I think what you are pointing to is how network effects suck up customers the first time when there's basically no competition doing the same thing. E.g. Facebook was doing something much, much better than myspace, and people flocked. But after that, switching costs became very high because of how entrenched people were on FB. It took an entire generation for that effect to atrophy, and this is unlikely because there were better alternatives, and more likely because of sociodynamics.
Now it's TikTok and Twitter and people are having a very tough time figuring out how to get out of those platforms even when they sorta hate them. High switching costs because of network effects.
Doesn't matter if there's a slightly better product. There needs to be either a massively better product or the existing products need to be seen as culturally undesirable (e.g. Facebook is cringe).
It wasn't always that way, but it nearly always ends up that way. Reason being the Internet makes it extremely easy to discover new services, and switching costs are relatively low. So this leads to the "winner take all (or nearly all)" dynamics that are so prevalent on the web - a service only needs to be slightly better than it's competitors to win.
People talk about the concentration of big Internet projects and companies as if it were imposed from on high. The exact opposite happened: people flocked to the services they found to be the best, and told their friends about them.