Developers already not interested

[contacos]

According to Bloomberg:

Convincing developers to build apps for Apple's Vision Pro could prove difficult. The $3,500 device can also play iPadOS apps, but developers should actually develop their own apps for this.

Developing apps for the Vision Pro's immersive mixed reality, however, takes effort. Given the low sales projections, developers would see limited incentive to do so, at least initially.

Even if Apple were to sell around 500,000 devices annually, that would be nothing compared to around 250 million iPhones, iPads and Macs sold every year.

Many developers Bloomberg spoke to cited the small installed base as a barrier to investing time in high-quality Vision Pro apps. The lack of VR controllers also makes it difficult to port games and content from other platforms.

As the use cases of the Vision Pro are yet to be defined, developers are wary of betting on the platform before the market is there.

Even converting existing applications like video streaming into immersive VR experiences is tedious. According to Bloomberg, even Netflix currently has no plans for a native Vision Pro app, sticking to offering its unmodified iPad version.

Bloomberg journalist Mark Gurman writes that a developer suggested Apple pay him to develop apps specifically for Vision Pro. This seed funding could boost development until sales pick up.

 

[Sheepish-Lord]

Same story goes for anything in the industry. You gotta carve out your segment, prove it’s better than others, hope there’s a ton of early adopters, and make it lucrative for 3rd parties to join.

If Apple’s 1st party apps work perfectly then that’s a great start but it’s a big ‘if’. They’ll also have to incentivize and possibly help 3rd party companies come over but the complexity and niche market this already is makes this very difficult.

I truly feel this will be the first failed device Apple has made in awhile unless they do something unheard of.

 

[Bodhitree]

Well, as I wrote in feedback to Apple not long after the Vision Pro was unveiled:

The various capabilities which integrate the Vision Pro with the other computing platforms are basically secondary capabilities. They won’t surpass the fluidity of a mouse and a keyboard for extended word processing or spreadsheet work. Having them prevents you from having to exit the environment for tasks, but they are not the main reasons you use a headset. The real reasons for using the headset are in consuming and creating AR and VR experiences.

Now when the iPhone was released, it had three major functional pillars: an iPod, a phone, an internet communicator. All the functionality you needed for those areas was provided in Apple’s own apps, which meant that straight out of the box your iPhone was a functional device. All the third party apps built on what Apple provided and followed their example. The Vision Pro needs to do the same — Apple need to identify the major functional pillars, and provide the core functionality.

 

[dmr727]

I'd be interested to know exactly how many developers Gurman spoke to. The article feels pretty anecdotal to me. Certainly there'll be a hump to get over, but that's true with any new segment of the industry.

 

[NT1440]

Still waiting for Bloomberg’s retraction if the “Chinese spy chip” in all our data centers….

It’s a new platform, it’s going to be small devs with actual creativity and new ideas that lead the way into spatial computing. Netflix is not going to be a leader here 😂

 

[Bodhitree]

The thing is, small devs are not well equipped to deal with the demands of AR and VR. It will be heavy on 3D maths, which is a specialised discipline.

Its the same with all new platforms, small install base, small returns. It’s a gamble to try and build a hit product with a long tail in sales.

 

[satchmo]

I don't know, but to me the Apple Vision Pro feels outdated already.

Perhaps it's because it took so long to get to market.
Perhaps because Meta, Microsoft and Google have all been there already.
Yes, Apple's version is perhaps more refined.
But it still remains to be seen if there is even an appetite for such a device.
And the product failures by the aforementioned tech companies suggests interest in AR headsets, is not high.

 

[bkkcanuck8]

I don't know, but to me the Apple Vision Pro feels outdated already.

Perhaps it's because it took so long to get to market.
Perhaps because Meta, Microsoft and Google have all been there already.
Yes, Apple's version is perhaps more refined.
But it still remains to be seen if there is even an appetite for such a device.
And the product failures by the aforementioned tech companies suggests interest in AR headsets, is not high.

Does not seem outdated to me, I cannot see any other participant putting together a device like this one now or in a few years (a mix of specifications, platform software/os, maturity development environment). Up until now, I have viewed VR at the consumer level to be... toy based, novelty based (games) but not yet viable for serious stuff.

