This sort of thing has been MS's playbook since I was a kid, or earlier. It surprises me that people are still surprised when things like this happen. I especially think someone with Miguel de Icaza's experience should know better[0]. It's interesting to see the generational difference here. Many of my somewhat-younger (even only by 7-10 years) programmer/techie friends just don't remember the Microsoft of the 80s an…
Any contribution that M$ (remember when people would sub the S for a dollar sign?) makes to open source or open standards is to support their own bottom line and we shouldn't expect anything else. The directors have a legal responsibility to the company and to boost the share price, not for the betterment of humanity. To this effect, companies will contribute to open standards when it's better for the share price, and will seek to screw open standards when it's better for the share price.
Public companies are inherently evil by default -- this is because the only goal of a public company is to strengthen the share price. I've said it before and I'll say it again: always assume bad faith when you're dealing with a company.
From this, it doesn't matter what people thought of Microsoft before, or what they think of them now. Microsoft like all companies has a single goal. If we can pressure these companies to coast in a certain direction then great. But we shouldn't ever believe that companies can 'turn over a new leaf' when they legally cannot. FAANG is the same. Ford is the same. Starbucks is the same.
Every company is exactly the same, but the larger they grow, the more visible and impactful these actions become. Microsoft has been in the spotlight for decades because it has been a juggernaut for decades. But it's hardly unique in what it does. Our real concerns should be why regulators were quick to put the smack down on Microsoft but have since turned into paper tigers and are allowing unhinged monopolization from FAANG in 2022.