If this was at a, say, $5 price point, I don't think there'd be that many people putting up a stink.
Why is $5 an acceptable price? Why not $10, $50, $500?
Edit: You agree that having 200+ tabs is a problem right? Why haven't the people with 200+ tabs adopted the solutions you speak of? Perhaps those solutions aren't good enough, or perhaps they don't want to change the way they work. Either way, if those solutions really "solved" the problem, we wouldn't be observing people with 200+ tabs in the world.
For at least a decade of my life, I was a 200+ tab person. Paying any amount of money to make my computer slightly more responsive versus the time I lost just clicking through (literally) hundreds of tabs to find something versus logging it--let alone simply searching for the same thing again and hitting the links that float to the top because I've visited them--doesn't make any sense to me.
As I see it, the "problem" here is not that you need to have 200+ tabs open at any given time. The problem is precisely that you have 200+ tabs open at any given time.
If you have the ability to keep track of 200+ tabs, exactly where they're located on your screen, and can switch back and forth between those and your actual work within a matter of seconds then kudos to you. You're actually a genius, and your employer should definitely consider purchasing this ongoing subscription for you.
[edit]: Just looked at your history and realized I'm probably replying to an astroturf account, so joke's on me, I guess.
200+ tabs open for $30+ a month per employee is the hill you decided to take a stand on?
We could also continue to talk about the points we both raised earlier, or that could all get lost in the weeds :)