The $10,000 bicycle will be as reliable, light, sturdy, and comfortable as possible with the available technology. You don't want your brakes going out on a 2000+ mile race. Most people only need what a $900 or under bicycle offers, so the $10,000 price is mostly from low volume: that's only ~12 $900 bicycles.

It's the same reason this costs $11k: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1473009-REG/blackmagi...

Only a few people need it, and those few people can justify the cost of a niche tool with small production runs.

You put pog on a $900 bike, and then on a $10k bike and you'll see a measurable improvement in performance.

At the top end ever watt helps. Will a casual on a 10k bike beat pog on a $900 bike? Absolutely not.

The analogy doesn't QUITE hold to photography however. No matter how skilled you are, a crappy small sensor in a dark room will pretty much always be awful. Can a skilled photographer make it look a bit less bad? Sure, but there are physical limitations in play here.

At top tier levels, I am sure there is a difference. Lance Armstrong could probably have a measurable percentage performance increase using a $10k bike vs an off the shelf. For your normal performer, technique is going to matter significantly more than equipment.