I don't "baby" anything. But what I expect is a product that is often north of 250 bucks not to break down due to inferior materials or design < 30 days of use on the hill. I don't expect to have to chase a company's customer service for something that should not happen in the first place. Bit like you presumably don't expect to chase Never Summer on quality issues because their 3 year warranty is a statement of superior build. Rome's customer service gets lauded big time on here and props to them for having a great team but perhaps if they designed or improved the materials of their bindings a little better they wouldn't have to put so much effort into keeping annoyed customers happy.
I'm not sure of your business acumen but it's always a cost/benefit thing (Google Ford Pinto memo if you're curious; its truthfulness is suspect but it's the most blatant example of what I'm trying to get at). In Rome's case, it's probably the case that it's cheaper for them to deal with customer complaints and send replacement parts than it is to invest in processes to ensure it doesn't happen in the first place, at least in the near-term.
Of course, this is purely an economic scenario. You can argue that if they just build superior products, then they'll have stronger legs to stand on and attract more customers so that investment might actually be worth it. But I'm not well-versed in their board room meetings enough to know what went into this decision, or if there was ever any discussion at all.
TL;DR - Investing in manufacturing processes to eliminate defects is not always cheaper than just dealing with the defects as they come.