I agree, but at least with the VHS/Beta, I think the real issue was marketing over quality, so there are issues in play that cause these ironic outcomes.
...Canon's real goal is to sell cameras, and to sell more cameras than the competition. Despite being 'behind' in sensor performance compared to Exmor sensors for the past several APS-C dSLR generations, Canon continues to outsell Nikon (and Sony remains a niche player). What lesson can Canon learn from this? That the performance of Canon's internally-produced sensors is good enough to support market leading sales. As the saying goes, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
This is something gearheads never understand. "Best" almost never wins in the marketplace. "Good enough" almost always wins. The iPhone isn't the best smartphone, but it's good enough. Windows wasn't the best operating system, but it was good enough. VHS wasn't the best video technology, but it was good enough. The gasoline-powered internal combustion engine wasn't the best engine, but it was good enough. The list goes on and on.
Heck, Canon was never the "best." When I bought my Canon F1 in the 1970s, it wasn't the best camera system. Among SLRs Nikon was considered the best and among 35mm cameras generally, Leica was the best. But, through shrewd marketing and perseverance, Canon overcame it's competitors and became the market leader. Superiority for the sake of superiority has never been Canon's objective. They grew to market dominance by providing a "good enough" system that balances cost and quality. Don't expect them to abandon that winning strategy just because gear geeks are upset about an irrelevant, marginal difference in lab tests.