[mftrhu]

The market does not choose the superior product. It might choose the least common denominator, the cheapest product, the product that got on the market the earliest, or the one with the richest backers, but not "the superior product".

[mlrtime]

The "superior" product is subjective.

The objectively superior product is the one that people pay for. They are exchanging labor/capital for the item/content.

I could make the best movie ever conceived, the movie to end all movies. If nobody watches it, it has 0 value.

[ParetoOptimal]

> The objectively superior product is the one that people pay for. They are exchanging labor/capital for the item/content.

No, that assumes perfect discovery of options. The product people see first is often chosen.

> I could make the best movie ever conceived, the movie to end all movies. If nobody watches it, it has 0 value.

Things only have intrinsic value if validated by others? That's just not true.

[mftrhu]

The first part is debatable, unless you qualify it as "superior at making their creator money".

The market selects for that, and only that. Other qualities of the product are secondary, making any statements to the effect of "the best product [outside the context of simply making the most money] will win" misguided at best.