Well, it's not by accident that Gibson headstocks are what feeds luthiers! It's not their prevalence, it's not Gibson owners being more negligent than the others, it's the non-existent design. Really. There are ways to make a mahogany neck more durable than the Gibson design, and by the pertinent criteria, the other brands ARE better guitars than Gibson in that respect. Does it matter whether you can depend on your guitar not breaking from being dropped 10 inches (the luthier I use demonstrated this...) and not have the headstock break? To me, it seems that reliability is a crucial point in calling an instrument a quality instrument.
There are objective criteria in hardware specs and allowed deviation from specified measurements, the prevalence of blemishes in finish, the work necesary to bring the fretwork to an acceptable level and so forth. Gibson and Fender do not try to produce the best guitars for the money, they try to maximize the price they can get for a given guitar.
It's willful ...something to say that since Gibson and Fender happened to end up the duopoly on the market for a time we should accord them respect. It's according companies in pursuit of winnings and in the process buying out the comptetition completely unfounded, misguided and historically revisionist moral justification for doing what companies do.
Pretty much. Specifically in regards to Gibson, I can't believe the amount of blems on $3k+ instruments. Gibson's fragile headstock simply blows my mind, having seen my share of headless Les Pauls. No, not Steinberger style.