Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Says There Are Now Over 1,000 Vision Pro Apps
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
And since then … ? Of course early adopters want to get their hands on it as soon as possible (pre-Order window)) but a steady sales stream is much more telling / important
AFAIK, MR hasn't reported any numbers. I know there's a supply constraint from Sony who custom manufactures the displays to Apple's design specs.
I expect sales to be robust once the above is solved.
I find it amazing that a device that’s barely 2 weeks old is now deemed to be on its death bed because it’s doesn’t have a killer app!
Haha, I’ve heard it all now.
My theory is you should always let the kids loose on this stuff. It’s the young and less jaded that find all the use cases and inspire the killer apps, not us oldies!
We will always see things through a very narrow lens of what’s possible.
Haha, I’ve heard it all now.
My theory is you should always let the kids loose on this stuff. It’s the young and less jaded that find all the use cases and inspire the killer apps, not us oldies!
We will always see things through a very narrow lens of what’s possible.
You're supposed to sit down and pray to it if you go by some of the posts here. There is a vast difference between complaining and fact based critisism.
Sounds like YOU need to find a use case for the device in your life. Last I checked Apple sold millions of them, I doubt people buy them as desk decorations.
“Worthwhile” is subjective, but when talking about VR/AR/MR I would argue it means that the execution of the task is made better by the immersive 3d environment and the associated interactions. If the task is work-related, can the task at hand be enriched in some way, or can you be more productive? If entertaining yourself, is it more enjoyable?
As of right now, AVP probably does OK for entertainment, as does every other existing headset, but even there, the fact that many VR game experiences are not available places it below the competition. For work, the point made by @contacos is most relevant. Even with whatever head start “select developers” had to create compelling apps, we are presently looking at apps that offer no advantage at all when used in AR/VR/MR. Nothing that compels anyone to decide, “hey, I want to put this thing on my head/face because I can do task X much better that way”.
iPhone 1 started out with a small number and almost the same negative comments. I remember a short time later when there were a billion, and the store had just about anything you can imagine in it. Patience... patience. And in terms of the AR/VR market. Clearly some folks are not paying attention to the education world where AR/VR is incredible for learning. Not to mention the medical industry and various others I myself have developed for. Just because you don't see a use in your life, not a great justification for negating a pretty large industry out there and lots of interest from others (even if just for watching videos and having fun).
LOL. People seem to forget the original iPhone had ZERO 3rd-party apps for more than an entire year. It also had no 3G, no copy/paste, no front camera, and was equivalent to nearly $1500 if you factor inflation and 2-year contract value into the price. It was so half-baked, more dead-on-arrival than any Apple product I can remember, apart from its novel interface and ambitions.
People have had pie-in-the-sky ideas about VR/AR for decades now. Apps and ideas won't be a problem. Platforms like AVP have to be released before any of those ideas can be funneled into the context of what is technologically feasible and commercially viable. Those platforms also define a set of new capabilities (and limitations) that will spawn brand new ideas. With Apple's brilliant lead-up into this space (Spatial Audio w/ tracking, Continuity, ARKit, HDR processing, custom silicon, etc.), it's given them a head start that will accelerate the on-ramp for AVP as much as possible. By version 2 or 3, this product will be selling like hotcakes and will be an indispensable tool for millions of people.
People have had pie-in-the-sky ideas about VR/AR for decades now. Apps and ideas won't be a problem. Platforms like AVP have to be released before any of those ideas can be funneled into the context of what is technologically feasible and commercially viable. Those platforms also define a set of new capabilities (and limitations) that will spawn brand new ideas. With Apple's brilliant lead-up into this space (Spatial Audio w/ tracking, Continuity, ARKit, HDR processing, custom silicon, etc.), it's given them a head start that will accelerate the on-ramp for AVP as much as possible. By version 2 or 3, this product will be selling like hotcakes and will be an indispensable tool for millions of people.
The original iPhone succeeded because it offered plenty of utility even before lots of 3rd party apps became available. Remember Steve Jobs’ introduction?
"An iPod, a phone and internet communicator. An iPod, a phone, are you getting it?"
At that time, I often carried a cell phone and an iPod with me, and browsing the internet was not practical with what I had. Nothing “half-baked” about that.
I used "half-baked" and "dead on arrival" more as a response to people who are saying those things about AVP. I personally thought the original iPhone was amazing. I think what people mean when they say those things is that it is nowhere close to living up to its potential, but my point is that a 1st-gen device almost never lives up to its potential--otherwise there would be no need for a 2nd generation device.
To your point, Apple could say (and basically did say) the same thing about AVP. "A home theater, an immersive portable workspace, and a powerful spatial computer". I think people are taking the out-of-the-box utility of the AVP for granted. It can do so many familiar tasks well already, just like the iPhone did.
