I think any normal people will just go for the first option, only geeks and technical interested guy will try the second approach, and eventually many of them will give up on the second setup because it is just too complex to implement and maintain, and a Raid 0 will have higher risk of failure, it does not worth the effort
RAID 0 does not have a high risk of failure and it is usually used for much better performance not endurance/storage and thus this analogy is wrong. Let's move on.
I use this example because it has proven history: After so many years of Raid technology appearance, most of the people are still not running Raid, and when they run, they typically run Raid 1 or Raid 10 in data centers to have more data safety. This is all because raised level of complexity caused so many compatibility/driver problems which do not exist for a single hard drive setup, so that the benefit of increased speed does not worth the effort of setting up and maintain a RAID
It also shows a strong philosophy when it comes to future scalability: Simple solutions tends to survive long term wise. It is very easy to expand the capacity of a simple system by simply adding more of it, because you don't change the behavior of existing system and all the systems that are dependent on it can work as usual