Perhaps they realized it would be cheaper to stop the growth of a superior product. Especially when that superior product would likely require more types of costs that would eat corporate level profit. More higher paid employees that can't be mechanized.
Status quo is incredibly profitable, assuming nothing threatens it. That's why big business does everything they can to increase the barrier of entry, and happily overpays to buy out successful competitors, with the leadership of the competitors having enforceable noncompetes for the model.
Obviously absolute speculation on my part, but if they were truly doing what I suggested intentionally, part of the plan would need to be plausible deniability to avoid anti-monopoly issues, and also public sentiment nightmare. Killing your favorite shop out of incompetence doesn't win good will, but you will still go there. Doing it out of malicious intent could have people in other states joining a boycott.
I'm in management, participated in the acquisition process of the company I'm at being acquired. At least at the 150mm/year revenue level there's no one doing the shit I'm suggesting, no one is so competent. Cash on hand is bad , acquisition is an obvious way to deal with that. You're spot on about skills though, 95% of management at every level is totally incompetent at the work required to actually do management shit. All the competent people leave as soon as they can because the work just got way harder and the money doesn't follow.