1. The quality of product delivered so-far, is on-par with products delivered at much lower costs by much smaller teams, over a decade ago.
2. The nominal investment is opaque, and you can't see how it was used in detail.
3. If the current product is a scarecrow, and they do a sudden upgrade to a much better product, everyone will see it as a well-executed stealth strategy.
4. If (3.) never happens, then it would seem that the product is a bait-switch scenario, and the real expenses are not related - unless the product really has its apparently horrible capital efficiency.