Maybe when it’s under $2k.
For the time being it’s going to be rhe airpod max. It exists and that’s about it for now.
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.
These Third-Party Apps Are Optimized For Apple Vision Pro So Far
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
For the time being it’s going to be rhe airpod max. It exists and that’s about it for now.
Google Meet is critical for my work: now that Google disabled their iPad app from running on AVP, does anyone has guesses how well/if it works on Safari on AVP?
(Works ok on Safari on Mac, but have not tested on Safari on iPad which would be more comparable)
(Works ok on Safari on Mac, but have not tested on Safari on iPad which would be more comparable)
The big apps not coming to avp.
It’s more of a showdown between apples app policies vs the value apple gets from having these apps in the first place.
Apple at any time has the ability to snap its fingers and get YouTube Netflix or whatever on the AVP. It’s important to know that. But any concessions they make goes against their App Store policy which is to piggyback off the earnings.
In the end it’s apples device and they’re selling it to you. Any frustration needs to be directed at Apple. If these devs are unchecking the box then it’s up to Apple to get them on board.
Netflix just said it’s not worth their while. Anything Apple could do otherwise? Certainly Netflix said. Apple simply isn’t willing to do anything as that would undermine their App Store strategy. The leverage is number of devices Apple can offer a dev. They have no leverage right now. Apple will go the course of waiting them out hoping to sell avp without them.
It’s more of a showdown between apples app policies vs the value apple gets from having these apps in the first place.
Apple at any time has the ability to snap its fingers and get YouTube Netflix or whatever on the AVP. It’s important to know that. But any concessions they make goes against their App Store policy which is to piggyback off the earnings.
In the end it’s apples device and they’re selling it to you. Any frustration needs to be directed at Apple. If these devs are unchecking the box then it’s up to Apple to get them on board.
Netflix just said it’s not worth their while. Anything Apple could do otherwise? Certainly Netflix said. Apple simply isn’t willing to do anything as that would undermine their App Store strategy. The leverage is number of devices Apple can offer a dev. They have no leverage right now. Apple will go the course of waiting them out hoping to sell avp without them.
svnty6rs3
macrumors member
Isn't adding something into your room the definition of augmenting the reality? I don't see how adding a car into your room that you can interact with is any different than what all those websites offer with placing furniture etc into your room through your phone and calling it AR.
Wayfair Example
Home Depot Example
The Verge even describes the Alfa Romeo demo as "It’s fun to rip the tires off an AR Alfa Romeo F1 car in JigSpace."
And here's Toms Guide describing the same demo:
"Given that Apple has been working with developers for years on AR apps as part of ARKit, I was very curious when I got to fire up the JigSpace app. I saw a life-size Alfa Romeo F1 race car appear in front of me, complete with a very realistic looking cockpit and natural reflections in the body of the car.
There was also an aerodynamics part of the demo that illustrated the airflow when the car is in motion. This was just a small taste of AR on the Vision Pro, but the fidelity was excellent."
Last edited:
Surf Monkey
Suspended
svnty6rs3
macrumors member
ah so you were just arguing with the other poster to argue with them even though they were right. Got ya. gotta love the internet.
Abazigal
Contributor
I don't see it that way.
I am the one paying these companies a monthly subscription. If they decide not to support the Vision Pro, then it's on me, the end user, to decide these companies are still worth supporting financially because their actions are impacting the perceived value I am getting out of their services. At the end of the day, they are not punishing Apple; they are punishing the customer.
So if Spotify won't play ball, I encourage users to switch over to Apple Music (or even pick up an Apple One bundle). This is also why I expect Spotify to be the first to capitulate, the moment they realise they are losing subs to Apple. Out of all the companies listed, they really have the least leverage, since Apple already offers a direct competing product. It's also an easy pass for me since I was never subscribed to Spotify in the first place.
If Netflix won't get on board, there are other streaming services that are, and perhaps users should switch over to companies like Disney+ if they weren't already subscribed to those companies. Why bother paying for a service I am using less (or not at all) on the Vision Pro?
Youtube may be harder to replace, since I do use it a lot. I am hoping for other developers to come out with third party viewers. I am already eyeing Play as a potential replacement (not that I see myself getting a vision pro anytime soon, but it's good to strategise).
My stance as an Apple user is clear. I reward developers financially who choose to support the Apple platform in its entirety (I am the user of numerous iOS-only apps), and similarly have no qualms about terminating the services of those which no longer work, or no longer work as well on iOS for better alternatives.
I survived 4 years of the iPad not having access to MS Office because Steve Ballmer wanted to prop up his own Windows Phone platform. If and when this comes to pass, I will survive, and I will adapt, and I will re-evaluate who I decide to support with my wallet.
And life goes on.