Let's see: By increasing prices Microsoft exploits already hooked business, increasing their costs; Google by adding ads cuts traffic to non-paying sites (ads are on top) and causes consumers to pay more. All these have consequences and display no innovation, just opportunism.
Sure gambling is a tricky moral issue but it's legal. Entire communities and even states depend on it. Why shouldn't Zynga get a cut?
It's a completely different type of exploitation to online gambling. Online gambling exploits individuals, some of whom struggle with reason and control at great expense to themselves and the people around them. The profit gained from these individuals is sometimes not proportionate to the amount of pain it inflicted.
Office raising their prices mainly exploits businesses. These businesses are not buying Office based strongly off impulse and irrationality, and I'm sure a lot of these companies would not weep regrettably into their pillows after purchasing it. Their buying process is rational, and based on need. Online gambling can be entirely irrational, out of control and is never based on addressing a need.
I think from a utilitarian point of view it would be quite easy to argue that online gambling causes net misery.
I don't blame Zynga for taking this route, I'm not surprised. But it doesn't mean I can express my distaste for something I think is ethically questionable.
Sure gambling is a tricky moral issue but it's legal. Entire communities and even states depend on it. Why shouldn't Zynga get a cut?