Being held to ransom - well that's what contracts are for. So that's nonsense too.
No, it isn't nonsense. If there is only ONE sensor supplier, then you either pay what the supplier wants or you don't get their sensor, then you have no product. It would in reality simply raise prices for the end user.
Contracts end and have to be re-negotiated, companies sell off divisions, the buying companies may and very often do have a very different vision, it’s not nonsense. ‘Ransom’ isn't exactly the best word though.Of course contracts can end and they can be re-negotiated. On the other hand, they can be set up to protect both parties. For example, an option can be sold on a specified product to be delivered at a specified price on a specified date and with a specified performance. You can agree to terms that will be acceptable if either party cannot fulfill their part of the deal. The important part about contracts is you can't break the laws of physics and you can't break the laws of of a country. Everything else can be negotiable.
Competition makes everyone better and can only benefit consumers. There are always better ideas and our money helps move technology forward.I'm not convinced this is either true or applicable. It certainly works when the item or service is fungible but it's complete bs if one source has access to technology that excludes the others from catching up. It's also bs if circumstances prevent the customer from changing supplier.
The camera market finds both circumstances. Firstly, technology is heavily protected through patent law and second, users cannot migrate because their lens "investment" constrains them to using a single source for camera bodies. Now, if third parties - say Sony - would start offering EF or F.2 mount cameras, everything really could change.