That is not necessary for the definition of predatory pricing.
I don't like this analogy because you're not comparing items of equal quality. They're not fungible.
Why would you raise prices after? That would just invite competition again. Keep the prices low and competitors away. Maybe raise them to at-cost, but if your Widgets can comfortably cover the cost, then there is no reason to raise prices.
The assumption of predatory pricing is that it's not easy for a competitor to just show up. Supply chains would be destroyed, capital equipment scrapped, etc and replacing them would be time consuming and expensive.
Sometimes that's a reasonable assumption to make, sometimes it's not. Even if the assumptions are unreasonable, many CEOs won't let mere reason stand in their way.
> Maybe raise them to at-cost, but if your Widgets can comfortably cover the cost, then there is no reason to raise prices.
So, the Widget-making capital would just sit there producing 0 ROI? Someone's gonna object to that. A company pursues market dominance to make money.
Nobody can compete with you on the price and it is clear you can unbundle your Widgets from your Sprockets at any time if you ever feel threatened.
Please don't re-define words. This is not what's normally called predatory pricing. Predatory pricing is supposed to involve a corporation raising prices after destroying it's competition. The thing you are describing is nothing more than having a low margin strategy.
Is every dropshipper undermining brand-name (high-margin) apparel?