Short answer: not really. The technology and the way it's being applied is easily replicable without a lot of R&D money. There's also a level of detail resolution that this lacks, so whilst it's great for a quick and dirty look, it's not got the power of serious machinery.

That being said, I expect we'll see a v2 of this, based on more dedicated purpose hardware, which would reduce the cost down to the low four or even possibly mid three figures in the not too distant future. It's a genuinely interesting development.

Source: best friend works in this field, so whilst I'm not an expert, I have more than passing familiarity with this.

I think that's needlessly conspiratorial, the more likely (cynical) outcome is that the use case for scans dramatically rises now that they're so cheap, so the net payment to the supplier doesn't really change.

I wonder if the $100,000 machine cost vs $100 sensor cost is mixing apples and oranges. Maybe the $100 is just hardware, while the $100,000 represents hardware, a repeatable process to manufacture the hardware, the costs of certifying the design, the particular instance hardware and the process that manufactured it, etc...

This doesn't mean that in the end a lower cost imaging capability isn't possible.