That is not related to the quoted statement.

As a hypothetical, suppose the camera glass or lens was made with materials or a technique that caused it to be 90% of a phone’s cost to produce. Then replacing this item would cost >90% of the phone’s price, even though it is “small”.

Or you have a huge transport ship that has an issue with a propeller or a small part of the ship on the bottom, but it needs a dry dock to repair, and there are only a couple dry docks in the world that can handle it. Then the price could be a very high percentage of original price due to the extreme supply and demand curves involved.

Repair costs are not a simple a function of the “size” of the damage.

> As a hypothetical, suppose the camera glass or lens was made with materials or a technique that caused it to be 90% of a phone’s cost to produce. Then replacing this item would cost >90% of the phone’s price, even though it is “small”.

When I say there are people who do the repair for much cheaper I mean including the price they pay for the part, not merely their labor. Your hypothetical is not the case here.

I addressed that with this portion of the original comment :

>Of course, the ability for only one entity to source and supply those will tilt the scales towards a higher price

I don't get how that addresses anything. Maybe they're "tilted" toward a "higher" price, but until you put actual numbers on these (are we talking $10 higher or $1000 higher?) it doesn't say anything. I'm saying that, for a wide variety of common repairs, it is a fact that you can literally get the exact same repair done for the exact same issue (parts, labor, everything being the same) for far less (literally hundreds) than Apple does it for you. And I'm talking about profitable businesses here, not charities. There's no need to give hypothetical academic rebuttals on economics when the facts are clear on the ground.