This is missing a very important part of how certain software became de facto standards: by achieving dominating market share, which, in turn, was achieved by shipping working software with passable UX, ruthless business practices, making governments use the software, and making schools teach the software.
I'm writing this because the software is already there. There are decent alternatives to most things, sometimes multiple. What isn't there is government adoption, and commercial adoption.
I agree and the fact the governments prefer commercial and costly software instead of adopting open source solutions and hire local companies for support and custom development is very disturbing : they spend the taxpayers money to make rich a bunch of already disgusting rich companies. And when this company is a foreign company the damage for the state money balance (and citizens of course) is double.
That's exactly right and I think it's no much "preferring", rather than getting different deals from these companies like Microsoft. MS has already been caught specifically, but also I think that this phenomenon is hardly exclusive to software, it's just part of how the government, or rather the individuals in government, go about their business. In the third world it's practically an open secret, and I don't have doubt that basically every government works like this.
Also, large companies offer quite robust support, deals to implement specific features, compliance with different regulations, etc. I know from experience that one thing I like about dealing with large entities is that they have many corner cases already figured out.
I'm writing this because the software is already there. There are decent alternatives to most things, sometimes multiple. What isn't there is government adoption, and commercial adoption.