Do people want it or do providers think they can get more people with it? I think the last…

People actually don’t want a lot of options. They want budget variants that offer just enough performance (in terms of production/life) for the least amount of money possible. Additionally, you want the mid-range for the price – value for money so to speak and above that is expensive but better performance.
But since there are multiple features, you will also get more combinations. For now, this is still somewhat limited, but that’s tolerable. So more/less memory is one of those features. Silent versus non-silent (in terms of cooling) is also such an advantage. But completely justified. The choice has consequences for the user experience but also for objective evaluations.

in “chips” [voedsel] It is nothing more than trying to maintain a “lively” product in order to stimulate sales. “Value for money” has not changed (so there is no nutritional value anymore). You see the same with soft drinks. In fact: You see the same with water where the nuances are smaller, yet you have relatively many brands (maybe all from the same manufacturer) with different packaging.
The experience may be different – but there are hardly any objective differences.

It is a game of products to make different shapes which are not actually required differences and also do not justify a different price. But this means that different prices will be used – which in turn leads to higher profit margins.
Deer is actually a little crazy because some products have so many differences when in fact they are minor in terms of the main function. By this I mean: meat/vegetables have some differences. Keep the green bean species. She can have it in almost 3 types (budget, medium and hand-picked exclusive).

But less important are food products, such as sauces, chips, and soft drinks. Paths full of variables…but only slight differences in taste and hardly any better nutritional value (the primary purpose of food). Now there is an important nuance: more / less health. So more/less fat and/or sugar. But originally a product that was not actually very healthy was then called “made” healthy. A bit of an inverted world.

Conclusion: the less significant the differences and the less useful these differences are, the higher the variables.
And now more on the topic: as if a 3% higher clock speed would be noticeable? But it can give the manufacturer this higher margin. So just lure the consumer. So it’s not really value for money.