"That means that millions of people had to give away more of their wealth to one person or one company making such person or company richer, while everyone else poorer."
No, the people who bought Apple's products were not poorer. They converted part of their wealth (or resources if you prefer) from currency to an Apple device, having decided that the exchange was a fair one.
Electronics don't hold their value very well, so over time the person will gradually become "poorer" in the sense that they could not sell their Apple device and get their money back. But in the meantime the person was richer in that he or she had the use of the device.
Also this falls into the "pie fallacy" of view of wealth. Total wealth in the world is not a static function that doesn't change overtime. If people decide to exchange some of their wealth and "time" to make them feel happy and satisfied and just their state of happiness make them produce more stuffs/services/quality of life because they are much happier than they were before exchange. Is that a negative thing?
No, the people who bought Apple's products were not poorer. They converted part of their wealth (or resources if you prefer) from currency to an Apple device, having decided that the exchange was a fair one.
Electronics don't hold their value very well, so over time the person will gradually become "poorer" in the sense that they could not sell their Apple device and get their money back. But in the meantime the person was richer in that he or she had the use of the device.
reply