I typed this whole thing up for another thread only to find the thread locked before I could post. Still very relevant to this conversation, and I don't want to waste 10 minutes of typing.
While you make a good point, and I do agree with most of it, allow me to make a counterpoint.
In our current day and age, with the complexity of the products that the average consumer uses on a daily basis, first generations are often buggy and unreliable. Hence, there is a very specific group of people (first adopters) that take the tentative steps into trying new tech. Most people stick to what they have and what they know works, so snatching the attention of that crowd of first adopters is vital, as you need their word-of-mouth reviews to generate hype. Often, new tech is released incredibly buggy and for a much higher price point that later adopters get. (Comparing this to games, people who pre-order or buy full price games tend to deal with the brunt of the bugs and glitches. By the time the game goes on sale for the late adopters, most everything has been ironed out).
These early adopter heartaches span across every experimental/engineering/tech-based industry from cars to medicine to televisions to bleeding-edge tech. Why don't they just release a finished product? Is it because they want to rob customers? No, it's because they have to start making returns on the product in order to continue the project. Developing new tech is a time sink. R&D is very expensive and very risky. It's challenging to produce something new, and it takes a long time, a lot of talent, and a lot of dosh to do it. When their developers make a genuine breakthrough, they want to cash in on returns as quickly as possible to shore up their losses and continue funding the project. Most companies can't afford to shovel money into a big hole to try and get a piece of tech working just right. So they release it, throw it to the dogs, let people decide whether or not they have an idea worth holding on to. If the early adopters like it despite the inevitable bugs, the project gets greenlighted for later iterations. If they don't, it's usually salvaged for something else to try and make some returns out of it.
It has very little to do with corrupt business practices and everything to do with the difficulty of trying something new. From my experiences as a customer, I make an effort to avoid new tech precisely because I cannot trust it to work right out of the box. It's still in it's fetal stage. I buy third or fourth generation hardware, because usually the majority of the bugs have been ironed out by then and I usually pick up software on sale or after the price drops. It's not because I'm cheap, but because I can't trust the software to deliver a functional and enjoyable experience right out of the box. They need time to hammer things out, but they can't afford to absorb any more losses.
Early adoption is a risky business. It can pay off, or it can be a total waste of consumer time and money. It's up to you as a consumer to determine what products you're willing to gamble on. I'm confident that despite my initial hiccups, TWI will hammer out the bugs and I will enjoy RO2 for years to come. It's far from perfect now, but there's enough potential in this product for me to consider it worth the risk of early adoption.
... 
