High performance vehicles offer additional performance as a tradeoff for more maintenance. Luxury vehicles are the same. You are getting "more", but there is either less safety margin built in (as in a high performance vehicle) or simply more things to break (as in a luxury vehicle).
The analogy does not hold for regulators. A Mk 25 does not offer higher performance as the expense of being less reliable (as a high performance car would). Or at least, I don't think ScubaPro would agree with a statement that it does. A high performance car uses a higher compression ratio in the engine, and lighter materials and components in places, all of which serves to reduce its ability to last, say, 200,000 miles without a major overhaul, like might be expected of a "lower performance" car. I don't believe a Mk 25 has any such tradeoffs.
So, requiring a Mk 25 to be serviced after 100 dives or 2 years, even it has only done 10 dives, been properly cared for, and is exhibiting no signs of needing service does seem to me to qualify as "unnecessary".
A car can be required to have fluids changed, even if has been parked, simply because those fluids will gradually go bad even if they are just sitting. Water condenses in the crankcase and then gets into the oil. Gas sublimates and leaves a varnish. Compounds in the coolant gradually break down. Cars have valid reasons for a time-based service interval.
O-rings in a regulator will eventually go bad, even if they are just sitting - but not in 2 or 3 years (assuming they were properly installed and cared for). In other words, regulators don't have reasons (like cars do) for requiring a time-based service interval. At least, not a 2 year interval. In my non-reg tech opinion, anyway.
