John Oliver said:

As far as the ethics involved, what's "overinflated"? Wouldn't you say
pet rocks at *any* price are overinflated? Yet a lot of people bought
them and were quite happy with their purchase. Where's the ethical
breach? If I make a widget, the actual cost I incur has *nothing* to do
with the perceived value... if they cost me $3 to make and people line
up to buy them at $100 each, how is that unethical? If it was, I would
have some recourse if my widgets cost $20 to make and people were only
willing to pay $8.

I believe you're missing the point. Deliberately? Who can tell.
Nonetheless, this game is pretty simple. Gregipus's detractors are
eager to shame him as a greedy con-artist. So they take a simple
fact of the audio industry and try to reverse its polarity, thereby
leading to a conclusion that is, according to their twisted logic,
correct.

The basic fact is that among real speaker makers (i.e., not some
putz assembling products in a storage room he rents by the month),
there is a certain ratio of retail price to manufacturing cost. The
argument is that since Gregipus did not do any actual R&D, and since
a "real" company could build similar-performing speakers for much
less by virtue of economies of scale, Gregipus is attempting to con
and cheat his buyers. There are some big holes in this logic, but
this "debate" isn't really about logic.