gradient
Resident Cheap Arse
What wild claim? Lots of people spend less on their phones than $400. I did. Most of the people I know did.
By your own rules, you're not allowed to split the cost over time to get to equivalent units of expenditure (you've already lost the argument on that basis, remember).
Why would that be if prices are defined by a product's usefulness?
Hell, why am I even bothering with trying to make the relatively marginal case of phones vs consoles stick?
What about a vacuum cleaner? Way more useful than a console, much cheaper. A dishwasher, the same. Lots of fridges (virtually a necessity), the same.
Why do millions of people spend more on a "toy" than essential items like those, if your theory was even remotely correct?
"Lot's" you're throwing out some wild claims here and not supporting them. Where do you get the "Lot's" from. Bearing in mind that the majority of PS4's were sold below the $400 launch and that iPhones make up the largest market share in the US where is this "lot's" coming from (also stated as "possible majority") and how much/how many is "lots"?
The average across years was used becuase that's how you've been trying to define the value of an overpriced console - by defining it's value as spread across a arbitrary lifespan. That's your reasoning - the fact that you don't like it makes a bit of a mockery of your arguments up to this point.
So... citation needed. "lots"