>Insurance for things you can afford to replace never makes sense anyway. The expected cost of insurance will always exceed the expected cost of replacement in the long run.

"Peace of mind" is not free.

Paying ~ten bucks a month to insure my phone and not have to worry about it getting damaged is worth it to me, even if I could afford to replace it if I broke it; because now I just _don't worry about it_.

▲

dbdr 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Why would you worry about it if you can afford to replace it?

If you say you worry about the cost, shouldn't you worry even more about the higher cost of the insurance? Sure, for one item the variance is higher if you are uninsured, but if you have several such items, variance goes down, and you are saving all the more money.

▲

klausa 2 days ago | parent [-]

Because even though I can afford to buy/repair a new phone if I break mine; it still _feels_ terrible to have to spend 500+ bucks because I was a dumbass.

I literally toss my phone to my couch or my bed from across the room dozens of times a week without worrying about misjudging the throw (which happens more than I’d like to admit), toss is on the ground at the gym, have no problems taking long baths with it, washing it under the sink if it gets dirty, and do dozens of things I would not do if I had to pay a full price if I ended up actually breaking it.

Having AC+, lets me treat the device with the level of carelessness that is worth the price to me.

Math-wise with how durable recent flagship devices are, you are probably correct that I’d be better off financially to just accept that I will break a phone every couple of years and just eat the cost.

But psychologically, I’m happier paying ~120bucks a year, than $500 in repair fees once in a while.

▲

dbdr 2 days ago | parent [-]

Yes, the argument is that the entity providing the insurance is surely earning more income that they are paying out since in addition to payouts, they also have overhead costs and must be profitable. Said another way, their customers are paying more than they receive, on average. That's a mathematical and economical certainty.

You are right that it might still feel better to you to pay regularly instead. That's subjective.

Knowing that you will likely end up paying less in the long term if you don't pay the insurance might help getting over that feeling, but that's a personal choice in the end.

	▲	klausa 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		It's bordering on insurance fraud and I usually trade-in my devices back to Apple so I don't bother with it; but there's probably at least one case where both you and Apple come out ahead financially. AC+ includes what they call "Express Replacement Service", where you will send you an entirely new device as part of your claim, and they'll reuse your old one for parts. If you _just happen_ to accidentally fall with your phone in hand right after the new ones come out, the delta in price between "a scuffed up, used 1-year old phone" and "brand new refurbished device from Apple" is higher than the price of the insurance and incidental damage fees.

▲

Gigachad 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

The peace of mind I have is that the $1000 for a new phone is sitting in my bank account. If I break my phone, I can get it replaced, and if I don't, I get to keep the money. While buying Apple care is ensuring you lose since you pay for a new phone whether you break it or not.