Please correct me if I am wrong, but it seems you are raising design to an ideal. I see design as a profession with all sorts of ugly bits called reality. And I also think that those ugly bits lead to some great breakthroughs. Sure design can be motivated by greed, but there is no reason to believe that someone could not have a great experience with what GE produced (assuming it was based on greed).
I think that is where we differ. I buy into John Dewey. The intrinsic value of an object is not due to the design, the value is the experience the object brings to the user and the experience a user brings to an object. Frilly ornate rococo can appeal to people where the cold Braun look does not. I won’t deny people their wants and needs. And I won’t even try to explain why some are affected by one thing and not another.
For example, I have an interest with prewar Italian cycling champions and the bikes they rode. Quite frankly, it is somewhat of an unhealthy fascination. There is nothing in my past that can relate, my ancestors were poor southern-German farmers. But yet it is that era that appeals to me and my experience with objects from that era trump any other (when relating to bicycles). If someone took those elements and incorporated them into a modern rig, it certainly could motivate a sale.
For another example, Gloria lugs. Love them. With the advent of tig welding, they are obsolete. But I still have my experience with them. I won’t deny it. And you certainly cannot claim I don’t have an experience with them either.
