I left the headline like the original, but I see this as a massive win for Apple. The device is ridiculously expensive, isn’t even on sale yet and already has 150 apps specifically designed for that.
If Google did this, it wouldn’t even get 150 dedicated apps even years after launch (and the guaranteed demise of it) and even if it was something super cheap like being made of fucking cardboard.
This is something that as an Android user I envy a lot from the Apple ecosystem.
Apple: this is a new feature => devs implement them in their apps the very next day even if it launches officially in 6 months.
Google: this is a new feature => devs ignore it, apps start to support it after 5-6 Android versions
🤖 I’m a bot that provides automatic summaries for articles:
Click here to see the summary
But it is indicative of how many companies rushed to build for the new platform, specifically — and given the size of Apple’s wider developer base, it’s a smaller number.
Still, one can’t overlook the negative sentiment that Apple has stoked among its developer community after the fallout of Epic Games’ antitrust lawsuit against the tech giant.
The company also said it would only reduce commissions down to 27% from 30%, making the option a non-starter for many app makers, given that credit card processing fees could be even higher than the 3% discount.
Meta, which makes its own VR headset, has also unsurprisingly opted not to specifically build native apps for the Vision Pro, Appfigures’ list reveals.
Plus, Appfigures reveals a few other big brands and popular apps that have been built for Vision Pro specifically, including Box, Carrot Weather, Webex, Zoom, Fantastical, and others.
This is possible because the apps for Vision Pro run natively and “use the same frameworks, resources, and runtime environment as they do on iOS and iPadOS,” an Apple support document explains.
Saved 77% of original text.
If I remember correctly, apple also made it so iPad apps automatically work on the Vision Pro unless if the dev explicitly disables it, which is also a plus
This makes a lot of sense. Apple is asking users to use the same apps with the same UI floating in your real workspace. Even if it doesn’t have much gaming support, it’ll be preferable to others (Meta) for the immediate familiarity and utility.
Then again, I can’t imagine it can stay at this price point for long, unless it becomes a MacBook replacement.
I will wait for the budget version in a few years, but Plex would be rad
Get a quest, you can stream your videos to a huge virtual screen for literally 10% of the price of an apple vision
You can even have some of the spatial features now on the quest. Not yet very useful but they are working towards the same kind of AR, just at an obviously lower quality which comes with the price point.
For me here in Spain even the Quest 3 is a significant expense, the Apple Vision Pro is just a complete non-starter, and I’m a total VR enthusiast working in the IT sector (even doing some VR development as part of my work). But the vision pro costs multiple monthly salaries for me :) Or more than 4 months rent! No way would I spend that kind of money on an unproven tech gadget.
I haven’t tried the quest, but I will be interested to see the comparisons of picture quality and features. It seems expensive, but I can see there being a big market for something like this in a few years for people who might live alone and enjoy the minimalism of now having a massive TV. There would seem to be a tonne of people in the world who wouldn’t bat an eye at dropping $3,500 on a gadget.
Apple vision will be a very good product …in a few years, after it’s much cheaper and more capable. But as of today, you can get an oculus quest which does a large percent of the same stuff for literally 10% of the price
And support Facebook while you’re at it! 😣
I know Apple isn’t much better, but Oculus selling out to Zuck instantly guaranteed I would never buy their products.
It’s a double-edged sword.
Oculus’ vision was to bring VR to the mainstream. They really didn’t have the cash to make that happen on their own. They were using leftover parts from the mobile and tablet industry to hack together some headsets. It was a good proof of concept, but that was it.
With Meta’s backing they put VR on the map. Others jumped in on it. Without them the Vive probably wouldn’t have happened, nor would WMR. Then the transition to self-contained VR, the Quest but also others like the Pico, the Pimax Crystal and now the Vision pro. I know PCVR is pretty dead now but to me it was more of a transitory phase (and I still use it a lot but wirelessly now). VR was never going to be mainstream if you needed a powerful PC to do it and with all the cable mess.
I don’t think these would have happened without the meta investment. I think it was good for the industry as a whole. However yeah, for consumer privacy it’s not great that it was Meta that did the investment and not someone else (except Google or Amazon which would have been just as bad)
I don’t really view it as a sellout and I was one of the earliest kickstarter backers. Serious money was needed to make it fly.
I think that’s a fair take. This product category needs people willing to throw boatloads of cash at it for an extended period of time and there’s only so many companies capable and willing to do that. I think if another company had bought them, there’s a very good chance they would have quit by now. I’m not sure Google would have stuck it out this long, they love acquiring and then murdering products.
Very good take, thank you for the insight! You’re more than likely right; they need the money, and it was the best offer (if ill advised …). Industry got kick-started (pun intended), and there was much rejoicing.
It’s half a kilo strapped to the front of your head. There’s lighter products out there right now that can do similar things. I don’t see this first iteration as anything revolutionary.
