This implies said companies have already “won,” and that they’ve made (a lot of) money.
Your comment would make more sense if I was calling for the transitioning to communism.
Uber, for example wouldn’t be nationalized because its product type hasn’t become so pervasive that a majority of Americans use it. Debit cards and their ilk have.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_utility [1]: https://marketrealist.com/p/are-utility-companies-public-or-... [2]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/public_utility
Not sure how you would draw this line.
Do we nationalize the apple/google app stores because they are taking 30% cuts? Or Visa/Mastercard/Stripe because they take a cut on every transaction?
There is noting implicit that means they don't make money. The process of nationalization doesn't have to result in 0 compensation, it could be run like any other buyout. That being said being government run has its own issues.
So your real problem is that the government offers a service? So we should get rid of public fire departments, police, schools, and roads?
I do think that if you take an existing market with competition, and you nationalise one or more actors in that market, competition becomes very difficult for any remaining private actors in that market or any future entrants. The reason is pretty simple: the rule-setting body is now playing the game against you. The end result of this is that new actors are less likely to enter the market at all, which limits innovation.
Because of this (and because of the historical record of failure almost every time this kind of thing is tried) the decision to nationalise should be taken very carefully. You list several things such as fire departments and roads which are arguably best provided by the government, but I don't think it's obvious that retail financial services should be added to that list.
Nationalizing something is bad because the next entrepreneurs in that field know they won't make money, so they won't build.