. Leo Fender was an Amp Builder. He built and sold amps and players wanted a guitar to go along with the amps so Leo built the guitar for function and least cost. He saw, and got feedback from players, of the common guitar flaws ... hollow body feedback, headstocks breaking, no easy way to replace worn frets, and cost. Leo saw that a worn out neck could be replaced with a fresh factory one rather than paying someone more than that to refret an old neck. Gibson on the other hand were Guitar Builders. Steeped in traditions of instrument building they scoffed at solid bodied guitars (it took Les Paul's design combined with Fender's rapid market share rise to convince them) and then later players asked for amps to go with the guitars and ... Gibson struggled. The mix that became classic to Gibson guitar players was to match them with a Marshall amp. ...I find it interesting that the heel joint, takes the same machine time to cut bodies and necks to fit each other, and the Fender model has to tool and source steel plates and screws while all the Gibson model has to do is squeeze a little glue in there. Who has 'more cost' in that connection? The player benefits with the bolt-on style because they can replace the neck or the body any time they want -- if marketed today with no historical opinions to contend with, that is a feature worth higher product pricing. .