>why is it that someone who can afford $1000 for a Mac can automatically afford another $100 Someone who has invested in ~$1000 specifically to develop applica

>why is it that someone who can afford $1000 for a Mac can automatically afford another $100 Someone who has invested in ~$1000 specifically to develop applications for Apple ecosystem has to invest $100 to release the application, that is the overall context of my statement in that sentence. >You're applying a sort of reverse of Zeno's Arrow[1] to affordability, and I think shows a distinct lack of understanding of how money works when you don't have all that much of it. Cherry picking part of my sentence to make a statement, then claiming to throw insight about my understanding of how money works based on how much of it I have seems like using your own logical fallacy intentionally to make an ad hominem argument.