I’m still a Netflix subscriber, but that will change a few years down the road when Apple releases an affordable headset… I’m sure they will change once the headset goes mainstream.
I tend to agree. Plus, if VR headsets were so popular on planes, wouldn't we be seeing a lot of Meta headsets? File this in the "fantasy use case" bin, like most of what people say on here.
It's a brand new platform that has, so far, failed to capture the public's interest...and it costs an arm and a leg. I'm not surprised that Netflix is sitting on the sidelines. They'd probably treat Apple TV the same way if it offered a web browser. I think we'll see the same kind of attitude towards AVP from most developers, certainly the bigger ones. They're all going to need to be convinced that supporting AVP is worth their time and resources. Look at the Apple TV App Store. Other than media streamers, almost no one supports Apple TV because it simple doesn't sell enough units to make it worthwhile. Bottom line, unless AVP sells many millions of units per year, most developers aren't going to focus time and resources on the platform.You can't take everything that Mark Gurman reports as gospel. It could be that Netflix has to be convinced that there is a benefit to making an app for AVP and what its takes to get it optimized compared to using a browser. Everyone on Mac or Windows doesn't use an app, they use the web browser for Netflix.
You are the guinea pig!Does having the screens so close to one's eyes affect one's vision over time, even if the "image" appears further away?
Is there's any research done on this?
I don't agree. If the general public really wanted AR/VR, they'd already be buying other offerings. They were buying other portable music players when the iPod came along. They were buying other mobile phones when the iPhone came along. Apple built better products and captured a huge share of the market, but the public was already very interested in these kinds of products. The same cannot be said for VR. It remains a fringe technology. The general public has zero interest in it. I don't think an Apple logo on a VR device, especially one that is 7x the price of the competition (that hardly anyone is buying), moves the needle at all.I think we'll start to see a lot more now that Apple is entering the market. The EyeSight feature will reduce the disconnect somewhat.
And AppleTV+. Obviously. ;-)Apple recently announced various video and sports apps that will be available on the Vision Pro at launch, including Disney+, Discovery+, Max, Amazon Prime Video, Paramount+, Peacock, ESPN, MLB, NBA, and more. There is also MLS Season Pass in the Apple TV app.
Us? You're expecting we are all buying $3000 VR sets to watch our movies on?Netflix sucks. Expensive, with prices increasing every year, but won’t even give us the iPad app for the Vision Pro.
I wonder why is that the case. They're not even competitors (besides Apple+). And even then if you were Netflix you would want to please your customers and give them best integrations/experiences possible. Netflix seem a bit arrogant.Not surprised. They have been known to not work with Apple. Spatial Audio isn't available on Netflix and Netflix movies and shows do not show up in the Apple TV app.
He's right you know, the public just aren't interested. Look at the evidence! Zero Apple Vision Pros have been sold, zero!! If the public were interested they'd be buying them...It's a brand new platform that has, so far, failed to capture the public's interest
And AppleTV+. Obviously. ;-)
Apple Arcade will be available.
It'd be interesting to see what they do with Fitness+. I can't imagine doing a HIIT workout while wearing a Vision Pro, but perhaps a meditation... Apple already seems to have ported the Mindfulness app to Vision Pro.
Nobody is talking about them. There’s no anticipation or excitement for the launch among the general public. VR has failed to capture the public’s interest. So yeah, outside of a few very loud people on these forums, there seems to be absolutely no interest in this device (and really the category in general).He's right you know, the public just aren't interested. Look at the evidence! Zero Apple Vision Pros have been sold, zero!! If the public were interested they'd be buying them...
You’re right…Nobody is talking about them. There’s no anticipation or excitement for the launch among the general public. VR has failed to capture the public’s interest. So yeah, outside of a few very loud people on these forums, there seems to be
absolutely no interest in this device (and really the category in general).
Not surprised. They have been known to not work with Apple. Spatial Audio isn't available on Netflix and Netflix movies and shows do not show up in the Apple TV app.
It’s not sarcasm. Being seated on a plane isn’t traditionally ‘on-the-go.’ While it is still portable, you’re still seated in a single spot, where in a majority of cases these days, there is a plug. In marketing, ‘on-the-go’ is more like a mobile phone or a burrito, you can use it while out and about, not in a single location for an extended period with a power source.Is that sarcasm? Else...
![]()
There was an article about Apple highlighting Vpro Travel mode yesterday. Here's more details about using it for travel from way back in June. Did you watch the WWDC videos? Here's a relavant segment...
I’ll be interested myself to see whether people do use it ‘on-the-go’ or not. There are some interesting AR use cases out there if people do… you know, walking tours of a city with information bubbles popping up when you look at landmarks, that sort of thing.It’s not sarcasm. Being seated on a plane isn’t traditionally ‘on-the-go.’ While it is still portable, you’re still seated in a single spot, where in a majority of cases these days, there is a plug. In marketing, ‘on-the-go’ is more like a mobile phone or a burrito, you can use it while out and about, not in a single location for an extended period with a power source.