I feel like they could have cut down on the weight and price a considerable amount by not having that goofy screen on the front. Probably a bump to battery life too.
For sure. I wonder if it’s even worth it or just look creepy to look at a pair of two eyes deep in the uncanny valley.
I’m pretty sure they priced it that high on purpose. They only want devs and enthusiastic
early adopters to buy this thing. Since currently it has no use case for the average user. Apple is probably afraid that if people buy it now and then realize that they don’t see any use for VR in their life they will never buy a VR product again and Apple will have lost that customer forever. Apple hasn’t found the killer app for the mainstream use case for this product yet and thus they are putting it in the hands of the third party developers.
We also seen it happening with other headsets. Lots of people bought a Quest 2 during the corona pandemic, which triggered the Zuck to invest heavily in the meta verse, and now they are collecting dust and nobody visits facebook’s meta verse . The average consumer doesn’t want to strap on a clunky headset just for games or porn.
I feel like I’m the only person in this room feeling like it’s kinda dystopian! Do you really want to see those devices become the norm?
With the father filming his children and all that shit we saw in the ad? Let’s live in the present, not through the camera of a device made by mega-corporation.
I think people who are into it can be into it and people who aren’t don’t have to be. Every innovation had detractors lamenting it. And many of those innovations miss the mark and never take off.
Dystopian seems to really overstate it. I’m not rushing out to buy one but I’m not ruling it out eventually if I find a good use case. Probably not filming my kids but maybe there’s something. Some kind of mixed reality LARP game maybe.
As a developer I’m so excited that’s true, but that’s ridiculous the way they portray it as a normal thing to wear it in public lol it’s so eerie
I think of the marketing as a bunch of nerds who want it to exist for niche reasons trying to find a way to appeal to normies because who is going to spend that much money to watch a dragon set fire to New York or have CGI bad guys lurking around corners only to pop out to be shot or going to comicon to have the amazing cosplays somehow enhanced even further with animation.
I feel like it’s inherently a non-mass market device trying desperately for mass-market appeal because nerds can’t afford $10k to stomp around the city as a giant mech in the hope they run into another one and have a duel.
But let’s be more real. How cool would it be to look around and see other users with a tag cloud and you instantly know you can talk to that person about Star Wars or anime or football or dating? How much easier would it be to make small talk or even friends?
There’s a lot of potential in such a device if it takes off. But I don’t know if the devices are mature enough yet. And achieving mass-market appeal is a whole other hurdle and if it can’t get past that the rest is moot.
Obviously I wouldn’t want to see Apple be the only game in town. There has to be a minimum of two significant players to drive innovation, but someone has to create the market first. Apple might be able to do that.
Yeah but that’s just marketing bullshit, just like how in real life, (normal and attractive) people don’t pull out a Nintendo Switch and pass around joycons to play Mario Kart on the phablet-sized screen at trendy rooftop cocktail parties.
The ad is really dystopian, the dad is ignoring the kid IRL and playing with memories of that kid
Now: the dad watches his smartphone and shouts “more to the left!” while the kids try to play.
Tomorrow: the dad is interacting with the kids IRL, while what he experiences gets recorded transparently.
After tomorrow: “drink a verification can to start recording…”
There is a thin line between dystopian, utopian, and back to dystopian 🤷
Can you view that ad somewhere online? I’d love to see it (to understand better how Apple is marketing this thing)
Thank you!!
I don’t really see the “Apple portrays people outside wearing the headset” that was mentioned here though. The only example given of that is on a plane which is a time where most people prefer to socially distance themselves from their fellow passengers anyway.
Especially with the fake “eye” it creates for you on the front of the device. It’s creepy and dystopian af. Like we’re all sitting around wearing AR goggles, with fake eyes displayed on the outside so it still looks like we’re engaging with people around us.
I mean, I can maybe see a use case for something like this, where you’re prototyping a build, modelling something, etc. Especially if you have more than one person and they can all collaborate on and interact with the same objects. But I’m having a really hard time seeing other use cases. Gaming on macOS isn’t really a thing, as much as the latest Apple silicon releases would like you to believe. AAA devs aren’t porting their games to macOS. So what else? Watching movies? Browsing the web? Why would I spend nearly $4000 for a device to do that?
I think Apple overall is generally really good about taking existing tech and pushing the envelope with it, and/or making it more usable and appealing for the masses. And even if this thing does represent a big step in xR, what’s the end goal? What’s the killer app? What’s the overall… vision for the product?
I see potential on the technology as a fake monitor. No need to have monitors on your PC setup, just connect the thingy into your PC and use it to generate a fake screen. Now I want a movie, the fake screen takes the whole wall, now a game, it takes 27’, now to work, it creates 3-4 virtual screens/apps to place in the wall.
I would pay a lot for something like it. The freedom it provides seems great. If the thing has the resolution it says it has, and they showed how you could connect it to a mac, if it takes off, the only possible future I see for high end PCs is virtual monitors.
