I wonder where the line is. Is it ok for a startup like slack to attempt to 'kill email'? Is it ok for a startup like Slack to try to 'destroy' email? What abou

I wonder where the line is. Is it ok for a startup like slack to attempt to 'kill email'? Is it ok for a startup like Slack to try to 'destroy' email? What about destroying Outlook specifically? I'm also wondering to what degree this would apply if Google didn't have so many products; would it be ok for Gmail employees to destroy Outlook if Gmail was its own company, separate from all the rest? As a personally competitive person, I tend to be motivated by a drive to destroy the competition and deprive them of business (through fantastic products and great customer service), whether that competition is internal or external to the business. The existence of upstart competitors is explicitly licensed by the failure of established competitors to failing to serve their customers well. If you work at a place like Microsoft Office in 2010, do you just continue to excuse the existence of things like Google Docs? Would it be wrong to destroy their business prospects by getting in on the online collaborative editing game? Would it have been wrong to do so in 2003, when internal engineers prototyped it, before Google Docs was released? Many companies that were dominant have seen their near-monopoly positions eroded by new entrants; I can't help but think they were hurt by lack of a drive to destroy the competition and keep it that way. One example seems to be Adobe Illustrator and Sketch. It would have been better for consumers if Adobe just came out with its newer tools like XD, rather than waiting for Sketch to force their hand. I'm wondering where the line is between healthy competitive drive and anticompetitive behavior/thinking.