No, this is not true, and it's pretty clear everywhere you look. If you're a producer, your first and foremost care is money, not your consumer. Sure, appealing to your customers is a good way to get that money, but it's not the only one. Why do you think that, to pick just one example, companies put so much malware on the computers they sell? Because they calculated that they can do something against their clients that yields extra profits but is not annoying enough for the clients to switch.
Customers are just a proxy for profits.
It's only once you get to the factories building actual "consumer goods" that you see the real concern over "who is going to buy this."
The funny thing is that I spend a lot of time on a forum mainly populated by owners of small factories and I see this come up from time to time. The guys (and they're mostly owners & workers at small manufacturing businesses) are concerned about too much automation having an impact on society, but by far their primary concern is making sure that they automate enough to stay in business and be profitable. After all, it's their kids being able to eat that they're going to be mainly concerned with.
The only inherent character of a market that gets very narrow is that it's narrow. The amount of wealth created depends on, well, how much wealth is produced, not on how many people are available to buy it. If you don't need people to produce wealth, those two things may have no relation at all.
People are making a huge effort here to assure that no, there's no problem. Yet, both Economis and History say otherwise.
If the great majority of people cannot afford to buy what your machines produce, your market is very narrow. If every producer's market is narrow, there's not enough wealth on it, and they are suddenly poor, too.
This is why most producers, especially huge corporations, go to great lengths to lower prices for another few cents.