Jeema
I think you are talking past one another. He's saying that he does not think that their valuation is merited. You are saying that his assertion makes no sense because valuation is, by it's nature, defined by the current trading price.
You are I think technically correct, but the market isn't always perfect in judging the value of something, and I think he is saying that this is one of those cases.
"The whole section "Minority investment evaluations aren’t real" is so economically bizarre and incorrect that I don't even know where to start."
I don't think that's so bizarre to say. If there is huge demand for something and only a very very limited supply, then doesn't it stand to reason that price will go up more than it would have otherwise if there was more supply?
The problem is, I actually think Apple is starting to abandon this approach for a more of a corporate driven 'I want you to lock you into this' model, which will NOT work.
The whole Flash debacle is the prime example of this IMO: if I want to use a Flash application on a webpage, and I'm the average user who doesn't even know* what Flash is, it better just f*ing work. Otherwise this product will be going back to the store, and I as Joe Public average computer-illiterate internet user will be on to something else. End of story.
Yet for some reason people still use it. The question is 'why'. For many cases (not all though), I think the reason is largely just institutional inertia - you stick with the devil you know rather than the devil you don't know.