Sure. The foundation of commerce is sustained relationships where value is mutually exchanged. I give you a few bucks, you give me a cheeseburger. If fix somebody's problem with a computer, they give me cash. Product for payment; value for value.
When some commercial effort departs from that, it's good to be suspicious. The bills are getting paid somehow. E.g., look at network television from 1960-2000 or so. The viewers were not customers. The viewers were the product being sold to people who wanted to manipulate them. Advertisers were the customers, so the programs were generally about getting maximum influenceable wallet-connected eyeballs; quality was at best secondary.
In contrast, look at what's happened to TV since then. We're in a golden age. [1] Why? Many reasons, but a key one is that people are now paying for TV directly. To Netflix and Hulu and HBO and all the other paid streaming efforts, you're the customer, not the product being sold to somebody else. Now they have a strong incentive to make things that you don't just tolerate but love.
Microsoft in particular has a history of monopolistic behavior that has been harmful to the industry (e.g., [2], [3]). Are these developer tools awesome just because Microsoft is run by nice, generous people? I'd say instead they correctly recognize that if they want to regain some of their lost market power, they're going to have to compete with the existing tools, many of which are quite good. Why are they good? I'd say it's partly because smart people have built a strong business [4] making those tools. If Microsoft manages to eliminate the competition, they'll lose the incentive to build good stuff, just like they have in the past.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Age_of_Television_(2000...
[2] https://eev.ee/blog/2020/02/01/old-css-new-css/
[3] http://www.ecis.eu/documents/Finalversion_Consumerchoicepape...
[4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21796793