Companies ultimately participate in the economy with their products and services. Infrastructure is an asset used to provide these services and goods, which can

Companies ultimately participate in the economy with their products and services. Infrastructure is an asset used to provide these services and goods, which can (through economies of scale and similar effects) make the company more competitive. However, Microsoft's services and products wouldn't be competitive in the natural, free market as exceedingly similar products can be provided cheaper. This is just general microeconomics. We can also ask whether Microsoft's market is free, from a macroeconomic perspective. I would say it is not. There is still a very significant consumer lock-in from Microsoft's dominant position. Some would even argue that this lock-in is monopolistic as Microsoft created many markets it inhabits (operating systems, home publishing, small business software, PC gaming, and similar). I don't mean to criticize here - monopolistic is a very loaded word politically. Objectively, It's natural that businesses are monopolistic for some time when they create markets. But not forever. My point is that Microsoft's monopolistic position is not sustainable unless it provides services that are either significantly differentiated or cheaper than the competition. As such, it should not command its market cap. Microsoft understands this, as its strategy is to establish itself as a monopoly in emerging markets (like AI) by using "embrace and extend," a business tactic they are known for. But I don't believe monopolies in moat-less markets are easy to sustain. This, once again, brings the market cap into question. Perhaps I am missing something; this is just my opinion, anyway. But I am trying to look at it objectively from a corporate finance perspective. It's easy to get lost in marketing speak. Microsoft does a lot of "upward management" aimed at its public shareholders, so it's important to look at the fundamental facts. Microsoft is an impressive company, and it has many things to brag about, but some matter more in its actual business economics, and some matter less. I don't believe infrastructure matters as much as the monopolistic lock-in they have (for now) and the competitive edge they don't. Perhaps they will find a more sustainable business model as it's clear from how their products and offerings have been developing that they are urgently trying to.