No worries. I know you're just trying to correct any minor mistakes, just to make sure you point them out first before someone else (read: a flamer) does.
I know a lot of people can get fussy about being corrected. I think of it as a handy reminder that we don't know everything. So thanks for pointing that out, dude.
I disagree on the AMD and Nvidia selling bad products. They don't. They do try to squeeze as much as possible from the most affluent buyers, though, for that extra 35% of performance you get at 1440p going from a 200$ card to a 400$ card. (OK, not exact numbers, but you get the idea. Diminishing returns for value as the price soars.)
AMD and Nvidia also won't have to worry about other GPU vendors coming into the market any time soon. There's been thousands of engineer-years poured into their hardware designs, and they're both big multi-billion dollar companies that the benefit of money, experience and patents (which they'll certainly use to the fullest extent of the law if given any opportunity to do so for any monetary incentive). The barrier of entry for new competitors is tremendous. Qualcomm might stand a chance, but even they know better than to enter the desktop space and compete head-on with Nvidia and AMD on their turf.
A GPU has BILLIONS of transistors. Unlike a sound card, which has a relatively small number of components and can be easily assembled using basic soldering techniques, a GPU requires a chip made from a large lithography fab (like Global Foundries, Intel, Samsung or TSMC), and are usually ordered in very large batches at a time (another barrier of entry). They also require specialized memory modules, and PCBs (which are also not cheap to make trial test runs, nor can be made without very large orders - at least until we can 3D print them on a whim, that is).
Sound cards are fairly easy to assemble, like desktops. GPUs are arguably more complicated than CPUs, and just as it is unlikely we'll ever see some company like Mayflower start producing CPUs to compete head-on against Intel, both AMD and Nvidia aren't likely to see any competitors in the GPU arena for a long while. (Also, how many Open-Source hardware engineers would be willing to work for free on a next-gen GPU that would take thousands of engineer-years to produce? Especially when they could be earning huge bucks on the hour doing paid work instead?)
AMD and Nvidia aren't slacking off. They're selling great value products at different price brackets right now. The GTX 970 is a great high-performance, low-power GPU that can fit in Mini-ITX cases (depending on the model). AMD offers tremendous value in the 220$ to 270$ range, namely the R9 285 and the R9 290. They are both cards that offer good value and performance.
The thing which troubles me isn't their prices. It's their business practices. AMD says they're all about open-source stuff, but much of their software isn't. Their drivers aren't, for example. Nor is TressFX. But AMD is not as bad as Nvidia when it comes to lacking transparency, or being too proprietary, or depriving their customers of choice. AMD has been better, so Nvidia deserves to get the flak in this case. But AMD isn't off the hook either. AMD should stick to their convictions and open-source as much as they possibly can, or end up making Nvidia seem like they're the good guys (when they're not). Either AMD opens themselves up more, or AMD ends up with a PR disaster which might cost them a lot of money for their PR team to fix, but would also cost them market share - which is the last thing AMD can afford to lose right now, since AMD can't really afford much of anything right now.