> "how could there only be three major players in such a lucrative segment, each selling ancient hardware and crappy software products?"
Because all markets tend towards cartels and consolidation unless vigilant, enforced regulation prevents it?
Why do Coca-Cola and Pepsico have >60% of the soft drink market? Why do the largest two or three meat processing companies have the majority market share in almost every category? Why does Nestle have more annual revenue than the GDP of Sri Lanka?
> Why do Coca-Cola and Pepsico have >60% of the soft drink market?
Well, this one is probably simple: government. I'm unsure whether it would be copyright, or trademark infringement, but if you release a product that tastes exactly like coke or pepsi, you'll probably find yourself in expensive litigation.
The formula for Coke is supposedly a trade-secret, for which there are no protections other than keeping it secret, and I guess maybe not acquiring it illegally.
So, on what basis would Coca-Cola or PepsiCo have for a suit?
I'm pretty sure flavours and even recipes can't be copyrighted. Perhaps patented, but as others said that makes them public and protected for only a relatively limited time. Hence why formulations like KFC and Coca Cola are kept as a trade secret instead.
Branding and awareness is their real power, and a small time competitor has no real leverage there. And perception plays a huge role in flavour, so even if your product tastes the same, it won't.
Because all markets tend towards cartels and consolidation unless vigilant, enforced regulation prevents it?
Why do Coca-Cola and Pepsico have >60% of the soft drink market? Why do the largest two or three meat processing companies have the majority market share in almost every category? Why does Nestle have more annual revenue than the GDP of Sri Lanka?