InspiredCode

Set that Time Machine further back to the Apple II. We can’t be hacked if our computers are not even online. Those were the days.

Apple needs to advertise console class graphics. They probably need a first-party controller too. It will still be difficult to attract gamers with such a small catalog. Game streaming could have primed the iPhone to be a gaming device, but Apple may have missed the boat on that. Maybe game emulation will help draw in more gamers.

Apple needs to do more to get developers onboard. There is very little in the way of apps that benefit from spatial computing. Even apps like Shapr3D, that should be shining examples that help define the platform have decided to release for enterprise customers only. Lack of motion controllers feels like a major omission. Hand and eye tracking work until you need more precision, the ability to focus your eyes separately from input, or haptic feedback– all areas that benefit from motion controllers. The Vision Pro can get further than other headsets without motion controllers, but they are still required for a large number of applications.

Apple probably needs a gaming-oriented headset to help create a market for content. Maybe Apple will just ride on it being a device for movies and the rare enterprise apps until it becomes more polished, but the device as-is doesn't really match how it is marketed.

I agree it should be nothing but a positive for investors at this point. Any downside to investing in something that isn’t going anywhere was already accounted for in the current stock price. Increasing AI investment is a plus for the stock. 

PauloSeraa said:

InspiredCode said:

They basically don't want to contribute to Apple R&D and profits. After profit, Apple essentially uses the device revenue to fund hardware R&D and the App Store revenue to fund R&D for the operating system and built-in apps. I doubt Apple will return to paying for operating systems, so the cost needs to be factored in somewhere. 

I can see where makers of free apps, freemium apps, and one-time-purchase apps might think the alternative stores are not fair for them. The marketplace rules certainly seem more geared to apps with subscription revenue. However, they are not complaining about that, they just don't want to pay Apple anything and that will never happen. 

I don't think Apple's store is a bad deal for most types of apps. My criticism over the years has always been that some store restrictions go too far in the name of protecting the platform, there is no way to follow GPL licensing for apps on the store (ability to remove DRM etc.), and certain types of digital content just fundamentally doesn't work with App Store pricing. If alternative markets have any effect, I would prefer it to address these areas. Better, that Apple will just resolve these issues on their App Store.

My only issue with any of it has been Apple's selective enforcement of their rules based on who they are dealing with. An app like Amazon could never exist under the literal terms of the App Store TOS, but it does, and Apple's reasoning has been: "...because its Amazon..."

I agree. Apple pricing is fair and in line with what similar markets charge. I have only been critical of certain rules and I think discovery on the store could be better. The games section is full of Gacha apps with no way to filter them out to find gaming gems instead of apps that sell gems. Not that all Gacha apps are bad, but they just overwhelm everything and should be categorized appropriately. Unless there is an editorial, it is impossible to find anything without shifting through piles of junk apps. There are far too many subscription scam apps charging insane fees for minimal functionality.