You sure?

This is even more significant when the competitive options are significantly limited (eg: processors). In larger markets (eg: automobiles) there is more room for low-cost competitors to make some money, but they are not often powerhouses of the industry.

If you have data to the contrary please post (and by data I mean more than just 1-off examples).

Anyway, since you say "it is fairly established" the burden should be on you to tell me where & by who. What I know is established is that internet marketing gurus speaking to small & micro businesses recommend finding non price differentiators. This arguably makes sense for small businesses where market size is not an issue. Most large companies however, need to go after large markets & that means lower prices.

My old marketing textbooks say that there are two broad positioning strategies & corresponding pricing strategies niche(differentiated) & penetration(low cost). The larger share of the pie usually belongs to the latter with high margins often going to the former.

I would argue that low cost strategies are probably more "stable" since they do not rely on innovation & other constant miracles. Even Apple may flop two or three major products in a row & die again.

Selling at low prices given the same cost structure is not a good survival strategy. "We lose money on every unit but we'll make it up on volume!"

That is a good example of manufacturing companies winning on cost.

Car companies that tried to deliver a low-cost product without the quality behind it (eg Yugo) ultimately failed.

PS: Don't forget the market decides price, you can only really control cost if you want to be more than a nitch player.