I think you will find that Apple will sell every unit it can in the first years - and yet the overall market size will remain small... however I expect it will quickly have enough support in some niche areas. General stuff, and games will be a hit and miss thing - there will be a few that develop something for it to build expertise internally and test the market... but it will be more of an insurance policy type of investment. The small developers who have enough money and are interested in the technology will likely build some interesting things that we would not have expected, and may build other small niches... but this is a long play in all cases. I don't expect any major games studios to invest AAA funding in developing something aimed specifically at the device, in fact you don't really see that yet in the general market - mostly just slapping lipstick on one of their pigs.

 

[kkee]

I don't know, but to me the Apple Vision Pro feels outdated already.

Perhaps it's because it took so long to get to market.
Perhaps because Meta, Microsoft and Google have all been there already.
Yes, Apple's version is perhaps more refined.
But it still remains to be seen if there is even an appetite for such a device.
And the product failures by the aforementioned tech companies suggests interest in AR headsets, is not high.

It's "too futuristic" that many small developers don't even know what to do with it (gaming notwithstanding). We have to unlearn what we know about developing in 2D plan (iOS/MacOS/iPadOS) and to think how to operate better in spatial / blending realities. Luckily Apple kits that they provided (get it here: https://developer.apple.com/visionos/resources/) includes all the necessary tools (visionOS SDK, Reality Composer Pro, Unity, and everything you need to create apps). As for public appetite for it, yes we have to wait. But first, developers need to understand what to to build that can only be done inside VisionOS by taking advantage of all its features (https://developer.apple.com/videos/play/wwdc2023/10072/)

 

[NT1440]

The thing is, small devs are not well equipped to deal with the demands of AR and VR. It will be heavy on 3D maths, which is a specialised discipline.

Its the same with all new platforms, small install base, small returns. It’s a gamble to try and build a hit product with a long tail in sales.

Apple has spent the better part of 10 years building out the tools needed to design for the Vision Pro. Anyone who’s already doing development with ARKit and CameraKit already has a base knowledge to make their own “Hello World” app for this platform.

 

[JPack]

Regardless of which developers Gurman spoke with, he makes some good points. The headset will have a small installed base, lacks VR hardware controls, and the headset has limited use cases.

Given the headset lacks cellular, most developers will be hesitant to invest too much. There are opportunities for content consumption apps, but most developers would rather focus on Mac apps with a tried and true user experience with less risk of user fatigue.

 

[Arran]

...It’s a new platform, it’s going to be small devs with actual creativity and new ideas that lead the way into spatial computing. Netflix is not going to be a leader here 😂

This reminds me of the "Koi Pond" app that came out for the original iPhone/iPod touch. It was a completely pointless app, but it was such a cool, polished demonstration of the platform and light years ahead of competing apps on Apple's brand-new app store.

The competitors at the time were a sad collection of unimaginative, rudimentary apps like flashlights, fart-apps, crossword puzzles, etc. Masses bought Koi Pond for a dollar (me included) and the developer made bank for their originality IIRC.

Koi Pond didn't make any commercial sense what-so-ever... until it suddenly did!

 

[Piggie]

Now there's an idea....
Recognising and locking onto other humans who enter the room with you, and mapping virtual farts onto their butts.
With user selectable size and colour of escaping virtual gas.
An instant classic, Apple will be proud to show off at the pre-launch event

 

[Isamilis]

It’s ahead of time, expensive and still immature product. It needs huge investment for Apple to make it affordable, comfortable and refined product in front of users and developers. Devs also wait and see how is Apple response to their concern on 30% Apple “tax”.

 

[dante_mr]

Same story goes for anything in the industry. You gotta carve out your segment, prove it’s better than others, hope there’s a ton of early adopters, and make it lucrative for 3rd parties to join.

If Apple’s 1st party apps work perfectly then that’s a great start but it’s a big ‘if’. They’ll also have to incentivize and possibly help 3rd party companies come over but the complexity and niche market this already is makes this very difficult.

I truly feel this will be the first failed device Apple has made in awhile unless they do something unheard of.

I don't know about the failed portion but I agree with everything else that Apple needs to convince developers to hop on.

And I don't agree that Apple's first part apps working perfectly is a "big if." It's Apple. The first party apps they announced will likely be fairly polished. The demoes were already quite good based on first impressions and we're still at least 7 months away from launch.

