What I said, which is true, is that VCs don't jump into established markets that already have huge dominant players.

Unfortunately for you, what you actually said is easily visible a bit upthread. Let me refresh your memory:

I'm theorizing that the VCs believed that the fact that the big companies did not make any such product proved there was no profitable demand for it, because the market worked.

The cost of production is basically an asymptotic limit in the long term. Whether it's "close to" or "to" is irrelevant, you are not going to get there anyway.

It is a theoretical term, so saying "theories are secondary" is nonsense.

Oh, dear. Let us consider phlogiston. It is a theoretical term, isn't it?

The problem is that theories are useful only insofar they reflect reality. You can make your theory contort in various ways, but unless these contortions match the reality, they shouldn't be entertained.

To repeat myself, if your theory predicts something that does not happen (regardless of whether it uses "theoretical terms" or not), you need a better theory.