[sangnoir]

> You expect the cost of a self replicating object to remain out of reach of the average person?

Yes. What's the cost of relocating software, or a movie, or an audio file? Very close to 0 (a few cents at most), and yet observe how much our current system prices each of those items. Capitalism, as practiced today, maximizes profits, not competition, I don't see that changing any time soon

[comex]

And yet none of those items are out of reach of the average person. On the contrary, they’re usually pretty cheap. Precisely because replication costs nothing, the strategy that maximizes profit is to maximize the number of copies sold rather than the amount earned per copy.

You can see similar effects in hardware too, since even without self-replication there are already massive economies of scale. How much does it cost to get access to the output of most advanced chip fabrication technology on the planet? The answer is whatever the price of the latest flagship smartphone is.

[sangnoir]

> And yet none of those items are out of reach of the average person

Average person - not average American or individual from developed countries. I know of software that's well out of reach of even the average American.

> The answer is whatever the price of the latest flagship smartphone is.

Therein lies the problem with the assertion that prices will inevitably driven downwards: the price of a flagship phone is not driven by cost of making it - instead the OEMs select a price-point first and then work backwards from there. When was the last time the price of a flagship smartphone series decreased? Compare this to the number of times has it increased.