Yes but what's your point? The movie market is comparable to the book market, probably larger. The video game market is much larger than both combined.
Therefore the effort people put into making the complicated products (movies, games) pay off despite the initial expense.
> The movie market is comparable to the book market, probably larger
Only for a handful of titles though.
Most movies lose money, they sell very little if not nothing at all.
Most books don't sell as well, but it costed a very tiny fraction of the cost of a movie production to publish them.
It's mostly a single person in their homes in their spare time.
> Therefore the effort people put into making the complicated products pay off despite the initial expense
The initial point was that most can't afford the more complicated products, but can still produce useful low tech manuals. It's doubtful that the high tech version of the manual would drive more sales, because the product in this case is not the manual, but the furniture (or whatever else).
The AR/VR manual could cost more than the actual product to make.
The politics of this are interesting. 3D movie and game content restores some of the exclusivity lost by amateur/phone content.
I'm not convinced that's a good bet. YouTube and especially TikTok exploded by going in the opposite direction.
But it's a move that could integrate Apple's movie and audio software, high end hardware (Studio and Pro), content studio ambitions, and now Vision Pro as a consumption device.
There's a lot more money in lowering the cost of entry to a new ecosystem than raising it. That's how the App Store exploded and drove iPhone sales, and how Amazon has a unicorn business just from self-publishing.
Going for the high end can work too, as long as the content and product are good enough. But it's a much tougher challenge.
Therefore the effort people put into making the complicated products (movies, games) pay off despite the initial expense.