I was only teasing.
There is no doubt that Pentax's marketing is utter rubbish. And not having hypersonic motors in the kit lenses must cost sales. But I'm not so sure about the lens issue in general.
The lower priced Cankon lenses may have the expensive brand name on them, but they are often £ for £ inferior to the after market equivalents. It's rarely until you reach the £1000 lenses that the branded offerings can outgun the after market manufacturers. My neighbour is a frequently published (albeit semi-pro) wild life photographer and Canon* user. Only two of his lenses are Canon, the others either Sigma or Tamron - he just gets what is best for the job he wants to do. If I was going to get a replacement f1.4 50mm I wouldn't even look at the Pentax offering - the Sigma is the gold standard here (and on a Pentax or Sony 3/4 stops IS), and £200 cheaper . As you rightly point out, that could buy a flash gun. Or maybe the new f2.4 (?) 35mm for £169.
I couldn't help noticing that the Nikon 50mms don't have any image satbilisation.
Pentax used to do an f1.4 50mm which retailed at about £200, and it was a pretty good lens. I guess they thought it wasn't good enough. Who knows what on earth goes on in their minds? Although they now cost 50% more secondhand . .
None of this matters, however, when 85% of DSLR buyers never buy another lens for their camera. The people on this site are the exception rather than the rule.
I have no crystal ball, but I can see the likes of Panasonic and Sony driving Cankon up market. Lower volumes, higher profits. Pentax are very successful in their home market, the multi coloured K-xs selling by the bucketload. But I wouldn't hazard a guess as to what the camera world will look like in 5 year's time.
*Every time I borrow one of his cameras I end up getting an E06 error code and start panicking
