This seems like a very US-centric view or the world. If you make a decent amount of money you have to spend it on a car? Lots of people don’t care about cars and/or don’t spend a enough time in them to justify spending a lot on it.
I purchased mine without any intent on using it in a car, and in fact I never did, but it was clear that I was engaging in out-of-bounds behavior in doing so.
My 2001 Jeep Wrangler has both
$300 more for a new stereo is still a lot to many people. Plus, if I buy beater cars but put a nice stereo in them I'm at risk of theft. And I have to pay install fees again if I buy my next beater.
The buyers of this product are people who:
- spend enough time in their car to want streaming audio
- spend money on phone and internet
- have a desire to improve their car to have streaming audio
- but not enough to replace the car
- and also not enough to replace the stereo
- but definitely enough to pay money to add it
- and are willing to remove the item they are paying for every time they leave the car to prevent its attractiveness to thievesA brand new Toyota Corolla is $22k and comes with both. For older cars, you can get a nice stereo for $300. If you aren't an audiophile, probably $100.
You can get a Bluetooth-capable stereo with hands-free microphone for around $100, and while I haven’t yet installed it, I just bought a 7” screen double-DIN stereo for under $300 that has (wired) CarPlay and Android Auto integration, plus a backup camera. It even has ports for a front camera if you want one, though you’ll have to buy it separately. That’s a huge capability upgrade for very little money, and not at a discount retailer either. I got it from Crutchfield, whose value proposition is extensive installation advice and lifetime tech support from actual experts based in the US.
$300 is more than I spend on gas each year. Not worth it.
Backup cameras aren't necessary, but they're damned handy. I thought front cameras were kind of silly until I drove a car with one, but it turns out they're very useful in the right situations.
Because owning a small, cheap car doesn’t cost much and is way more convenient than renting one.
For example. I use my car when I need to transport something I can’t take on my bike. I might need to pick up a package from the nearest parcel point that’s too big or too heavy to transport otherwise. This is about 500 meters from my house, just too far to walk with a heavy package (done that, not fun) but renting a car for a 2 minute trip seems a bit ridiculous.
Or I may want to buy a few crates of beer for a party. A bit inconvenient to get by bike (although possible). This is a 1 kilometer trip. Again, not worth the trouble renting a car for but not a problem if I already have a car anyway.
Or I may need to take some stuff to the recycling center. Again a short trip (2 kilometers).
You may start to see a pattern here. If I had to rent a car for those situations then it would take me more time to pick up and retrieve a rental than for the trip I need it for.
You may not care about the features of that sound system, and so don’t want one, but that’s a different story than “it’s too expensive”.
It wasn't about having a car or not. It was the assumption that if you have a higher income you are automatically willing to spend a sizeable chunk on it on a car. Not all people are as obsessed with cars as the average American.
I do pretty well for myself and I can think of a thousand things I'd rather spend my money on than on a car.