visionOS needs sideloading

[Spaceboi Scaphandre]

I know what I'm about to say is a very big hot take since I know the S word is a hot button topic with people in the forum, but screw it, it needs to be said: visionOS should have sideloading. Limiting app development to the app store is gonna hurt the Vision Pro for the first few years

VR app developers have a way of doing things, and that way is openness. Spatial computing is still a new term for many and many don't know how they should develop apps for that. When consumer VR launched back in 2016 with the HTC Vive and the Oculus Rift, both headsets were tied to PCVR only. PCVR of course is open, you weren't restricted to a single app store, but there were app stores to sell on as well, those being SteamVR and the Oculus Store. But since VR/AR is still kinda in the early adopter phase, many developers don't release their apps on Steam or Oculus immediately, but instead release them on their own for users to test and give feedback. Then once the app is at a good enough state, release it to the store, and while it's waiting for store approval people can check it out immediately. In this wild west we got really creative apps like EmuVR, which is designed not just to emulate retro games, but emulate the nostalgic feeling of playing these games as they were back then, with actual virtual consoles you could pick up and plug into virtual CRTs, and bedrooms you could customize however you wished. You could even watch videos in this space as they'd appear as VHS tapes.

This developer philosophy carried over to the Meta Quest. The Quest is limited to an app store as well, but it has sideloading since the OS is Android based. Through the Quest's sideloading spawned an alternative app store called SideQuest (get it? Because it's sideloading but sidequest is a video game term and...yeah you get it.) SideQuest became very popular as many prominent VR developers and newcomers use it to launch their apps and games to test them, as well as try them out while they awaited store approval. Meta took notice of this and decided to incorporate that sideloading easier into something they call App Lab. App Lab is you can distribute your apps and games on the Quest App Store for free so people can hop in and try them, but they won't be discoverable from the store unless you type it's name in directly into the Search Bar. They even directly incorporate SideQuest in with App Lab. Doing this means easier testing and getting apps out of the door quickly and just trying out new things before releasing them to the store to be monetized. The popular multiplayer game Gorilla Tag got it's start on App Lab, as did the Quest port of the popular VR shooter Pavlov.

Now compare this to visionOS. visionOS just like all the other non-Mac OSs does not have sideloading at all. You cannot install any .ipas unless you have a $100 a year developer account, versus Meta where developer accounts are free and you only need a Quest to start developing. Not only that but Apple is a lot more restrictive of what can be made for the Vision Pro.

Here are the Vision Pro apps that Apple won’t allow

While Apple is encouraging developers to write software for the Vision Pro AR headset, there are some types of applications it doesn’t want.

www.cultofmac.com

Firstly, no camera apps. This is a big mistake since the cameras were a heavily advertised feature of the Vision Pro, being able to make 3D images and videos. Why the hell can people not make their own camera apps like they can on the iPhone and iPad? Secondly, no navigation apps. Can't make an AR app that places directional markers in real time, which is one of the top things people requested. Then of course is the other standard backwards App Store Guidelines like no game emulation so EmuVR, that really creative app I mentioned earlier, can't be done. Apple won't allow it

Rules like these will make it very hard to get existing VR developers to get on board with visionOS. Why would they develop apps for a $3500+ headset that is very restrictive, when they could just develop for the Quest since Meta is giving them complete creative freedom to do so? These development and distribution rules will only hurt the headset going forward as many will just ignore it and stick with developing for Quest. So unless visionOS gets sideloading either from government intervention or Apple realizing locking it down is dumb, then this is gonna be a slow burn. Which honestly, the headset costs $3500. If you're spending that much money on a HMD, then let me do whatever the hell I want with it.

 

[Longplays]

Sideloading 3D pr0n

 

[Spaceboi Scaphandre]

Sideloading 3D pr0n

Whaaaaaaaat? Naaaaaaaaaah! 😗

Jokes aside there's a lot of great VR apps like Guy Godin's Virtual Desktop, apps that wouldn't exist if VR was closed like the Vision Pro is. No way in hell will Virtual Desktop get App Store approval.

 

[jimbobb24]

Just like it hurt the iPhone?

Sideloading is probably available on the other premium devices like HoloLens. Use one of those and let Vision Pro be a nice walled garden for as long as it can be.

If a developer cannot cross the $100 threshold....no one wants their apps. Seriously a developer is a business venture. $100 is a joke just to keep the minimum amount of trash off. A developer account for PS5 is like $50,000.

Metaquest is a completely different beast. What they do will have nothing to do with apple. Despite side loading the apple platforms remain the most profitable for developers because people actually pay for apps on iOS. People buying a $3500 machine will buy apps.

 

[Spaceboi Scaphandre]

Just like it hurt the iPhone?

The iPhone is nowhere near the price of the Vision Pro, and originally didn't even have an app store. A better comparison would've been the iPad (which btw is hurting it since a lot of people are not happy with how limiting iPadOS is on the iPad Pro. Guts of a Mac but does a lot less than a Mac, and is more expensive than a Mac.)

