Gas,
It's a mix- many don't like the idea of the classic & quintessential American workingman's rifle being made in the Orient, and the Winchester name is so closely intertwined with the history of the western expansion that it's sacriligious to have it made by any other country. Much more so in that respect than the Browning or Weatherby branding.
Everybody knows Colt & Winchester "won the West".
Browning was selling his designs, not making them under his own name.
Weatherby who?
Imagine the outcry if Colt were to have their Peacemaker made in Japan. Regardless of quality, the idea's repugnant to many.
The project manager said various options were considered, including Turkey & Russia, and the Miroku operation that was already producing leverguns was settled on for cost reasons & acceptability to the buying public. Nobody would buy a Chinese 94.
A US-made 94, he said, would have an even higher pricetag.
The 94 is not now intended for mass sales, Miroku doesn't have the room to churn them out in volume, so they're a semi-limited production nostalgia item at a high price along with the other older "Winchester" designs produced there.
In bygone times, the Marlin 336 and the Winchester 94 were both priced much closer together, both were good quality working guns, and it was largely a matter of just choosing between which style of levergun you preferred.
Today, since the 94 has gone off-shore & doubled in price it's no longer the affordable entry-level deer gun for new riflemen or the ol' faithful first choice as a general purpose truck gun that it used to be.
With the decline in quality of the Marlins, those remain more affordable, but they have to be approached with caution when looking at a new one.
Winchester 94 prices will never come down, but hopefully Marlin quality will come back up.
Personally, having owned and hunted with both in .30-30, either one USED to be about equal in overall quality & performance in the "good old days".
Both were good, solid, dependable guns that people knew & understood. And- that people could afford to buy.
Today I have the two 94s in .30-30, a .357 Marlin, a .44 Mag Marlin, and a .45 Colt Marlin.
I prefer the Winchester's "feel" in .30-30, but prefer the Marlins in handgun calibers.
The guns are all older, and as the current situation stands I have no interest in buying a new Winchester because of what's been done to them, and I'm waiting to see if Remington can restore the Marlins to what they used to be before I consider spending any more money on one of those.
Music,
Yes, we do retain at least some measure of control- we can choose not to buy a product we find offensive.
There are, in the case of the 94, millions still in circulation & it's not all that difficult to find an older one without the unnecessary re-designs.
The new 94 hasn't been out long enough to give much of a track record, but the 86 Mirokus have & you can find reports of ignition failures attributed to the rebounding hammer.
I am NOT saying the new 94 should be avoided because of this, or that it WILL have ignition problems. I'm just commenting on the rebounding hammer in general.
I considered buying a new 92 earlier this year, but one of the deal-killers was the tang safety. It leaves an open space next to the hammer for gunk to get in, and it irritated my hand. I would have had to either file the nub down or remove the safety altogether.
I know- it's not an issue for many, but for many others it is.
There's been a scope option for the 94s for many years prior to the angle eject introduction. The AE is actually the least offensive of the modifications to the original design & one I could live with.
My 16-inch 94 in .30-30 has it & it's tolerable.
As California has come to rule the nation in certain aspects of the firearms manufacturing industry, and as the 1% of handgun owners who mount lights & lasers on their guns has dictated to the rest of us that we have to have accessory rails we don't want, so has the tiny percentage of those who stick glass on a 94 dictated to the rest of us that we have to have an angle eject action.
Back to the 86 briefly- That rifle was highly respected in the Old West for it's power and its slick action. The Miroku Winchester 86 I had was beautifully done, but I couldn't for the life of me see where all the praise for the slick action came from. It was stiff, and one day I finally realized that what I had was the result of the rebounding hammer, and that action was not representative of an original 86.
On a related note, I have worked with 92 levergun repros by three different companies. The original Winchester 92s were also slick little guns. Two different Italian 92 makers' levers were much slicker than the current Miroku 92 I had here. They don't have the design "upgrades" & they don't have rebounding hammers.
Their actions require noticeably less effort to cycle.
The rebounding hammer system adds trigger weight and adds cycling effort, by its nature.
The undercut bolt on the new 94 is only an improvement over previous rebounding hammer versions, it is not a significant benefit over pre-rebounders.
Again- buy one if you want one.
I have not said otherwise. Just adding perspective & background.
Denis
Regulations, do and will change things over the course of time. As for the assertion, that only a 'Few' model 94 owners ever asked for Optic accommodations, ...what data/Proof do you have to offer and back this up 
