discspeed said:
...I assumed a couple of years ago that when other manufacturers came up and invested more money into making better products that it would make Innova better by forcing them to follow suit (this is capitalism)...
This is wrong, capitalism stands in opposition to the free market. Capital=money and in capitalism money=power. Capitalism tends to accumulate power and wealth in the hands of a few at the expense of the many. Capitalism crushes or appropriates innovation and fresh competition as it sees fit. Capitalism does so by directly manipulating the legal system (money=justice), by altering/crafting/changing laws (via campaign donations, lobbying, political parties, etc.) to suit its needs while punishing small competitors (by imposing a tax system, licensing requirements, and regulations that favor wealthy firms over smaller firms), by controlling related portions of the market (establishing exclusivity clauses in contracts with suppliers, controlling transport, dominating the retail front end, etc.), by having enough money to gain access to large troves of gov't cash and contracts, etc., etc..
discspeed said:
...They have streamlined their manufacturing...
That's the only kind of innovation you see in capitalism, which is figuring out a way to reduce your labor costs (lower wages and benefits for workers) and make your product cheaper and cheaper, while hoping that the reduced quality doesn't scare away your customer base (not a problem in this country...people don't care about quality).
discspeed said:
...they are making very good money and can more or less keep up with demand at a time where other manufacturers are barely making a profit and are forced to reinvest all their money to make a more expensive product so that some people will choose it over Innova.
In other words, the issue is free market vs. capitalism:
-If the free market wins, then Innova is toast because their products cannot continue to compete if customers have true choice.
-If capitalism wins, then Innova will dominate market share for decades to come.
The answer to this question is complicated. In sectors of the economy where capitalism is defeating/destroying the free market, you see larger firms getting ever larger without adding much value or innovation to their products. Examples are ubiquitous in this era of corporate agglomeration (Ford, GM, & Chrysler being the classic examples...now we have GE, Walmart, Bank of America, Boeing, etc.). They spend 99% of their efforts figuring out how to screw over labor, avoid taxes, lobby the gov't, get corporate welfare, and extract the last drop of assets from their firms so that they can pad the bottom line, celebrate their parasitism, and shower themselves in bonuses and stock options. That doesn't lead to great products.
I suggest we wait and see what happens. The retail end is very important, and a lot depends on whether retailers stay dedicated to allowing access to all manufacturers on their shelves. I know many capitalistic strategies that might work for Innova. For example, here is a strategy inspired by Microsoft: While they still enjoy majority market share, Innova offers to buy out innovative competing company X directly. If company X resists, or wants good money for their business, Innova turns the screws by simply telling retailers like Clearwater Disc Golf Store that they won't allow them to sell Innova discs any longer, unless they stop selling discs from company X. This won't hurt Innova much because they can simply start selling their discs directly to customers through their website, and going around retailers (perhaps even selling their discs online for less than the wholesale cost). Meanwhile, company X faces the risk of losing market share, and has no choice but to sell out to Innova. Innova takes that firm over, fires all the more talented staff, extracts the remaining assets of X, walks away secure with its market share, and cashes in on the deal. Wet, lather, rinse, repeat. That's how its done in America.
