Because that disconnects the company from actual demand.

Production of early versions is always more expensive because of the research & development, creation/configuration of the machines, etc, etc but the marginal cost goes down drastically. The numbers work out even better as you can amortize those early costs over a larger and larger production run. This means v2 and later editions are cheaper.

It's text book "economies of scale"

I would also say that Rich people pave the way for adaption.

For example, look at prices of flights. Before there was no "first class" everything was first class, now there are cabin options.

While that example is a service, more proliferation of service == wider adaption == increased scale of economies == eventually prices come down for everyone.

There is nothing left wing about this...

> This is exactly what is meant by trickle down economics.

This is not true. Trickle down economics is the theory that money given to rich people will enrich poor people because the rich people will use the money to buy goods and services the production of which will require the labor of poor people. That is, this extra money at the disposal of rich people will create an economic domino effect such that money will ultimately end up at the disposal of poor people. In a trivial sense this is true. The theory is only interesting if this is an efficient way to increase economic activity generally without deleterious side effects.

But it never was the theory that giving money to rich people would spur research and development such that services ultimately were cheaper.

As to whether it's a scam, that is another matter. The allegation then is that the boosters of trickle down economics do not believe their own claims as to the efficiency of this process. That is, they believe, because it is tautologically true, that this will enrich those who are already rich, and they desire this, and the story about the efficiency of this process is a tall tale to salve consciences or win over rubes.

Except that time and time again, it has been shown that it absolutely does not work.

"[I]f the income share of the top 20 percent (the rich) increases, then GDP growth actually declines over the medium term, suggesting that the benefits do not trickle down. In contrast, an increase in the income share of the bottom 20 percent (the poor) is associated with higher GDP growth. [1]"

[1] https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/Staff-Discussion-Notes/I...

Except you don’t need that much GDP growth if the price of everything is going down, so that argument is flawed.

This does nothing to bolster your claim. Your arguement is moronic.

Lol, the right went so extreme that the left is what would have been the right in Adam Smith's times?

That would be true if solar roofs were some novel technology that the rich would adopt first, and then the rest. This is a remix of existing technology, much like the iphone. The rich don't have roofs, they have domes or yachts. The poor don't own roofs. This is directed at the middle class squarely and only. To the extent that richer people adopt this, it's mostly for signaling reasons and not because it affords them some luxury they didn't have (like flights did).

Your analogy is more appropriate for space tourism.

> it's mostly for signaling reasons

This presumes rich people never have good motives and any appearance of morality or civic-mindedness they might show is a self-aggrandizing sham. This seems unlikely.

Why not just do unit tests instead of integration tests? Because you want to create a system that provides feedback on the entire end to end process. You subsidize purchases because The thing you want to incentivize is not making solar panels, but bringing solar panels all the way to market. You are trying to get the market off the ground, not just the technology.

That wouldn’t account for demand.

They have to make the sale this way