Absolutely none of that has to apply to the sort of situation we are talking about here.

The only real reason to spend more per disk is when you know all your disks are going to fail, and extending the lifespan per average disk will definitely save you more than the enterprise markup costs. So you better have dozens or hundreds of disks in the first place.

For any truly valuable data, you should at minimum have a backup in one different physical location. That backup should be include at least one redundant disk. None of that is worth spending a dime on more expensive hardware.

All disks fail eventually. Outliers may run longer than the MTBF for that drive model, but they all fail eventually.

And backups are fine for restoring data, but they don't help provide access to that data in a timely fashion. That's why people use SANs, AWS etc.

The cost of a SAN storage array is a nit for a business making cars (like Toyota) or selling insurance (like my company).

In practically every use case, two consumer disks will be better than one enterprise disk. Once you start failing enough disks often enough, longevity can be worth the additional cost. Until then, it just isn't.

And again, a backup is fine for deleted data, or fire/ransomware. But for day to day operations, no one is really willing to wait for you to restore from a local backup, much less an offsite backup.

And they are willing to wait for you to rebuild your raid array?

Either you lost your data from a disk failure, or you are waiting to lose your data from a disk failure. How are we not on the same page here?