way to make company A's product providing exactly the same value, except half as expensive. A healthy market would reward company B and consumers both by allowing that innovation to spread, providing a return for those that invented it and a cheaper product for consumers, leading to greater prosperity for society. However, in the market you speak of, company A can simply use their orders of magnitude more wealth to undercut company B for a time until they go bust.
What incentive is there to innovate, to improve, in a market that doesn't reward it?
It is all a dog and pony show now to chase the investors while centralize and concentrate wealthy in the hands of very few.
Edit: do think we ought to promote using Penpot type of alternative to proprietary counter part.
Anecdotally, I know someone that spent two years intentionally sabotaging an M&A deal that would replace his internal product and team in a company. He and his colleagues were successful and everyone thinks the acquirer was a dumbass for doing it, but with more knowledge about the misaligned incentives it starts to become more clear.