What was the first power cable that you noticed a difference in the sound?

This may be a naive question, but I have yet to see this discussed on this forum or elsewhere: Why would a company that builds audiophile-level components intended for the most discriminating taste, which often cost 1000s and 10s of 1000s of dollars, use an inferior power cable that is "noisy" and reduces the sound quality?

In the end, wouldn't they lose out to manufacturers that used better power cables? Just doesn't make sense to me (perhaps naively as I've suggested).

@thcarpathian That really is something. As a long time business economist I have a proposition for an audiophile manufacturer. Include a high end power cable. The margins have to be pretty large on after market cables and with bulk wholesale orders the cost would go down. It's a win-win. I get to offer a complete amplifier system with an audiophile power cable and the supplier can advertise that XYZ amplifiers use the ABC power cable, which should lead to more sales for both. Right!?!

For example, McIntosh contracts with Audioquest for supply of their Thunder power cable. Obviously, this would be well-below the ~$1,000 per meter cost (both decrease in variable cost [more cables are produced] and the advantage of a highly respected firm providing high-level marketing). So all the new McIntosh amplifiers now are supplied with an audiophile grade power cable and the cost over the model is far less than the aftermarket cable cost. McIntosh improves its reputation as does Audioquest. Plus. McIntosh is more competitive in the amplifier market with the "vertical integration".

Pretty sure market dynamics would drive this outcome if market forces were in play in this market. Other wise it sounds like some kind of collusion or worse.

I sure hate to think people are buying multi-$1,000 amplifiers with a throw away cable. What a market opportunity that should be, which seems like it would have been exploited long ago.