There aren’t even 1,000 quality iPhone apps; so yes, these are likely to be limited use/low quality.Well that didn't take long. lol
Things went from, "There are only a handful of native apps for the AVP" then Apple saying there are over a thousand apps designed from the ground up specifically for the AVP. To peeps suddenly saying "Well they are all low quality apps."
I always wonder if people here ever hurt their back when moving that heavy object so quickly.
I understand where you re coming from. Your point re: first gen products is, of course, valid. Especially with tech products, we expect evolution and refinement of capabilities will follow. In AVP threads here in MR, you’ll find a fair number of comparisons to the 1st gen iPhone as responses to negative opinions of the AVP, and I guess I just don’t see them as relevant or appropriate.
- The average tech user today is far more tech savvy than 2007 and entire app ecosystems exist now that did not previously. Their expectations regarding functionality and capability today are naturally different. Back when the iPhone was announced, it did enough things well enough on its own (core apps) to make it worthwhile to many of us. Heck, not having to carry an extra device for my music alone was worth it for me, let alone all the other things it did. Subsequent iterations and the growth of the app ecosystem made it even more useful, and helped shape current expectations for personal tech devices.
- But the problem with AVP isn’t just due to expectations of a tech savvy public. I think we see a lot of negative comments because the out-of-the-box utility of the AVP seems of questionable value to many of us. The home theater is fine unless you would rather have a shared experience, which most of us easily do with a TV. The “immersive portable workspace” and “powerful spatial computer” have not been demonstrated in a way that convinces most people their productivity would be enhanced in any way by using the AVP vs. using the tools they already have.
Fair points. The iPhone certainly had more instant mass-market appeal. Cell phones and iPods had been ubiquitous for many years prior. With AVP, very few people I know have any type of headset devices, and those that do are largely my friends' kids who like to play VR games.
I think Apple had an option to keep holding onto this release, refine it more, and let competitors define the market further before making their own entry. Or, go ahead and release as a sort of halo product, make their presence known, give competition something to play catch-up to, and thereby lead the market exactly where they want it to go. You might say it was brilliant of them not to release a cheaper version, because it would have looked much more like they were the ones catching up. The headline stories all over instead were "tomorrow's technology, a day too early" and stuff like that.
Either way, the biggest parallels to the iPhone release, for me, have to do with the novel input and UX/UI. They are entering a market that has toyed with the ideas of gesture/eye/environment tracking, but nobody has yet to really "get it right". In the same way, they didn't really invent multi-touch full screen devices, but were the first to "get it right". I remember it took several years for android devices just to catch up to the precision and responsiveness of the iPhone's touch screen. I think Apple knows it has a huge technological advantage in terms of video processing, latency, efficiency, etc. They want to go ahead and publicize that advantage before users and developers get too invested in other platforms. In other words, I think the question isn't how successful AVP will be within the headset market. I think they will dominate in time. But how big exactly will the headset market actually get, and how long will that take?
All that to say, to me, iPad and Apple Watch were largely iPhone iterations because input was the same. Touch screens with side buttons, in various sizes. AVP is the first actually-new platform since then, so they get compared de facto. But it will be a much slower burn than the smartphone market was, that's for sure.
You just answered your own question. I think Apple is committed to promoting a locked down platform more than they are committed to anything else. If they had to make the choice they would kill Apple Vision Pro tomorrow rather than allow a truly open (or even close to open) platform.
Apple optimizes for UX. Getting visionOS to work well is hard. It is even more hard when anyone can build a crappy app that ruins the UX through GPU/memory load. Users do not necessarily understand the root cause and blame Apple.
Example: iPhone did not initially allow 3rd party apps for this reason. When they had more RAM they changed this limitation.
Example: visionOS does not allow 3rd party environments (optimizing to keep them performant enough not to mess with other apps is hard).
Example: one internal web app crashes visionOS every time it is opened. Not just Safari, but the os.
Nevertheless - either it will need to become open quick or will not survive.
OK this one was a rollercoaster, gotta line by line this.
mmmmm not sure this is why
They have never had enough RAM to remove any limitation. I can't run three serious apps at once without at least one getting memory dumped, and that has never changed from 3GS to 13 Pro.
And here at the end I love this sentence. Yes, exactly, this is my entire point. If "spatial computing" "is the future" then they better make this a real OS and not a damn toy like the iPad.
Yeah they used to. God I wish they did still.
No question.
Here we diverge a little. Not sure the point actually, this is generally always possible.
Irrelevant, users have no idea who to blame. In my day it was Bill Gates personally for all computer problems.
mmmmm not sure this is why
They have never had enough RAM to remove any limitation. I can't run three serious apps at once without at least one getting memory dumped, and that has never changed from 3GS to 13 Pro.
Eh I think this is just an early limitation and will be improved in time.
Also early bug.
And here at the end I love this sentence. Yes, exactly, this is my entire point. If "spatial computing" "is the future" then they better make this a real OS and not a damn toy like the iPad.