There is a major logic flaw in what you're saying.

'If I am a grocery store that pays $1 for oranges and sells them for $0.50, I can't say, "I don't have enough oranges."'

How about 'if I'm a grocery store and I see no limit on demand for oranges at $.50 but they are currently $1, I can say 'if oranges were cheaper I could sell orders of magnitude more of them'.

Buying oranges for $1 and selling for $0.5 is an investment into acquiring market share and customer relationships and a gamble on the price of oranges falling in the future.

> acquiring market share and customer relationships

The whole setup rests on this, and it seems mythical to me. These guys have basically equivalent products at this point.

Selling below cost is also called "predatory pricing". Sadly it's legal in US but it's something wealthy companies do to kill competitors and end up with captive customers.

> Buying oranges for $1 and selling for $0.5 is an investment into acquiring market share and customer relationships

It's a delusion that customers are going to remain with the behemoths when a Qwen model run by an independent is $10/m, unlimited usage.

This is not a market that can be locked-in with network effects, and the current highly-invested players have no moat.