Source? All I could find was Kotaku, IGN, and an assorted bunch with the same article about a research firm named IHS iSuppli that states just the components came around to $103.25. I've clicked on a few others sites and it really is the same thing. However, in the IGN article, they state something else.
Of course, there are a number of costs surrounding this figure that aren't factored into IHS's breakdown. Packaging, marketing and R&D play an enormous role in determining the price of a system, not to mention software development. The Nintendo 3DS not only includes the often-mentioned AR Games but Face Raiders, Mii Maker, Mii Plaza, a music player, a photo-editing suite and, eventually, the e-Shop and an Internet Browser.
How does this all come together? Well, you said it doesn't matter if I thought the PS3 should have been $400. Technically, I was just saying as a Blu-ray player, I (IMO) didn't see it as a true "affordable" option at $500-$600 even if it was one of the cheapest players at the time. That was back when stores were getting away with selling 6' HDMI cables for around $100. It was an early adopters market, and early adopters will always pay a premium.
Customers will always have their own justified/personal price for any item, even for something as silly as reams of paper. The numbers might vary, but at times you'll find many customers demanding a lower cost. When sales are poor because of this holding out on pricing, the company behind the product might have reason to look into it. I think you'll find true arrogance if you see a company holding out on their recommended retail pricing, especially in the face of competition. (Of course, what helped Sony was removing PS2 hardware and providing emulation on newer PS3 models). Doesn't matter if they're selling at a loss; that doesn't speak on the character of the company. Likely it speaks towards their business strategy, and in the case of Sony, if they're dependent on software versus hardware.
And there's a key component to the circlejerk on "Nintendo arrogance." If anything, it's more attuned to a kind of industry stubbornness. Nintendo has been use to being the industry leader and supplying innovation. Now the industry is taking lead from two companies that are multifaceted and have been capable of supplying a variety of services with greater ease. Nintendo has been video games, nothing else. There was a time (GCN, 6th Gen) they blew off online capabilities for consoles, but now they're catching up to Microsoft's lead on multiplayer and both Sony and Microsoft for supplying media applications.
Now, If you felt cheated of $80 because you bought a 3DS right away, well you were an early adopter and that's what happens. They're an important aspect to a free market because someone has to dip their toes in the water to take the product for a spin. Maybe you don't care for certain software, but at least Nintendo rewarded the early adopters of a handheld that was doing lukewarm. Personally I waited because I'm still not comfortable with spending over $200 on a handheld, and that's my personal consumer preference. I'm not going to stare at a product and mutter, "Company X, ya bunch of evil sonvabitches.."
I mean, we should never forget that Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft are all in this for one thing: Money. So in closing...