Sideloading is probably available on the other premium devices like HoloLens. Use one of those and let Vision Pro be a nice walled garden for as long as it can be.

Jesus Christ you're seriously using the same tired deflection that the iPhone fanboys used time and time again. "Just go to other company stop attacking fruit computer company"

(As a sidenote I'd like to remind you the EU and Japan is mandating that Apple enable sideloading on iOS by the end of next year, and other nations are starting to follow suit.)

If a developer cannot cross the $100 threshold....no one wants their apps. Seriously a developer is a business venture. $100 is a joke just to keep the minimum amount of trash off. A developer account for PS5 is like $50,000.

Bro what?! 🤔

There is no developer account fee for PlayStation. You just need to apply to become a PlayStation Partner. It costs $50,000 to have your game featured on the front page of the PSN store, but it doesn't cost anything to publish your game.

Metaquest is a completely different beast. What they do will have nothing to do with apple. Despite side loading the apple platforms remain the most profitable for developers because people actually pay for apps on iOS. People buying a $3500 machine will buy apps.

I mean the Quest store has been pretty profitable for developers which is why most focus on just the Quest and no one else.

 

[subjonas]

If you're spending that much money on a HMD, then let me do whatever the hell I want with it.

Price is irrelevant, a consumer has the right to do what they want with any product they purchase, within the law. But that’s already the case with Apple products, and will be the case with the VP.

People also use this “freedom” argument for opening up the iPhone and iPad, but the argument conflates “a consumer’s right to do what they want with the product that they purchased” with “a consumer’s wish for what the product is”.

They’re not asking for freedom, they’re asking to impose on Apple to change the product.

What they’re forgetting is that the product itself is closed-system, and that they chose to buy it (if they did). Apple has the right to sell whatever product they want as long as they aren’t deceptive about it. The consumer is free to buy it or not. And after they buy it they can do whatever they want with it, including trying to hack it. Apple can’t interfere. The limitations are only the consumer’s abilities and the nature of the product itself, which the consumer should have known full well before buying it.

No one can demand that Apple make it open, because that would be imposing on Apple’s freedom to make whatever product they want. The only right and power that the consumer has over the attributes of the product itself is to choose not to purchase it until it meets the consumer’s criteria.

 

[wrcousert]

I'm wondering if WebXR apps hosted on a local computer will replace the need for sideloading apps. I'll still have a Mac. Maybe this could put it to use while I'm fully immersed.

 

[Spaceboi Scaphandre]

Price is irrelevant, a consumer has the right to do what they want with any product they purchase, within the law. But that’s already the case with Apple products, and will be the case with the VP.

People also use this “freedom” argument for opening up the iPhone and iPad, but the argument conflates “a consumer’s right to do what they want with the product that they purchased” with “a consumer’s wish for what the product is”.

You know you have the choice to not sideload when the EU and Japan mandates of sideloading on iOS arrive. You control the buttons you press.

They’re not asking for freedom, they’re asking to impose on Apple to change the product.

What they’re forgetting is that the product itself is closed-system, and that they chose to buy it (if they did). Apple has the right to sell whatever product they want as long as they aren’t deceptive about it. The consumer is free to buy it or not. And after they buy it they can do whatever they want with it, including trying to hack it. Apple can’t interfere. The limitations are only the consumer’s abilities and the nature of the product itself, which the consumer should have known full well before buying it.

No one can demand that Apple make it open, because that would be imposing on Apple’s freedom to make whatever product they want. The only right and power that the consumer has over the attributes of the product itself is to choose not to purchase it until it meets the consumer’s criteria.

Apparently people can demand it as the EU and Japan already have, and the US and other nations have bills in circulation to also mandate sideloading/alternative app stores. Even President Biden said this should happen

Apple should be required to let iPhone users sideload apps, Biden admin says

Gov't report recommends laws targeting mobile "gatekeepers" Apple and Google.

arstechnica.com

You know I hate the term sideloading. We used to call it installing software normally before Apple and Google gaslit y'all into thinking installing software outside of their app stores was taboo.

 

[Spaceboi Scaphandre]

I'm wondering if WebXR apps hosted on a local computer will replace the need for sideloading apps. I'll still have a Mac. Maybe this could put it to use while I'm fully immersed.

No it won't lmao. WebXR apps will never replace that. Running an app natively will always be superior. Not paying for cellular on a non-iPhone, no latency, and taking full advantage of the hardware on the headset.

Remember Steve Jobs thought web apps would carry the iPhone 1, but that backfired which is why the app store was made to begin with. Web apps have never and will never replace native.

 

[subjonas]

You know you have the choice to not sideload when the EU and Japan mandates of sideloading on iOS arrive. You control the buttons you press.