But regardless of how many people want it, realistically they simply won't sell as many units at $3500 than they would at a much more accessible price point. And rumors of low supplies just add on to the problem. So naturally this first gen will have a very small user base compared to previous product launches.

For the first year or two, I think we'll just see big apps that Apple has convinced devs to port (Disney, Microsoft Office among others) as well as apps already developed on other platforms, namely Meta Quest.

It will take a non-Pro and a couple of generations' worth of sales for the Vision platform to truly kick off. iPad did really well first gen but even it had some underwhelming app options for the first couple of years (the notorious low res upscaled iPhone apps for example). Vision will likely face the same issue at a similar time frame if not longer.

 

[dante_mr]

I don't know, but to me the Apple Vision Pro feels outdated already.

Perhaps it's because it took so long to get to market.
Perhaps because Meta, Microsoft and Google have all been there already.
Yes, Apple's version is perhaps more refined.
But it still remains to be seen if there is even an appetite for such a device.
And the product failures by the aforementioned tech companies suggests interest in AR headsets, is not high.

Apple's version is more refined and it should be at that price point anyway.

But true, no matter how impressive the Vision Pro is (and it truly looks it), if people just don't want a headset on their head then they're not buying it.

I'm still optimistic the device will do well for what it is, its price, and the conditions of its production. It will likely be years before it reaches iPad level adoption let alone iPhone level (prob never), but in the meantime niche use cases in the vain of Mac Pro or an iMac is realistic and fair in my opinion.

Not everyone needs a tablet, smartwatch, or even desktop these days but look at the iPad, Apple Watch, and iMac. They all have varying levels of success some more than others.

Likewise, an even larger subset of people won't need a spatial computer, but it will find its niche eventually. It might not be a massive product category for a long while, but if Apple think it's ready for now then so be it.

 

[InvertedGoldfish]

I’d wager the “adult entertainment” industry will 😂

Maybe also some Nintendo wee type games

 

[Spaceboi Scaphandre]

There's an easy way to get developers interested: Allow Guy Godin's Virtual Desktop app on visionOS.

 

[kkee]

Apple also has one advantage money can’t buy and other competitors lack of: Apple’s developer ecosystem. Perhaps the headset’s single biggest advantage will be the ability for iPhone and iPad developers to easily plug their existing apps into the device’s operating system using familiar tools and frameworks.

Already, the system stands in stark contrast to headsets from Meta, Valve, PlayStation, and HTC, which mostly rely on apps and games made in Unity or OpenXR to power their virtual and augmented reality experiences. While some competitors, like the Meta Quest, have key apps like Microsoft Office, Xbox, and Netflix, offerings beyond this are limited. In the several years that Meta’s headset has been out, the Meta Quest Store has only released about 400 games and apps. That isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but it’s a sign that there’s a serious lack of content optimized for VR.

Unlike other headset ecosystems, though, Apple is promising hundreds of thousands of apps on day one, a feat it’s able to pull off thanks to work on other platforms. Apple will automatically convert iPad and iPhone apps to “a single scalable 2D window” that works on the Apple Vision Pro — with no work required from developers unless they want to make any changes. And for the developers who want to create something new for the headset, Apple is making it easy for those already acquainted with its ecosystem to create apps for visionOS, its new mixed reality operating system.

VisionOS is not so different than iPadOS with ARKit, the augmented reality kit that developers have had access to for a couple of years now. OS and iPadOS developers will be able to use their classic UIKit apps, Unity apps, or their more recent SwiftUI apps for visionOS. The frameworks developers can use to build apps for iOS and iPadOS — SwiftUI, RealityKit, ARKit — have all been extended for spatial computing. They can also build their apps with the tools already available to devs, including Xcode and Unity as well as Apple’s Reality Composer Pro that should let devs “preview and prepare 3D content” for visionOS apps.

 

[bkkcanuck8]

Apple also has one advantage money can’t buy and other competitors lack of: Apple’s developer ecosystem. Perhaps the headset’s single biggest advantage will be the ability for iPhone and iPad developers to easily plug their existing apps into the device’s operating system using familiar tools and frameworks.

