That and there have been companies that had good product, but then got bought out. Only afterwards, they reduce product quality to the point of being some of the worst on the market.

These vulture capitalists are hoping that the brand recognition of what was once a good product keeps the company afloat long enough for them to rot away and consume the company from the inside.

Yep I agree. I don't think he was saying that being pricier guarantees its better quality, just that something better quality may be worth it even if it is pricier.

I would consider repair and upgrade-ability to be a part of quality.

I actually agree, it was one small problem I had with the video, he portrays the Boots theory of socio-economic unfairness as a basic "buy once cry once" thing, when really it's about how being poor is expensive. It doesn't matter if over the course of 5 years it makes sense to pay 4 times the cost for a product that lasts 5 times longer, it's that poor people can't afford a 4x cost product. Most people understand that quality stuff lasts longer, but it doesn't matter if you can't pay it and you need boots.