OP, here. Thanks, Mike, for replying to this thread. I enjoy your videos and thought you were posing a legitimate question -- not about whether people have a "right" (funny word) to pay what they want for a piece of gear, but whether others had seen the video and how they assessed the argument you were making.
As usual, the thread went in lots of tangential directions, some of them valuable, but I do believe some stayed focused on your central point -- namely, that some gear that (for it’s high price) should *not* be using inexpensive, off the shelf, computer innards. I’m a newbie, but the point boils down to "there’s sawdust in this expensive meatloaf." And of course you’re not talking about kinda expensive meatloaf -- something that is, say, one or two times the price of a decent product. You’re talking about really really expensive stuff. That detail helps push back on all the (to my mind, ineffective) counter arguments about "R&D, overhead, design, research," etc.
You surely have a busy life, but if you could find the posts which understand and (civilly) address that claim, it would advance the central point in dispute. If you don’t have time, well, peace.
As usual, the thread went in lots of tangential directions, some of them valuable, but I do believe some stayed focused on your central point -- namely, that some gear that (for it’s high price) should *not* be using inexpensive, off the shelf, computer innards. I’m a newbie, but the point boils down to "there’s sawdust in this expensive meatloaf." And of course you’re not talking about kinda expensive meatloaf -- something that is, say, one or two times the price of a decent product. You’re talking about really really expensive stuff. That detail helps push back on all the (to my mind, ineffective) counter arguments about "R&D, overhead, design, research," etc.
You surely have a busy life, but if you could find the posts which understand and (civilly) address that claim, it would advance the central point in dispute. If you don’t have time, well, peace.