I agree that it is likely not in the best interests of the ultra-high-end manufacturers to encourage head-to-head comparison tests of their products. It's the "steak or lobster" scenario: it is easy to conceive of a panel who would unanimously name one or the other as the "best," while the next day another panel might unanimously declare the exact opposite. At these levels, personal taste and the way the entire meal interfaces with the restaurant and one's mood play significant roles in the final determination of which combination provided the better evening out. In the meantime, potential customers could find themselves confused by competing unhelpful claims and advertising campaigns.
On the other hand, I think that most successful purveyors of high-end goods have developed diverse and clever ways of keeping their products in the eye of those who cannot afford them. It's not exclusively functionality that drives mega-purchases, but also the desirability of a product and the satisfaction that comes with ownership, and that satisfaction comes partly from widespread recognition that a product is extraordinary. In my case, it has occasionally taken fifty years of wanting something before I was able to acquire something analogous from a company I had long admired.
