So they couldn't make a good case for the value of paying for that product vs using the free one. You know how many products die because people don't see the value?

I don't want it to look like I'm picking on you here (see my other comment above) but that's a naieve take on things.

Not sure you realise but in the corporate world it's about politics and money. People (above entry-level staff) do things to look good to their boss. That's it! And saving money is a great way of getting promoted: "Look boss, I just saved us $500k a year in license fees!".

Saving $X per year using a "free" tool from Microsoft will always trump anything you pay for especially if you are all in on Azure, O365 already. It's a no-brainer.

Not only that, once the decision is made, it will likely never be changed until the higher-up that made the decision moves on, quits, or is fired, no matter how wrong or bad the decision was (well, within reason, of course!)

I'd love it to be as simple as making a good case for the competition, and I've had to make that case many times over the years, but the reality is that a bundled product from Microsoft will win in a place that uses other Microsoft stuff, vs a paid product thats 100x better, faster, stronger, whatever.

It's like the old adage of why Enterprise software sucks so badly to use.

It's because it's being sold to managers and executives who don't actually end up using it, and never have to deal with the consequences of buying it.

Exactly. If you want a great example of this, look no further than Jira!

Maybe an unpopular statement but I don't think Jira is that bad by itself. It's just a very flexible and configurable system which ultimately ends up reflecting structure and complexity of the host organisation.

is it actually free? or are we collectively paying for it by allowing the big business to gain control of an otherwise competitive market and jack up prices

individuals are not pricing that in. coordination is needed. that's why we regulate the market