The cost of innovation has come down enormously; With very advanced computer solid-modeling and dynamic kinematic simulations, they can work out a perfect fold, a lot quicker than Andrew Ritchie did for the Brompton, which I'm sure involved a lot of trial and error. And they can then use that exact same model to perform a Finite Element (stress/strain) Analysis (FEA), and that reduces development time and cost hugely, designs these days are often successful on the first iteration. That is how SpaceX has slashed costs and time, versus NASA in decades past; However they stand on the shoulders of giants, as those advanced design tools were developed and financed by NASA and/or the defense industry.

Similar standard bike components, have similar costs.

The big cost on the Curl would be a) testing, especially cyclic fatigue tests, assuming they do any, however that is still a minor cost, and b) tooling, I think the Curl tubes may be hydroformed, I don't know the tooling cost on that, but with Dahon's volumes, that's still a minor cost. The big cost on high-volume production is always raw material cost, and labor, and increasingly so with better computer design and simulation tools. With an iPhone, different story I think; Much larger hardware and software design staffs, and the manufacturing machines for that precision are more than for hydroforming, for example. In fact, Taiwan's chip and electronics machines are the most sophisticated in the world, and when supply lines suffered during the pandemic, the USA decided we needed to tool those things up domestically, especially chips needed for defense apps. But a Dahon is not rocket surgery.

But my point is... the Curl looks to be a premium product in the 16" wheel market, and Dahon can price it higher. Price it too high, and there will be many competitors in a few years. Not get too greedy, and it creates a marketing "moat", more risky for competitors to enter the market because the potential profit, and competitiveness, is less.