> it’s a textbook luxury branding and pricing strategy.

The problem is that this 10x overpricing strategy doesn't apply to their entire lineup, but that's not made explicit. As a result, people might mistakenly generalise it to their other products such as iPhones, leading people to think that their phones are also 10x overpriced and are actually only worth $100, thus diminishing its value.

Haha, no. The average person does not think that deeply or use that much math.

I think the average person who is an iPhone owner can look at their phone and to this monitor stand and think "why do they cost almost the same?" easily.

Price is one thing that most people are quite sensitive about.

I'd wager the average person is more likely to grasp the mathematical incongruency than have the buying power to afford the incongruency.

The poster above is trying to say that luxury branding has to have at least a veneer of justification for its pricing. The $1000 painted tree stump supposes its own value as a piece of art. A $1000 watch might cost $200 to produce, but it's jewelry - the whole point is you're paying for the pure aesthetic value of it.

The monitor stand has a nice appearance, but everyone understands that it's a mass-produced, functional product that can't justify its cost artistically or by virtue of materials and construction. The stand is also usually included with the monitor!

There's a clear message change. We've moved from "this is the cost of luxury" to "this is the cost we've greedily slapped onto a random part you need"

The difference between the two isn't vast- you have to pay attention to the nuance here.