That is not what I'm arguing. I think you guys didn't understand what I was saying. Companies would not buy a Steam Frame to do normal work on it, because it is not powerful and cheap enough to justify it. The problem with the Steam Machine was, it was just a normal X86 computer when you slap a different operating system on it. If Valve was subsidizing the price, then no one in their right mind would buy a different computer and go straight for the Steam Machine. That means Valve would lose money on each machine.

And that's the point. This could be done with Steam Frame, because it cannot replace a normal desktop PC. If you buy a VR headset, then you most likely will use it for VR. And most likely to play Steam games on it, just like the Steam Deck is used mostly to play Steam games, even if the architecture is a general purpose computing device. In that case the price could be subsidized a little bit.

Note: I am NOT arguing you cannot general computing stuff with it. I am arguing that anyone buying Steam Frame does not with the intention to do that only. Most likely anyone purchasing Steam Frame wants to play virtual reality games on Steam. Steam Frame is NOT a perfect candidate for wide variety of uses cases.

A mobile device you put on your head, with ARM architecture is not the perfect device to do general computing only. Anyone buying a Steam Machine could happily ignore the Steam store and do normal PC stuff with it. So that's why Valve did not subsidize the price. But Steam Frame is not like that. If someone wants to do general computing ONLY, then this is not a device for it. It would be cumbersome to work with, probably underpowered for its price and in general the CPU architecture is not ideal for that.

Compare this to Steam Machine. If the Machine was subsidized by Valve, then it would be cheaper than a comparable PC. In that case any company or other users would buy it to use it without Steam. In which case Valve would lose money on every single hardware.