I don't think technology is that different. Incumbents have always had advantages. That doesn't totally preclude the possibility of competition. It might be that they compete by providing less value for less cost (eg the maps might not be as good, but they might be good enough for some users), or by servicing users that the incumbent doesn't care about (side note: isn't this what The Innovator's Dilemma is about?). But it's rare that a competitor is so dominant as to totally preclude any possibility of competition. You certainly haven't provided an example of one yet.
In 20 years, we will see who is competing and who is was just funded with unicorn dreams. I don't consider a single one of those comparable.
Azure and Google Compute Engine? I'd say those are pretty comparable to AWS.
Could you explain your example? I tried this, thinking it might give me something interesting, but I couldn't figure out what you were referring to.
That's not how technology works. The most evident example is where data feeds data, creating a market without compare. You can't compete with google for map data or AWS for hosting.
> we should ultimately reach some sort of equilibrium
The equilibrium is not based on the metrics you have proposed except in the slightest degree.