Apparently people can demand it as the EU and Japan already have, and the US and other nations have bills in circulation to also mandate sideloading/alternative app stores. Even President Biden said this should happen

Apple should be required to let iPhone users sideload apps, Biden admin says

Gov't report recommends laws targeting mobile "gatekeepers" Apple and Google.

arstechnica.com

You know I hate the term sideloading. We used to call it installing software normally before Apple and Google gaslit y'all into thinking installing software outside of their app stores was taboo.

Having the choice to not side load is irrelevant to my point.
Again, the point is that someone who agrees to buy a product has the freedom to attempt to do whatever they want with it. They do not have the freedom to tell the manufacturer to change it according to their liking.
It’s conflating the consumer’s rights and the company’s rights. They both have rights.

I’m speaking generally. Governments have gotten involved in the specific case of the iPhone because of how big and necessary it has become with basically only one competitor (although I don’t personally necessarily agree with their involvement, but it is what it is).

But since you brought up the point of having a choice to not side load—this law does not give choice to the consumer, it gives it to the developer/company. If the company chooses to only offer their app outside of the App Store, then the customer of that company has no choice but to leave the App Store. Or they have to hope to find the same offering from a different company that offers their app in the App Store, if one exists. It’s simply giving choice and power to companies, and letting customers deal with the aftermath. This is a negative effect for people who want Apple’s product, which is a closed ecosystem. They no longer have that option.

 

[Spaceboi Scaphandre]

Having the choice to not side load is irrelevant to my point.
Again, the point is that someone who agrees to buy a product has the freedom to attempt to do whatever they want with it. They do not have the freedom to tell the manufacturer to change it according to their liking.
It’s conflating the consumer’s rights and the company’s rights. They both have rights.

Haha no. Multibillion dollar corporations do not have rights lmao. Especially not ones that actively sabotage right to repair efforts, constantly mark up prices on services that offer less than before, and tried to throttle customers phones to pressure them to buy new ones.

People made the same argument about "consumer rights and company rights" about seatbelts of all things when the US mandated that cars should have them, as well as the ability to repair a car in the first place.

I'd also like to remind you of United States of America vs Microsoft. No one cared about "consumer rights and company rights" then. It should be Microsoft's right to force everyone to use Internet Explorer.

I’m speaking generally. Governments have gotten involved in the specific case of the iPhone because of how big and necessary it has become with basically only one competitor (although I don’t personally necessarily agree with their involvement, but it is what it is).

When Apple and Google share a Duopoly in mobile computing, regulation is necessary. They'll never make changes out of the goodness of their heart, they always do it to squeeze more money. The Sherman Act exists for a reason.

And soon Apple and Meta will potentially share a duopoly in spatial computing too, which is why Meta's been catching the ire of EU regulators as well since they're realistically the only player in consumer VR

But since you brought up the point of having a choice to not side load—this law does not give choice to the consumer, it gives it to the developer/company. If the company chooses to only offer their app outside of the App Store, then the customer of that company has no choice but to leave the App Store. Or they have to hope to find the same offering from a different company that offers their app in the App Store, if one exists. It’s simply giving choice and power to companies, and letting customers deal with the aftermath. This is a negative effect for people who want Apple’s product, which is a closed ecosystem. They no longer have that.

Developers aren't gonna abandon the App Store the moment sideloading is available. The mere existence of Android completely debunks that claim. App Stores are too convenient so abandoning the App Store would do more harm than good for the developer, especially since they already have an established customer base.

So it'll be completely in your choice to only use the Apple App Store or not, just like on macOS.

 

[bkkcanuck8]

Having the choice to not side load is irrelevant to my point.
Again, the point is that someone who agrees to buy a product has the freedom to attempt to do whatever they want with it. They do not have the freedom to tell the manufacturer to change it according to their liking.
It’s conflating the consumer’s rights and the company’s rights. They both have rights.

I’m speaking generally. Governments have gotten involved in the specific case of the iPhone because of how big and necessary it has become with basically only one competitor (although I don’t personally necessarily agree with their involvement, but it is what it is).

But since you brought up the point of having a choice to not side load—this law does not give choice to the consumer, it gives it to the developer/company. If the company chooses to only offer their app outside of the App Store, then the customer of that company has no choice but to leave the App Store. Or they have to hope to find the same offering from a different company that offers their app in the App Store, if one exists. It’s simply giving choice and power to companies, and letting customers deal with the aftermath. This is a negative effect for people who want Apple’s product, which is a closed ecosystem. They no longer have that option.

I just wish they all would be consistent. It should be illegal to subsidize selling other products at a loss as well since it distorts market economics. i.e. any law that applies to the app store should apply to the XBox and Sony Playstation. However if a company wants to have a closed ecosystem, that should be legal as long as it charges a nominal amount to cover operating costs plus a small profit (maybe 10% or 12%). DCMA lockout for third party cartridges for hardware should also be banned.