Let's see... IBM, General Motors, Remington... I'm sure that there are others. Who else is going to try the, "We're ______________. The people will buy what we make for them to buy." business model? It hasn't worked yet (that I'm aware of). Leupold, are you paying attention? The Mark 5 series is certainly a step in the right direction, but now you're playing catch-up in the market, which should have never been the case.
That attitude (we're the 500 pound gorilla) does nothing but breed competition and ensure that the market "pie" will get cut up into progressively smaller pieces. Don't get me wrong, it's great for the consumer, but it sure sucks for the people that comprise the company (not to mention the shareholders).
As much as it pains me to say this, I'm glad to see this happen to Remington... I love to see "people" get what they have coming (whether that's good or bad; I love to see good things happen to people who've earned them, and I love to see bad things happen to people who've... earned them). If a company drags its collective ass and allows its competition to innovate and either deliver superior quality/features at a given price point or similar quality/features at a lower price point (or, horror of horrors, superior quality/features at a lower price point), then they've earned whatever happens to them. I don't want to hear any crying about foreign competition, either, and I'll tell you why: the Ruger American Rifle. It is in no objective way that I can discern inferior to modern R700s, and is in some ways superior. It is American made, and it is priced such that it gives the purchaser a lot of value ("value" in this case being defined as, what you get in exchange for what you give). There isn't a single reason why Remington, oh, say, 10+ years ago, couldn't have come up with something similar... but they were too busy resting on their laurels and not paying attention to the market changing around them. It's just so damned frustrating...