What benefits are there of sticking to a single 'ecosystem'? For example, if I stuck to either Google, Microsoft or Apple I wouldn't be able to get cloud storage on my Linux PC (*). So I use Dropbox. As far as I can tell, it works at least as well as the other services on all my devices. However, because WP is optimised for SkyDrive and support for other cloud storage is limited, it makes WP much less attractive to me. It would be better if Microsoft allowed a level playing field for any cloud storage service.
Sticking with the cloud storage example, you can argue that Apple favour iCloud, but they have implemented it so badly that it actually works against them. I'm don't really understand what iCloud does for me, apart from backing up a random selection of pictures on my iPad, but in a way that I can't access from any other machine.
(*) Actually it is possible to use Google Drive with Linux, but it's an unofficial third party solution.
The benefits are more seamless integration, a more consistent experience, and little or no setup/configuration. I haven't had to configure SkyDrive/OneDrive on any device since Windows 7. It just works from the moment I log in for the first time. By itself, that is not a big deal. However, I can say that now about a lot of things thanks to the synching functionality in Windows 8.x, Windows Phone, and various MS services. Having said that, your reasoning for using Dropbox due to Linux support is perfectly valid, but it's no more valid than me going with OneDrive because Dropbox doesn't have a first party client for my Windows Phone (which I use far more than Linux). Dropbox would be my next choice if OneDrive no longer met my needs. I don't always go with the ecosystem option though. I buy my music from Amazon for example.
I'm not saying that the ecosystem approach is always the way to go. I'm just saying that if it's a fairly open ecosystem and it meets your requirements, then it can be a good choice as there are often benefits to be had from the ecosystem itself.
As far as Microsoft (or others) allowing deeper "ecosystem like integration" with third party services, that isn't really feasible since they don't have control over the third party service. MS can provide advanced integration of their own products and services because they can guarantee that those things will remain compatible and change together. They can't be sure of that with third party services and they can't make a "consistent experience" for products/services that they don't create themselves. They can provide APIs (they already do), but that only goes so far. APIs, by definition, are generic implementations of functionality so they don't lend themselves to the unique functionality that various services might provide.
I totally agree with you on iCloud as an example of an ecosystem that works against you. I feel this way about most of Apple's services which is why I never really got into Apple products.
BTW: OneDrive is also accessible in Linux via third party tools and apparently gnome 3.x has built in support now. I haven't tried it myself yet though.
Gnome gains Microsoft SkyDrive Support | woGue
Sorry - while I agree that MS is in general more suitable for enterprise, the kind of statements you make about people getting fired, etc, are simply FUD.
Corporations like the Roche Group (85k) seats have moved to Google Apps. Many US government orgs like the GSA as well, many city administrations, the NOAA and several others. Or think about KLM and the Trump hotel chain. And of course, Google themselves seem to do quite well without MS infra.
Every employee of every company doesn't need the full capabilities of Excel or Word. I work in corporate engineering for a large organisation (2k seats) and we only deploy Office to a small percentage of our staff (business analysts, quant analysts and a few others). The rest use Google Apps or OpenOffice and we've faced few complaints so far.
True enough, but I'm not talking about just replacing one product line like Office. I'm talking about someone making the decision to replace all MS technology in a company with Apple/Google. For example, replacing all the Windows workstations with Macbooks, iPads, or Chromebooks. Replacing all of the Windows servers, Hyper-V, MSSQL servers, Active Directory, Exchange, Visual Studio, etc. with some mystery Apple/Google products that don't even currently exist. It is no exaggeration to say that it would put a lot of companies out of business if all of a sudden the only thing their employees could do is what can be done on Apple/Google products. Now if someone wants to say that Oracle, VMware, RedHat, HP, or IBM might rise up and give MS a run for it's money then I wouldn't say it's impossible (quite unlikely though). However, there is no way that Apple or Google are going to become leaders in the enterprise market just because a bunch of kids with iPods became adults and decided to change things to the brand they like. That is the topic that I was addressing.
It's interesting to me that your company uses a mix a different office suites. If it works for you that is great, but generally in enterprise IT that kind of thing often comes with hidden costs. Instead of supporting one product the IT department is supporting 3 (and perhaps various versions of those 3). It can also lead to productivity issues when workers have to spend time dealing with document formatting issues due to incompatibilities. Anyway, if it works for your company for that product line then great, but I wouldn't consider it a sound strategy for most companies or for multiple product lines.
One question - if you remove enterprise-focused products and revenue from MS, what's left?
Tens of billions of dollars per year. MS is actually quite diversified.