This is only partly true. And context matters a lot too.
For one, pollination causes better seed production. So better pollination, means more flowering plants, so more food for insects next season.
It's studied (I cannot find the paper, it was a German study, that's all I remember) where a very "poor" area (farmland and production-forests reclaimed as diverse nature) did had much more insects, much faster, on the side where honeybees were kept, than on the side where they weren't, due to the honeybees "creating" flowering plants for other insects to eat from too.
But I've also read a study from the Netherlands which is now often used by nature-management to ban honeybee-colonies from nature areas due to them competing against more endangered insects in those areas.
intrigued by question. i honestly do not know, but can add for context that it is not unheard of in my area (temperate woodland) to have a dozen or more hives cohabiting the same acre. of course the bees are not confined to the acre, but my point is, if competition were a concern, perhaps a counterpoint is how would so many hives in one acre be sustainable?
additionally, many of the colonies are from local swarms. granted, who knows what genetic backgrounds are, but they are "wild" in contemporary terms.
additionally, commercial operations make good money because there are too many flowering things to go around.
would be interested in hearing counterpoints to my counterpoints, genuinely intrigued by question & implications
When there are only so many flowers to go around, keeping bees might just be a disguised way to destroy natural bees.