Even though there are technically superior alternatives that are free, Microsoft users still opt to pay for an inferior and closed source product.
I don’t think many ordinary people at home or at work can work with more than one IT infrastructure. I see this every day in a small voluntary association, run mostly by retired people, that has to communicate with its members, other associations, the municipality, and numerous other authorities.
However, as I’ve proposed elswhere, I’m fairly convinced that Microsoft still sees the need to use subtle unfair tactics to hinder FOSS developments. Sometimes it’s more blatant. For example, it seems to be difficult to get their “Teams” videoconference application to work sufficiently reliably on Linux (at least they don’t say how to do it); given its dominance in higher education, this locks out impecunious students from using recycled computers and soon will force the replacement of Windows 10 machines with new Win 11 ones.
In fact, the problem is more strategic. When I was younger, no component (electronic or other) could be used in an aerospace or military project unless the manufacturer had arranged with a rival to ensure that a second source would always be available. Surely, the present big tech companies are particularly vulnerable in that respect: the boss might go crazy, a datacentre could get smashed or flooded by the latest meteorological catastrophe, or the product (with the clients’ personal data and cloud storage) could get hacked by anyone from a disgruntled employee to a disgruntled foreign power.