Their costs are an internal matter for them. They can choose to sell at a loss (as a loss leader ... but not for long), or at a huge markup (early, to profit from early adopters and bleeding edgers, lowering the price later).
The product isn't out yet and the reviews aren't in, this may be gouging, or it may be underpriced, no way to know.
Ah, here's the issue.
I gave the example earlier in the thread that our smartphones are several times more powerful than the computers that ran Apollo 11. By your logic, it would have been acceptable for Apple to charge as much as, if not more than, the cost of the computers of the Apollo....plus the cost of inflation.
The issue isn't whether or not their product is good, or over priced. I'm going against the argument that it is ok for them to charge so much more, simply because it has something that hasn't been seen before. Their reward for innovation could come from the massive number of units that would have been moved if the price had been lowered towards the level of the 535.
I view the 846 as a pioneer product, no doubt. However, it is not innovative in the least because they are not pushing the boundaries without making us pay dearly for it.Google continuing to update the free, open source Android is innovation. Apple selling the iphone 5 at the same price as they did the 3GS is innovation. The free market has proven that.
*Imagine me saying this next paragraph with this face:
We both have solid points. I'm just of the opinion that innovation doesn't have to come at the cost of end consumers. If you are truly confident in your product, you can set it at a price that will expand your user base and make enough sales to keep going. Again, Schiit, Apple, Samsung, Google, Westone, Vsonic, JVC, and the list goes on.