If the branding was removed, most cyclists couldn’t tell the difference between 105 and DuraAce or a top-spec carbon frame vs an entry-level carbon frame.
Another way of saying this is most people buy bikes because of image and perceived performance rather than actual performance and suitability for the rider.
True that the raw materials to make carbon bikes are relatively cheap at ~$20-50/lb (got a 2 or 3 pound frame? do the math) but what is costly is the nonrecurring expenses; composite engineering, CFD, FEA, tooling, jigs, fixtures, etc.
There are tremendous economies of scale when building carbon bikes; make one and it’s going to be crazy expensive, make thousands and it can be quite profitable. Alloy bikes, on the other hand, have completely different economics.
Alternative unpopular gravel opinion: most people should be on gravel bikes because they’d benefit far more from a more relaxed position, increased flat protection on crappy roads, and increased flexibility of where and how they ride than they do from a more stretched out, more flat-prone, and less flexible bike that’s maybe slightly faster.
Alternative alternative unpopular opinion: these people should have been riding these bikes since the 90’s when, in my alternate universe, bike companies combined the best attributes of mountain and road bikes and gave us the gravel bike instead of the stripped down hybrid bike that was bad at everything. The MB-1 was right there the whole time!
To be transparent, I came to this opinion after buying a gravel bike (used) and realizing that I should have just gotten a MTB to really enjoy off pavement cycling.
100%. I feel like my long ride endurance actually declined by relying only on shorter indoor training sessions. Bike handling, on-bike upper body strength, tolerating external conditions and other aspects of endurance can’t be built through short sessions.