Why do you feel that though? I am interested.
In the server world, RAID is awesome because you don't have to bring your system down to replace a dead disk. In a business, server down time is money. In order for RAID to work well, you really need easy access to common parts like RAID controllers and backplanes. Server gear has (much) longer lifecycles and is made to higher standards, so it is much more expensive. It's worth it though because the business depends on it.
For the home user, uptime isn't nearly as important as keeping your data. If you can't access your photos for a few days, you're not losing any money. You also don't have people on your payroll to look after your home data. So the for the home user, low cost, simplicity and ease of recovery are much higher priorities than uptime.
Low cost means that your home NAS might have some limited run RAID chip in it. If you're running hardware RAID and the NAS dies and you can't source an exact replacement, goodbye data.
Ease of recovery in the case of a home RAID array is difficult too. Even if you manage to source a replacement NAS, that was harder than it should have been. The home user is much better served by having their data stored in a format that can be read by as high a number of devices as possible, like a disk formatted in ext3 or NTFS. For this reason, I wouldn't choose software RAID either, although the kind of fake RAID that cods talks about sounds ok.
For some home users, RAID offers a false sense of security. I mentioned the expense to a business of server based RAID, but they also have expensive daily backups too. A lot of home users treat their NAS as a single backup source, which only ends in tears. That's not really a fault of RAID itself, just something to keep in mind. The redundancy in RAID is primarily for uptime, it is not a backup solution.