> You pay 1000$ because that is what people is willing to pay.
And they are willing to pay that, at least in part, because
> the manufacturer protects you from these risks
Not sure what point you're trying to make. Your logic is circular.
And they are willing to pay that, at least in part, because
> the manufacturer protects you from these risks
Not sure what point you're trying to make. Your logic is circular.
And that is assuming they are trying to "protect you", but that is a different discussion.
They certainly are trying to protect you but I am not naive to think it's out of the kindness of their corporate heart. It's because that's what many people want right now. Apple tried to compete with Google and Facebook at their own game, predictably lost, so changed the rules of the game. Which was a brilliant strategy and if next year they change their stance I will happily reconsider my opinion.
And people don't have to know explicitly every feature and how it's achieved technically. The phone is now almost a commodity, like toothpaste. You buy one because that manufacturer built a trust. You probably buy Colgate, Sensodyne, or OralB (Crest). But not because you carefully analyzed their chemical composition, or pored through study after study. You just trust one, a friend or dentist recommended it, it just works for you, and so on.
That protection the phone affords you may not be immediately apparent but enough people start noticing eventually even if they don't understand the underlying technical part.
That's why they buy 99$ phones
You're comparing a few millions people living in SV with billions of people making less than 10 dollars a day and assuming that they have the same PPA and that they represent the entirety of the World's user opinions and/or will