The minimum price of a product is the price of manufacture minus the value gained by the seller by selling a product (e.g. door-buster sales). The maximum price of a product is the value gained by the buyer from buying a product. This creates a window of possible prices, with a final price only determined by negotiation. That negotiation may be explicit ("I'll buy from you, but only if you drop the price 15%.") or it can be implicit ("This product is just sitting on the shelf, so I'll drop the price 15%."), but it always exists.
By stating that the end user should only consider the price relative to the value gained, that is stating that the end user should give up all room for negotiation right from the start, and pay the highest price from the window of negotiation. It is not irrational for a buyer to negotiate a lower price, perhaps by waiting for the price to decrease over time.
Heck, it can even be worth it to avoid/boycott a product as a way to influence the starting point of future negotiations. None of these strategies are by any means "irrational". What would be irrational is to accept the highest possible price without considering the range of negotiable prices.
By stating that the end user should only consider the price relative to the value gained, that is stating that the end user should give up all room for negotiation right from the start, and pay the highest price from the window of negotiation. It is not irrational for a buyer to negotiate a lower price, perhaps by waiting for the price to decrease over time.
Heck, it can even be worth it to avoid/boycott a product as a way to influence the starting point of future negotiations. None of these strategies are by any means "irrational". What would be irrational is to accept the highest possible price without considering the range of negotiable prices.