foregoneconclusion

avon b7 said:

"First, Prof. McFadden investigated what app store commission rates Apple would have charged in a competitive but-for world (“BFW”). But for Apple’s anticompetitive conduct, there

would have been non-Apple iOS app stores, against which Apple’s App Store would have had to compete to sell apps and IAP to iOS device consumers; as a result, Apple would have charged lower, competitive commission rates. Prof. McFadden has determined that the BFW commission rate would have ranged from 10% to 12%. Prof. McFadden based this range on various benchmark

analyses he performed as well as his analysis of Apple’s App Store profit margin. Byrd Decl., Ex.

K, ¶ 136."

Epic testified in court that they don't make money by charging 12% commission in the Epic Store. 12% is an intentional strategy to gain marketshare and is only possible because Epic is a multi-billion dollar corporation. r

Also, Steam operates on a platform with more than one store and still manages to charge 30% commission. Amazon sells e-books on a platform with more than one store and takes 65% commission on e-books sold below $2.99 or above $9.99. They take 30% commission on e-books sold between $2.99 and $9.99. Both of those refute the idea that more than one store = super low commission rates. 

Short term you'll see some lower prices by 3rd party stores as a PR gimmick linked to the EU changes. Long term you're going to see prices the same or higher than the App Store. One of the biggest myths out there is that corporations want to pass savings on to consumers. In reality, they want to put the savings in their own pockets. 

And the other reality is that mobile apps were already the lowest priced apps in computing. There's not much to lower unless you are intentionally taking a loss. 

MacPro said:

The main issue I see is the isolation, from watching a movie alone to the inability to work on a joint project.  I have to believe the 'loneliness' aspect will be addressed.  I assume Apple plans to include a collaborative environment in future updates.

I think it's interesting that people put so much emphasis on "isolation" simply because the user is wearing the screen. The spatial computing aspect really isn't any different from an environmental awareness standpoint. You're concentrating on the virtual screens that you set up but you can still see what's in the real world. And the reality is that any type of concentrated activity that involves screens or pages is going to technically "isolate" you. Example: you can't really read a book and socialize at the same time. 

Plus, from an environmental standpoint, this is a far better use of materials than screen based tech. Larger and larger screens = more and more e-waste. This product provides the huge screens and multiple screens with postage stamp sized material use. 

designr said:

ronn said:

Earlier he wrote about spending $5K on a 77-inch TV. That's one of the analogies I used when talking about the possibility of buying VisionPro.

The problem with this analogy is that when you spend that $5,000 on the 77" TV you have a device that multiple people can use at the same time. If you spend $5,000 with Apple all you have is one AVP that can be used by one person at a time—and possibly only one specific person based on the prescription lenses. 

Caveat: the TV doesn't include an M2 computer. Computers are something that typically gets used by one person at a time. So it's a hybrid of one type of device that is thought of as being for multiple people and another that isn't. 

M68000 said: Some people on these forums are so excited that they think monitors and big screen TV’s are now obsolete and pointless LOL. 

Not right now, but down the road they will be...and should be. It's a far more efficient use of materials and space.