This is the major difference. There is an explicit understanding using the licence that the user shall pay 5% of the revenue post 1M in sales. However in Meta's case there is no such clarity . You are completely at the mercy of Meta once you have a functionality that depends on LLAMA and the business wont have any negotiating power. Entering in these potential situations is a strategic blunder and the best way to handle it is to pre-emptively avoid this path.
I am not sure where did you get the amount of 70$ per exam.
My OD charges approx 258$ which was reimbursed by VSP .
I know this since he sent a bill to me after exam that showed what the cost of visit was and what was covered by VSP .
If you compare VSP and non-VSP houses, you might find that places that don't take VSP tend to be cheaper, and the final prices tend to look a lot like post-discount VSP prices.
I've seen the theory float around that VSP works a lot like Kohls: start from inflated prices, discount to actual market, and claim you're doing the customer a solid with that "what you saved" report you get. Once you add the premium, not even sure you break even.
Disclaimer: my wife is an optometrist (in the US).
My guess is what you're seeing is a bit of a misrepresentation. My wife would be thrilled if VSP (or any other vision insurance) reimbursed even near that amount. You might be seeing a statement that the insurance plan saved you a certain amount (the standard price of the exam), but the optometrist is not making that money.
Instead, what they do is if the doctor wants to accept their insurance (VSP, EyeMed, Superior, etc), they have to agree to a contractual amount of reimbursement for a standard comprehensive vision and eye health exam, which is often on the order of $35-45 on average. The doctor also would get the copay amount (often $10). Similarly, if you add in contact lens evaluation into your exam, they will reimburse a bit more for that portion. However, it is very rarely even close to $258 unless you have a very specific condition/situation (for example medically-necessary contact lenses, etc).
Your optometrist will have had 4 years of post-graduate education (and probably the 6-figure student loans to match), where they would have learned how to diagnose and treat a wide variety of ocular and even systemic conditions that may first present themselves in the eye. So for the $50, you're getting a steal of a deal. While it is not entirely a loss-leader (an Optometrist can make an OK living this way if they have enough patients--though still lower than what most Software Engineers make), this is why you will often see an Optical in private practices, rather than exams only.
My wife's office obviously sells glasses, however it is worth mentioning that the prices that are presented are largely a result of the underlying wholesale costs of the materials, with some margin to account for labor and facilities. I cannot say that some of the materials from the manufacturers are not overpriced, but there are substantial quality differences between different frames and different lenses.
The advantage of getting your frames from the same place as your doctor is that any lens recommendations for your best quality of life can be relayed directly. Ideally the optician will then help you sort through the pros and cons of different lenses and frames, along with what your insurance may cover, to ultimately get you something that you'll love at a price you are comfortable with. This often is more important as you get older and have a need for progressive lenses. The measurements get trickier, and each lens type may have different advantages. Single-vision lenses are much less particular, and you may have more success with the online shops if you are in this life-stage.
This kind of personalization is not required by everyone, but some people really appreciate it.
Basically, some people will probably have success with the online shops. That's OK. However, they don't work well for everyone.
One more thought: very few purchases will have as much impact on your daily life as your glasses, they literally affect the way you perceive the world, as well as potentially how others perceive you (fashion). We all wish things we buy were cheaper, however the cost/value proposition on glasses is not that bad when you think of it this way. The final decision on how to spend your money is up to you, as the consumer, in the end.
> We all wish things we buy were cheaper, however the cost/value proposition on glasses is not that bad when you think of it this way. The final decision on how to spend your money is up to you, as the consumer, in the end.
I find this opinion to be abhorrent when applied to durable medical devices and medical treatment. Eyeglasses are a vision prosthetic, not an optional purchase. Many people must have at least one pair in order to function normally in society. If you're rent-seeking on that necessity, that makes you a parasite. If you're providing it at or below cost, that makes you a living saint.
