This is not more accurate prices for consumers, it's more accurate prices for non-consumers (suppliers), so they end up indirectly colluding in a way that lowering prices might not give one any advantage (if the competitors can lower it nearly at the same time and you get negligeable additional sales).
>it's more accurate prices for non-consumers (suppliers)
More accurate prices for suppliers means they can produce with less capital risk, which is generally also good for consumers since the consumers don't have to pay more to give the supplier as large a safety cushion. This has been historically true, it's basic economics, and it's empirically true in the literature.
Think if you produce a product, and there's a lot of risk in your supply chain. You need to charge more for your end product to account for that risk. This can be and is measured.
Remove risk (whether it's credit, inflation, pricing, stability, etc.), and the supplier has less risk.
This is never purely going to profits, since your competitors generally also have the same risk landscape. So any gains perhaps help profits, but some are also used in other sectors of the business - selling cheaper to try and grab market share, better wages to attract better employees, and so on.
> if the competitors can lower it nearly at the same time and you get negligeable additional sales
If you and all your competitors lower prices then likely more of the entire sector of products makes more sales as more people can afford the product. This has been the pattern since the original Luddites - when textile prices dropped from automation the entire sector exploded and produced around 10x as many goods. This too has been the pattern across history and industries.