Already, the system stands in stark contrast to headsets from Meta, Valve, PlayStation, and HTC, which mostly rely on apps and games made in Unity or OpenXR to power their virtual and augmented reality experiences. While some competitors, like the Meta Quest, have key apps like Microsoft Office, Xbox, and Netflix, offerings beyond this are limited. In the several years that Meta’s headset has been out, the Meta Quest Store has only released about 400 games and apps. That isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but it’s a sign that there’s a serious lack of content optimized for VR.

Unlike other headset ecosystems, though, Apple is promising hundreds of thousands of apps on day one, a feat it’s able to pull off thanks to work on other platforms. Apple will automatically convert iPad and iPhone apps to “a single scalable 2D window” that works on the Apple Vision Pro — with no work required from developers unless they want to make any changes. And for the developers who want to create something new for the headset, Apple is making it easy for those already acquainted with its ecosystem to create apps for visionOS, its new mixed reality operating system.

VisionOS is not so different than iPadOS with ARKit, the augmented reality kit that developers have had access to for a couple of years now. OS and iPadOS developers will be able to use their classic UIKit apps, Unity apps, or their more recent SwiftUI apps for visionOS. The frameworks developers can use to build apps for iOS and iPadOS — SwiftUI, RealityKit, ARKit — have all been extended for spatial computing. They can also build their apps with the tools already available to devs, including Xcode and Unity as well as Apple’s Reality Composer Pro that should let devs “preview and prepare 3D content” for visionOS apps.

I expect ARKit from iPad to be deprecated and replaced with the visionOS one next year. (it was sort of a learning experience but not one that is going to bind them to it). The knowledge is transferrable.

 

[Piggie]

I’d wager the “adult entertainment” industry will 😂

Maybe also some Nintendo wee type games

It will or would be interesting to see the 1st VR/AR Headset maker willing to admit to this type of use, and not do anything to block adult content or support it in their store.
Behind an Adult ID check system of course.
Like Adult content on the Internet, in Print or in real life.
They know it sells, the whole world basically runs of adults of different sex's being interested in each other, and whole tech sectors basically growing in the past due to adult material.
And yet they all have to pretend it does not exist and do what they can to "officially" block such content from their products.
No way will Apple allow official adult content, even though it would be an instant win.
Question is, how hard will they try in reality to block it?

 

[contacos]

I suspect most of these apps will end up simply being a floating screen like the safari browser with little advantages over simply using your computer screen?

 

[Night Spring]

There's an easy way to get developers interested: Allow Guy Godin's Virtual Desktop app on visionOS.

Isn't that function already built-in?

I suspect most of these apps will end up simply being a floating screen like the safari browser with little advantages over simply using your computer screen?

But being able to have multiple windows floating in front of you IS the significant advantage over your computer screen, even if each app in its window only does the same things they do on your computer.

 

[Spaceboi Scaphandre]

Isn't that function already built-in?

Guy Godin's Virtual Desktop app is a lot different from the Mac Handoff feature. Mac Handoff requires you to be in front of your Mac. Virtual Desktop allows you to remote into any PC no matter where you are, with the desktop becoming part of your surroundings. While Mac Handoff just puts a computer monitor in your world, Virtual Desktop allows you to make the computer your world.

The desktop becomes controllable with just your hands, unlike handoff that requires a keyboard and mouse. You can even play VR games through it (provided you have a VR ready PC.)

Home | Virtual Desktop

www.vrdesktop.net

But besides the great practical use Virtual Desktop offers, it's important to get that app onto visionOS because of it's creator: Guy Godin. Guy Godin is the defacto VR developer, the one the rest of the industry looks up to. He arguably pioneered "spatial computing."

If you get Guy Godin on board with the Apple Vision, other XR developers will follow him.

 

[Bodhitree]

We will have to see to what extent the developer ecosystem helps Apple out. My take is that it won’t be that much — the bottom line is is there money to be made, and the size of the market just isn’t that large. You have to consider that to make good AR and VR apps that are not gimmicks requires a team of talented developers.

Its likely that the Vision Pro App Store will be flooded with gimmicks, small games and a few good apps, but really the problem of the whole headset market, not only Apple, remains the same: people don’t know what to do with the paradigm.

Most of the Quest and PlayStation VR headsets that are out there don’t see heavy use, there aren’t any killer apps in the whole space which cause people to fire them up. It could be that the whole effort follows the way of the 3D TV.