My comment was saying that you're assuming time-saving is the only value, and was pointing out that's not true. I'm even willing to believe it might be the most important source of value by a long shot -- I wasn't arguing against your conclusion; I was pointing out an assumption made by the argument you stated.
Regarding 1. It's not that the ingredients are less common per se. It's that using BA means that people ended up using some less commonly used ingredients. They were introduced to new things that they hadn't used before and wouldn't have sought out on their own. They liked that.
Regarding 1.5 - obviously, but the thing is there is greater convenience (that some ppl prefer) with not having to select the recipes, get the ingredients, portion them out. For some people that different in convenience makes the difference between whether they do it or not. So treating this issue as if it was purely a matter of whether it was possible or not doesn't make sense.
Regarding 2, I have heard people say they have been able to make high quality meals that they wouldn't usually have made that are better than most takeaway.
3 is most definitely relevant, because it's an example of a non-speed-based kind of value it provides to some people - getting the kind of meal they would only otherwise get at a restaurant but at home. Most takeaway can't do that.