Are active speakers the best upgrade

Active eliminates alot of intermodulation distortion that happens in passive crossovers. Not to mention, with large woofers as the voice coil temperature rises the inductance changes, which in turn causes some phase shift, another advantage of active designs. Its amazing how few speakers companies are doing them since the advantages are so great. I suspect part of it is the marketability aspect-alot of audiophile's want to choose their amps and even more so if they are set on tube amps they won't even bother with an active system-since all the ones I've seen use ss (not that it has to be ss, but its for the better)

As far as i can reason, active is more/very cost effective for what it offers. Has anyone ever priced metal cases for amps-$100 a piece starting on up? Making a speaker cabinet a little bigger to compensate for the amps volume is alot cheaper-MDF costs less then metal. Not to mention it cleans up alot of listening room clutter of equipment and gets the speaker cable runs down to a few feet (two feet of good 14g cable is probably as good as 12 or 14 feet of high-performance wire). It also eliminates the needs for zobels in many cases and allows the designer to design the amp with a specific driver in mind, increasing performance more.
And with the active crossover, all it needs is a volume nob to become a preamp. The performance gains are just too great to be ignored. And its shocking that you find pieces of crap $70,000 speaker using passive networks. People pay obscene amounts of money for crap. The best active crossover would smoke the best passive crossover for less money. Burmester has an $80,000 pr of speaker using a $300 raven r-2 ribbon tweet and two seas excel aluminum cones (<$200 each) per side plus the lf section and passive crossover, all for $80,000. Its obvious that the best products for the money don't always win in a free market economy, which I though was one of the underlying ideas/virtues behind such. Company images and ideologies sell better.