4 ms·

> It's certainly plausible. Something being plausible is not evidence and doesn't support a claim. You are basically saying "you can't prove it isn't true", wh

> It's certainly plausible. Something being plausible is not evidence and doesn't support a claim. You are basically saying "you can't prove it isn't true", which isn't an argument at all. What is evidence is actual assessments and an understanding of the underlying technologies, something we do have and speaks against reclamation. > The rest of your math is largely fictional because you can't buy a pair of new AirPods without the charging case. This makes it pretty clear you aren’t even arguing in good faith. We have a device with 3 components (two of which are identical). We know the price of the combined 3, and we know the price of the 1 unique unit, that gives us a very accurate idea of the retail price of the 2 matching units. It is basic math, not some pie in the sky made up numbers. This is what Apple is selling them for, that is the retail value. What is fictional math is your asserting that if Apple is charging $50 for a replacement, the original must be worth about $50 back to Apple. Since their replacement cost is pretty much the same as their initial price point, you are just buying a replacement. This is pretty basic. If I am charging $6 for a bag with an orange and two apples, and $3 for a single orange, we can be pretty sure the Apples are about $1.50 each. If you get a rotted apple and I say I’ll take it back and give you a fresh one for $1.40, I’m just selling you another apple. I can just throw the rotted one in the garbage.

otterley 6y ago
> We know the price of the combined 3, and we know the price of the 1 unique unit, that gives us a very accurate idea of the retail price of the 2 matching units. There is no retail price because you can't buy them retail new. That's the only point I'm trying to make here. I don't contend your math is incorrect in the abstract, but in the real world, it's irrelevant. That's all. Case in point: A quick eBay search shows that a used working AirPod is about $45. If you are correct, and only the abstract math matters, why would anyone pay $45 for a used working AirPod when, as you claim, it is only worth $40 new? Is the market that irrational? I kind of doubt it. I also don't contend that the original is worth $50 to Apple (this was a best-case high water mark). It's almost certainly worth less because their incremental cost is less. I'm strictly speaking in terms of real markets as they are observable today. Heck, even a non-working AirPod is still worth about $10 on the open market. Exchange it with Apple for $49 (assuming the battery is the only problem) and that makes the market value of a new (-ish?) unit $59. (This makes Apple's goodwill worth about $15 per unit.)

otterley 6y ago

> We know the price of the combined 3, and we know the price of the 1 unique unit, that gives us a very accurate idea of the retail price of the 2 matching units. There is no retail price because you can't buy them retail new. That's the only point I'm trying to make here. I don't contend your math is incorrect in the abstract, but in the real world, it's irrelevant. That's all. Case in point: A quick eBay search shows that a used working AirPod is about $45. If you are correct, and only the abstract math matters, why would anyone pay $45 for a used working AirPod when, as you claim, it is only worth $40 new? Is the market that irrational? I kind of doubt it. I also don't contend that the original is worth $50 to Apple (this was a best-case high water mark). It's almost certainly worth less because their incremental cost is less. I'm strictly speaking in terms of real markets as they are observable today. Heck, even a non-working AirPod is still worth about $10 on the open market. Exchange it with Apple for $49 (assuming the battery is the only problem) and that makes the market value of a new (-ish?) unit $59. (This makes Apple's goodwill worth about $15 per unit.)