In acquiring services, Microsoft is a different type of tech giant than Google and Facebook.

Microsoft is a meta-platform

Google and Facebook are (mere) platforms, so when they acquired competing platform startups, they wanted to either integrate them into their platforms or shut down their services.

In contrast, Microsoft is not necessarily looking to "integrate" acquisitions into their platform. Integration requires change, and poses a risk in case users dislike the change. Microsoft has so far acquired platforms but has not necessarily integrated them.

After Microsoft acquired LinkedIn, Minecraft, GitHub, etc, they have not fundamentally "changed" to fit into Microsoft's "platform". Instead, MS just boosted these platforms/products to continue on the same path they were on before.

MS is interested in being the underlying platform *beneath* these platforms. It wants the metadata and to observe successful platforms as they develop, learn from it and be omniscient on the internet. That's extremely valuable.

It's also convenient to be a meta-platform, as they can hide behind layers of complexity. If you open GitHub right now, it will be hard to see that it's actually Microsoft. Same for LinkedIn.

Supposing Microsoft would buy N more services (TikTok, etc), basically large parts of the internet could be Microsoft property and you wouldn't notice. That's a key idea in their strategy.