no it wouldnt be like you saying that... hes just saying its the same concept as in the cost to the distributor is a lot less than the cost to the end user which is true for basically any product for consumers. hes comparing the concept not comparing the unit cost of each to each other.
Yea it would, I'm sure everyone is aware that the distributor cost is less than the retail price, but that wasn't the original point. It was whether or not the "fact" had any validity from ANY angle ( distributor wise or retail wise)
first off, neither one of us knows whether the "fact" was referring to whole sale distributor cost or retail cost.
but either way pointing out the 3 cent distributor cost in my analogy is still invalid because if 3 cents is the distribution cost (which I still doubt is that low) that means for the "fun fact" to be true, the cost for the distributor to make a bag of lays is $5 (200x cost ) which I doubt if the retail price is $4.99.
That's why it was inaccurate , the price comparison I gave at a 200 x rate. ( $5 to .003 cents) was based on a retail scale in the first place. So for him to mention theoretically that the 3 cents referred to distribution cost was invalid from the get go since my original statement was working on a retail scale since it was based off of the $4.99 retail price of a bag of lay's.
That's why I made the Blu-Ray ( retail) to Iphone ( manufacturing cost) analogy because inferring that the "fun fact" was correct off a 3 cent distribution cost would imply that he's committing the fallacy of comparing retail to distribution cost as indicated by my analogy.