Meh, one can rip down the "competition hypothesis" far better than that. Tesla makes more batteries than everyone else combined, and is growing it faster - 30% capacity increase by the end of the year alone. How are they supposed to make a competitive volume of EVs without a competitive volume of batteries?
Announced "competitor" volumes are correspondingly tiny. Kona, 18,6k/yr. Niro, 21k/yr. I-Pace, E-Tron and Taycan, 10-30k/yr. This isn't even going to keep up with the global growth in EV demand, let alone "kill Tesla". And many are getting delayed.
Excepting the Taycan, they all charge at a tiny fraction of the speed (mph/kph) of Teslas. People who know nothing of EVs obsess over range as the only stat that matters, but in the real world buyers want "enough" range for their daily life, and once they have that, charge speed replaces range as the parameter of interest. Teslas are "charge while you eat a meal" cars, while the others (excepting Taycan) are "charge while you catch a short movie" cars. There's a massive practicality difference.
Furthermore, they all charge from a poorly maintained, patchwork network that's many years behind Tesla. This isn't some sort of pro-Tesla hype; even most people whose cars use CCS concede this. Check out Plugshare and click through CCS stations and note the disturbingly high minority of stations that are down - often the only charger at a site. And these disjoint networks usually have their own unique payment and/or membership requirements, making travel all the more difficult. This is the disaster you get when you (as an automaker) abrogate responsibility for recharging the vehicles that you manufacture.
And meanwhile? Tesla is anything but stationary. They're a rapidly moving target.
The "competition hypothesis" keeps failing year-after-year (despite how firmly the shorts keep believing in it) because they fail to understand these facts.