incumbents

The market is absolutely tiny, and full of incumbents with control over the recordings.

When incumbents have invested capital specifically to comply with regulations, it makes sense that the incumbents will demand that the regulations are applied equitably.

The Linux desktop for the normal user is simply not going to happen with the current incumbents.

The government is notorious at tossing out incumbents on service contracts and bringing in new companies, who then simply hire all the people who worked on the previous contract.

The demand to live in these places is soaring, but the desire among incumbents to accommodate newcomers is low.

But it is true that the excess of regulation is reenforcing the position of the incumbents.

Guys like Elon Musk just need a proof of concept to modify his designs, incumbents like Fiat Chrysler need exactly this.

While the rhetoric may be to make it sound that way, most regulation exists to protect incumbents who stand to lose money.

If anything, the incumbents are better positioned to arbitrage the law/regulations in this case.

They may loose the game if the incumbents beat them to it.

The problem is the barrier to entry is steep and the incumbents are not going to let new players in without a major fight, so my guess is the cost would likely be high.

It's the product's power level relative to incumbents in the space.

The wrinkle in this case is that the "incumbents" are taxi companies rather than VZN and ATT.

Absolutely, however another "advantage" of many "sharing economy" companies is that they skirt regulations that incumbents must adhere to.

Incumbents have humongous distribution advantages.