[WalterBright]

All those companies are well aware that the worse they treat their companies, the more likely competitors will appear.

It happens all the time. Big, unstoppable companies become sloppy and complacent, and suddenly find themselves in free fall.

[TheOtherHobbes]

If by "all the time" you mean "once every couple of decades, often after antitrust intervention", then possibly.

[WalterBright]

Sears, Kodak, GE, etc.

[massysett]

Heck, even eBay. In the small-business-to-consumer market, it’s a shadow now compared to Amazon. Ok, at least Amazon does fulfillment so it’s not exactly comparable to ebay. But Etsy? There’s no reason eBay couldn’t be dominating that category. Didn’t take a couple of decades or antitrust intervention to destroy ebay.

[jacknews]

These were because technology changed, not because of better competitors doing the same thinig

[WalterBright]

They did the same thing as far as the customer was concerned, only better, thereby offering a better deal to customers, who switched.

[jacknews]

but it negates your point that lazy incumbents will get disrupted by nimbler competitors.

That mostly happens when the 'nimbler competitors' are in fact armed with a completely new technology, business model, etc.

ie, innovation is the key to change, not just decay of the old making way for more of the same, but more vigorous.

[rcxdude]

Then another huge company grows out of the competitors and begins doing the same thing. Just because the company on top switches out occasionally (and during the transition there is a viable option which isn't abusive), doesn't mean the system is working.

[WalterBright]

People switching to another company means it works.

[rcxdude]

Just because the abuser eventually gets replaced, doesn't mean the abuse stops (as mentioned, the replacement then settles into the same behaviour until another competitor comes along). If there's a non-abusive option 20% of the time, and 80% of the time there's only an abusive option, that doesn't strike me as 'working'. I would say the ratio would need to be 90% to 10% (i.e. any company starting to abuse its position loses it very very quickly, and the replacement does not engage in such behaviour for a while), in order for such a system to be anywhere near acceptable.