~~These prosthetic legs will allow you to walk again. We have decided to charge you only slightly more than you can possibly afford for them. The difference will likely be made up by a charity of some sort, funded by people who would rather pay us to help you walk again than spend the exact same amount on independently making prosthetics and giving them away. But walking is so incredibly valuable in one's daily life, that the cost/value proposition is really not that bad for you. You're only paying us everything you have, in order to live like a normal person, and we also get to use your hard-luck story to suck some more money out of a few chumps that feel sorry for you, or maybe the government. We all wish things we buy were cheaper. You, of course, also have to option to scoot yourself around on an old furniture dolly with a junked riding-lawnmower seat strapped onto it with zip-ties. The final decision on how to spend your money is up to you.~~
Optometrists and ophthalmologists should cartelize ASAP, and erect a firewall between their eye exams and the opticians and eyeglasses manufacturers. If every supplier of eyeglasses prescriptions were to refuse to conjoin themselves to an optician business, Luxottica and VSP and their ilk could not extract money from that portion of the industry that supplies the most value. If I would pay $10 for an exam (copay, with VSP) and $120 for just one pair of glasses (from Luxottica, even after VSP allowance), I would almost certainly be willing to pay ~$200 (or $20/month) for a 30-min annual exam (direct to optometrist, without VSP), and 1-4 pairs of glasses at ~$40 apiece (from someone other than Luxottica). Pay the optometrist $50-80 per exam, and the rest on business overhead and support staff. Current US average is about 1800 patients per optometrist. So the cartel can refuse to sanction more than 1 member per 6000 in the local population, which sets a floor of about 1500 patients per optometrist, if they all distribute evenly.
So an average optometrist, in an average town, charging cartel prices, should be able to clear $100k per year personally, seeing an average of 6.5 patients a day, while still taking 4 weeks vacation, working only weekdays, and taking 9 holidays, while providing $250k to support their own business. That can probably support a $70k business manager, and a decent independent office--with no frame showroom taking up most of the usable space. Maybe also a lower-paid assistant. This is very reasonable for a profession which requires post-graduate education. There is no particular reason why an optometrist with two employees should not be able to operate as a small business, without also having to also sell overpriced eyeglasses, other than the manufacturer monopolist putting the squeeze on them, by paying some optometrists to put the rest out of business if they don't agree to join the scheme. Luxottica doesn't need to be the cartel enforcer; optometrists could create their own, and use it to benefit themselves--and maybe also the patients, just a little.
Amazon clearly knows that it is not the beauty of html behind the page that will make this initiative successful OR cause it to fail . At the end of the day, these images are used to get the message across and its Just doing that . That's what it is.. Nothing beyond it.
It's not just the behind-the-scenes stuff that's ugly. Whatever they used to render the text is much worse than what my browser does. And there's no mouse hover changes. And you can't copy/paste the text. Following best practices would have gotten them a long tail of benefits for free.
Sure, the page gets the message across, but I think even non-technical people are at least subliminally aware of the fact that there's something low-quality going on.
If some smaller website did this it wouldn't be as surprising. It's just that this seems like an amateur mistake from a company that we all assumed to have competence in web design.
Amazon is a store, not a website design luxury showcase. They aim to deliver the most products at the lowest prices with reliable delivery, and they aren't selling copy-pasteable ad copy. They rte quite competent in their web design.
One interesting question is what will happen to the current clients of Kiva (of which many are competing with Amazon in ecommerce market) newegg. etc ??
If amazon wouldn't have offered EWS to netflix or have stopped offering it to netflix, netflix could have easily use some other cloud competitor. Maybe netflix would had to pay a bit more , but i don't think it would have been a big difference.
I don't know much about kiva but if their service is hard to replace and is a unique competitive advantage(and looking at the purchase price,it seems so), amazon would use this advantage.Amazon is known to play hardball.
Netflix actually can't switch to an AWS competitor at this point because none of them are big enough. (source is some random cloud infrastructure presentation they did)
When AWS started they were basically running off the "christmas season" and end-of-life amazon.com boxes with almost no up front expenditures. Everyone else in the "cloud" business is buying new boxes to build out, which means its really hard for them to get to scale or handle surge loads.
Weirdly, Amazon and Netflix fill different niches for me. Amazon's player is flash so it works for me in linux, so I use that when I'm on my computer. However Netflix has an application for my (non-Fire) android device, so I use that there.
I really wish they would start pushing on each other harder, so I could use only one for both...
What if Amazon were just positioning itself to do rebranded fulfillment? i.e. First Amazon equipment is sold to Target, etc. distribution centers; but you could spend more and have Amazon actually run the center; or you could have Amazon's distribution centers use your branded boxes and use their fulfillment centers.
Good question. I hope they keep innovating and serving all clients rather than it being a competitive advantage move for Amazon itself as an in-house robotics developer.
The good thing about entrance (seemingly thought-provoking) exams is that , they used to concentrate on the real sciences/ social sciences . And used to test aptitude in these disciplines to ensure that people who pursue them have enough passion to go thru end.
And they let leadership skills emerge after acquiring those analytical/ philosophical skills.
Rather than in the current education system where very very few people want to proceed working in these pure sciences and majority of them want to become leaders and thanks to Univs of US in which leaders are "annointed" by dishing out MBA's based on GMAT / CAT scores.
