> This innovation happened completely and only because of the dreaded saturation of the market you are complaining about.
False. This happens with or without the 3 new players. Those 5 players are going to be vying for a bigger piece of the pie. They're trying new marketing, new formulas, etc. Over time an increasingly large part of the company will be dedicated to growing it, (especially if they're not growing!). Some of them might invest in or partner with the car companies and secure a contract for new cars. They might work together to increase the size of the market. Markets that are stable are not so because players idle, they are stable because everyone is innovating at a similar pace. When one of these guys makes the mistake of thinking he can take it easy and sit on his 20%, the others will take it as fast as possible.
(I'm not disagreeing that new entrants to a market are a bad thing, just saying that it's not for this reason)
No, this simply isn't true. If it was, oligarchies would never become established.
Failing a strong leader that can create monopolistic conditions in a market, oligarchies are the norm. The reason for this is that the status quo is often more desirable than the risk required in advancing your position.
What you are suggesting will only happen if for some reason, competitors view themselves as enemies. The reality is that it is often the opposite, and nobody wants to rock the boat - except for the upstart.
It's for that reason that new competitors are almost a requirement, never mind a benefit.
False. This happens with or without the 3 new players. Those 5 players are going to be vying for a bigger piece of the pie. They're trying new marketing, new formulas, etc. Over time an increasingly large part of the company will be dedicated to growing it, (especially if they're not growing!). Some of them might invest in or partner with the car companies and secure a contract for new cars. They might work together to increase the size of the market. Markets that are stable are not so because players idle, they are stable because everyone is innovating at a similar pace. When one of these guys makes the mistake of thinking he can take it easy and sit on his 20%, the others will take it as fast as possible.
(I'm not disagreeing that new entrants to a market are a bad thing, just saying that it's not for this reason)