“On average” / “In the long run,” it’s always cheaper to self-insure. That this is so is trivially demonstrated by the fact that the insurance companies are profitable.
Which means that insurance is ultimately a service, not a financial instrument.
The service that Apple provides with AppleCare+ is superlative. And while the service does, yes cost money, it easily falls into the “pocket change” category — many people spend half as much per day on sugary coffee drinks as they do per month on AppleCare+.
Further, while self-insurance is always cheaper, many cannot afford to “pay a claim,” so to speak. This would be akin to purchasing insurance from a bottom-tier insurer who goes bankrupt at the first hint of a worse-than-average year of payouts — a very similar situation as a run on a bank. I’m not in the industry, but I’m sure there are well-established guidelines of reserves-to-liability ratios … and I wouldn’t at all be surprised that, even for a phone, the overwhelming majority of individual owners fail such tests. After all, median annual income in the States is a bit over $41,000. Deduct living expenses, and even a “mere” $430 dollars to replace Apple’s current cheapest phone will be … quite the challenge.
Triple both those numbers and you’re in the exact same situation for the 15PM. So even many making six figures are not making wise financial decisions when choosing to self-insure — especially those living in areas (like Silicon Valley) with a high cost of living.
b&