> The memory that they are placing in it has to be cheap enough to be worth their while.

You're framing this as if no reputable vendor is willing or able to source cheaper parts.

If they can get a better deal in more RAM, why can't they upgrade the boards? As a consumer, doesn't that benefit you as well?

> Which in this climate is highly probably faulty memory, (...)

That's specious reasoning and blatant fear-mongering. Consumer protection laws require vendors to support their products. If RAM is faulty, whether it was hand soldered by Eben Upton himself or hacked from a Soviet fridge, vendors are compelled to support customers. This means vendors ultimately have an interest in minimizing faulty equipment, because it hurts their bottom line.

So why can't people have the right to upgrade their hardware? I thought we already went through this battle in the 1980s.