Why are there so many wooden box speakers out there?

Thanks to Kenjit, above, for an OK answer to my intervention. I take a leaf from your book ok but maybe not the whole book. You raise a good question.

It is easy to dismiss and make fun of. But unless we point out the critical problems in audio, we won't make progress. And this box-wood-easy-piece tendency seems like a real problem, yes. Even if the higher level marketplace is (all the more?) dominated by a huge variety of speaker forms, shapes and types. This is part of what makes the hobby interesting, for me.

Should a speaker be spherical or square? Rigid and dead, or should it "sing" a bit, along with the drivers? 

There is now new evidence that the shape of the violin helps produce a third note beyond the two being played. This has been known by players and violin makers for centuries but now there are hard data too. The better the third tone, the more  costly the violin. 

@cherbib 

Andrew Jones is out with a new concentric two-way….it’s a box.

I've mentioned upthread that the two pyramid parallelepiped shapes tested per the Olson paper @kenjit cites performed approximately as well as the ideal sphere. Guess which shape Jones actually used? Hint: it wasn't a rectangular prism.

My speakers are not boxes. Now my DAC is a wooden box, a lovely wooden box. My speakers are elliptical. 

There are more speakers built with plastic and wood products than actual wood.  BUT, there are so many wood box speakers out there because wood is cheaper than more superior materials like granite.  

Remember that speaker manufacturers have a business plan based on staying in business.  so they have to have tight cost management on the materials supply side.

Why does Andrew jones use multi faceted cabinets if perfect square edges would suffice? Is it not to recognize the great wisdom of Master Kenjit and take a leaf out of his book? Has the great Master Kenjit been vindicated?