True, it does, but it's entirely different still. "searching, inspecting" are just different with used goods. For one, "searching" involves finding out whether there is anybody who can provide any goods, not whether there is a supplier who can give you as much product as you need. You cannot find a supplier in China to build you more used Aeron chairs. Apple and Amazon have wildly different options in that area.
Secondly, "inspecting" may boil down to a similar process of QA, but I think it should be obvious that assuring quality in a production process of new goods is a very straightforward thing while for used goods, you probably need a new process with every supplier you find.
And I agree that there is an astonishing growth in optimizing any kind of operations process. However, that still doesn't increase supply. This cuts back to his main argument: "grow revenue without costs growing proportionally". If you have a finite supply of used Aeron chairs, acquisition of the remaining chairs becomes increasingly hard - up until the point where there aren't any, anymore.
So yes, I added the argument of finite (if only temporary) supply, but it was only to extend his argument of proportional growth of cost. And yes, there is room for optimization and that may be sufficient to keep a business afloat - certainly if they are flexible with their inventory - but there are still natural limits to such a business, and that makes all the difference in the world.
The entire retail business is already constrained by demand. No one is demanding that "scalable" mean "scalable without bound".
For most durable goods there's a never ending supply of used goods already; the supply of new goods a couple years later. Once you solve the business problem of building a good funnel for used goods to come into your operation, you can probably boost or create resale value for used goods, indirectly pressuring the original suppliers.
Secondly, "inspecting" may boil down to a similar process of QA, but I think it should be obvious that assuring quality in a production process of new goods is a very straightforward thing while for used goods, you probably need a new process with every supplier you find.
And I agree that there is an astonishing growth in optimizing any kind of operations process. However, that still doesn't increase supply. This cuts back to his main argument: "grow revenue without costs growing proportionally". If you have a finite supply of used Aeron chairs, acquisition of the remaining chairs becomes increasingly hard - up until the point where there aren't any, anymore.
So yes, I added the argument of finite (if only temporary) supply, but it was only to extend his argument of proportional growth of cost. And yes, there is room for optimization and that may be sufficient to keep a business afloat - certainly if they are flexible with their inventory - but there are still natural limits to such a business, and that makes all the difference in the world.