Comparison to the Itera is not entirely fair, although relevant in a roundabout way.
It failed as much - if not more - due to poor marketing judgement as it did to poor engineering. And some of that engineering could easily have been addressed had there been anyone with cycling experience in the management team.
Due to the fewer number of parts, absence of paint etc Iteras were first meant to sell at 1/3 of the price for what counted as the ”average” Swedish bicycle BITD.
However, someone decided that instead of going cheap, the Iteras should sell for 25% MORE than the ”average” bike, due to the radical design.
And faced with a bike that was heavier, flexier and more expensive than average - on top of odd-looking - customers mostly ignored it.
Today, looking at the price for department store bikes, it seems unlikely that savings in frame production would have a huge impact on the overall price on an ”average” bike.

There’d have to be something more thrown into the mix.
Lower price for a high-performance frame for instance.
Or easier to integrate a battery compartment, etc.

Technically, what would have helped the Itera would have been some understanding of riding dynamics.
It is a flexy frame, but perfectly functional for seated riding. Unfortunately it’s geared so high that riding standing is frequently required.
With a lower overall gearing, Iteras make very comfortable bikes for cruiser-type riding.