I’m with Bob. You can think calling people “poor” is a good way of going about it. I’m a realist and can easily afford it. One thing I don’t like is being taken advantage of. I will wait until it is re-engineered by someone else. Ask yourself this question, how well would these sell in the states? I am in no way implying TNA is gouging us, it is a relatively unknown company. Enjoy being the guinea pig.
As someone who comes from a hardware engineering background I am quite aware of startup costs and companies having to recoup their costs at initial introduction to the market. The AR world has been lucky in that the design entered public domain and measurements have been long known which then reduced R&D to practically nothing.
In this case the company has had to prototype and test their changes to ensure they have a safe product while dealing with the RCMP BS. Someone doing each of these is drawing salary and that costs both time and money, let alone any IP stuff they have had to deal with as well to protect their product. Lawyers aren't cheap.
The absurdity of these comments is like stating back in the day when the first plasma tvs came out that they should be the same price as a your typical 32" CRT not $20,000. The market will bear the price and adjust accordingly, maybe they won't sell as well and prices will drop or they will all sell out and the price will stay where it is. If you don't like the price, don't buy it and move on and stop polluting the thread. Whining about it isn't changing things. Companies need to make ends meet otherwise they don't make it, they aren't going to price themselves out of the market, that doesn't make sense. That said I would expect in the next year if successful, the price will probably drop
You are right in that initial buyers are going to be the guinea pigs, no matter how much testing deficiencies in the design may crop up or the company may find a better (cheaper) way to manufacture and the price might drop a bit from that. There is a premium on being on the bleeding edge, the benefit is that they will have an AR they can take off the range.
First thing the manufacturer should have been doing is patenting how they modified the design, re-engineering then becomes a tad more difficult as you then are infringing on their design.
Also regarding the states? They would probably sell quite well, there was a reason why the high tech sector was taking off in Canada in the 90s before the bubble burst down south. Our dollar was weaker so paying employees here meant that the overhead costs were cheaper which reflected in the prices in the states. That all said, it is a false equivalency since there is no requirement for an AR derivative that doesn't play nice with the AR15 in the US. If they had the silly laws like we do, then maybe they would sell well but since they don't it is all conjecture.
Ultimately the more choices that are available for the consumer the better. Companies that don't have competition become stagnant and are no longer motivated to innovate. What I want to see is if the price of AR receivers change, especially the billet ones since they are closer in price. If this product does well why would I buy a restricted AR receiver at near the same price when I can just spend a little more and get something that can go off the range.