Scaling factors don't work that way. The economies of scale are where the majority of the market is, and that's low spec cables. So low spec cables will always have better economies of scale than high spec ones, and will have cheaper materials costs.
Any company that tries to compete by upgrading all their output to the top 25% of the market, paying materials costs at the top 25% rate across the whole production run, is committing economic suicide. All it takes is one competitor to not do that and only address the low end, and the whole strategy collapses in ruins.
> All it takes is one competitor to not do that and only address the low end, and the whole strategy collapses in ruins.
That's why I was talking about putting this in the standard, so that only one type of cable is considered compliant. This way, all competitors would have to upgrade too.
And people of limited income that just need basic capabilities get screwed. They could have had significantly cheaper cables that would serve them just fine, but we're not going to let them even though they are the significant majority.
This argument can be used to justify any amount of wasteful production and environmental damage. It needs to die.
Prices are to some extent arbitrary. I'm pretty sure people with limited income would be able to buy devices with slightly more expensive cables just fine, especially if you remove the backpressure of a reduced capability alternative keeping the price higher.
Higher performance cables, with more robust materials, shielding, etc are almost certainly more wasteful and environmentally damaging than cheaper ones.
Any company that tries to compete by upgrading all their output to the top 25% of the market, paying materials costs at the top 25% rate across the whole production run, is committing economic suicide. All it takes is one competitor to not do that and only address the low end, and the whole strategy collapses in ruins.