I feel like throughout the past few years of the EGS I've heard a lot of competition is good -- like some phrase that has been ingrained into our minds from capitalism that we assume to be true.
It's the why that is missing from these blanket statements. Why is it good? Well, it can lead to innovation, competitive pricing, better features, and a number of other pro-consumer benefits. I think EGS has pretty clearly demonstrated that their success wouldn't lead to any of that. Steam on the other hand throughout their supposed monopoly has continued to push out incredible features, allowed for competitive pricing through third-party markets, and has a consistent history of supporting pro-consumer strategies (open-platform, modding, fully supporting hardware competitors, etc.).
This isn't to say Steam shouldn't have competitors, but not all competition is going to lead to a positive change. And Steam has arguably pushed these positive changes with or without this supposed strong competition.
Console manufacturers on the other hand flip flop between this is how you share your games -- we care about you to we're protecting the sanctity of your online experience arrogance depending on if they're leading the market or not.