While capital certainly forms a barrier to entry benefits at scale has more of an effect on the equilibrium. Lets say that there is a rough quality/profitabilit

While capital certainly forms a barrier to entry benefits at scale has more of an effect on the equilibrium. Lets say that there is a rough quality/profitability function vs size called EOS. More money can help skip to the far end but if it doesn't give enough of an edge there isn't much point. A given field's capital requirements and EOS aren't independent but neither are they necessarily always driven by capital requirements. Essentially capital intensive makes it harder to enter and reduces the rate of attempts while EOS affects how well they can actually compete when they get there. Take Microsoft establishing the XBox Console ve Bing. Both took large ammounts of capital to launch but one is a success while the other is generally regarded as a joke. Once they got large enough as a platform the Xbox was "on the map" and a significant segment here to stay. Bing meanwhile remains a "second best". Other examples of EOS in action - while there are larger law firms they haven't consolidated, and most artists take commissions independently instead of forming a megaconglomerate. They don't get much of anything from it due to specialization and lack of shared demand. One example of EOS shifting is the decline of music producers with digital music and the rise of independent artists - the higher scale lost the relative edge.