There's some very strange things being said in this thread.
First off, I have worked in various r&d labs (both academic and commercial) and the idea that it took 10 employees several years to take a dynamic transducer and put a hole in the center is so ridiculous it is laughable. The meager technological "achievements" of these headphones require almost no innovation and should take very little time to realize (ie the on the scale of a couple months, and that time being a result of waiting for production rather than running simulations of delving into new physics ).
Second, defenders of these $1400 headphones please stop making claims such as we don't agree with the pricing because we are too poor, or that we want manufacturers to be our slaves.
These headphones are nice high quality phones. The require precious little innovation and low materials cost. The profit margins are astronomical and the prices are fixed. They may be worth $1400 to some people granted.
Why does this stuff annoy me? Because manufacturers look at these responses and say: 'Wow, we don't need to make something great or something of good value. Rather we simply must create a perception of superiority - which is done not by best performance but highest asking price.'
Now we see the me too T1s. If AKG releases something in the $1400 range I will be very annoyed. But I'm still holding out faith for them.
(if AKG actually came out with some outstanding breakthrough, then $1400 could be justified perhaps. But a transducer with two holes in it isn't gonna cut it for me).
You're missing about 90% of R&D in your assumptions here.
Putting a hole through the drive (ring type driver) wasn't a new idea. Making it work correctly in a full sized headphone and providing the sound they were after was. Also, traditional headphone design dictates a LOT of things the HD800 doesn't do. This sir, is R&D. Finding little things that make a difference, and turning them into practice.