YouTube and Spotify Apps Won't Be Available on Vision Pro

[muzzy996]

I'm excited for a more affordable version of the AVP in the future but I won't hold my breath. For me I'd just want something within the Apple ecosystem that I could use comfortably with over-ear ANC headphones like the Airpod Max (or 3rd party) for content consumption on streaming platforms like AppleTV/Netflix/Max/Disney/Paramount/Hulu/Youtube/YoutubeTV/Prime. All the other AR stuff I'm not necessarily interested in at the moment.

Right now I have to wonder how comfortable it would be to have this hardware plus the Airpods Max on my head. Can't imagine I'd be able to sit through a 2-3hour movie with that much on me, and while I could surely switch to earbuds with ANC I'd rather not.

 

[AR15MBP]

The Vision Pro might be the most early stage product Apple has released. When it becomes a more sleek, portable, and consolidated product, it will have scale. And then those companies will invest time and resources to apps.

 

[falainber]

I’m curious to know exactly why some devs opt out of making their free iPad apps available on Mac and VP. Opting out probably takes more effort than not opting out.
Obviously for paid apps, they’ll want to charge additional money for using their software on an additional platform, so they need to set that up first.
But for free apps, all I can guess is it’s “just in case”. Even if they don’t have a plan, it’s easier to add it back later than to take it off later or charge for it later after people have gotten used to having it for free. But it’s doubtful they’ll ever add it later because that “just in case” will persist.

Because Apple made everything possible to make sure the developers hate them?

 

[falainber]

All Apple would have to do is let google know they no longer will be using them as the default search on safari, the new app will be developed for vision pro in a day

Yes. Apple would break a $9B contract with Google and sign a $90 contract with DuckDuckGo! Great business.

 

[Lazlow]

Both of these companies have apps on the Quest, so... sounds like they're just being petty.

 

[subjonas]

Because Apple made everything possible to make sure the developers hate them?

Haha ok but then why have the iPad app?

 

[ke-iron]

Not allowing the iPad apps to run just comes across as spiteful. I hope a third party developer can offer something to circumvent and maybe even improve on their own apps.

That’s exactly it, Netflix and YouTube is being very spiteful. But we already knew that they had a tremendous dislike for Apple. Netflix app never integrated with the Tv app on Apple TV and the YouTube app on Apple TV is just whack. I wish Apple would take them to court for purposely making their iPad apps not work on Vision Pro.

All they’re doing is losing out on potential customers and profit. I have no problem canceling Netflix, I only keep my subscription to watch movies with a friend, but for my personal enjoyment I use other streaming services.

 

[falainber]

Haha ok but then why have the iPad app?

There are too many iPad users to ignore this market.

 

[andywaynebrooks]

YouTube and Spotify do not plan to offer apps on the Vision Pro headset, according to a new report from Bloomberg. YouTube said that it is not developing a YouTube Vision Pro app, nor will it allow the YouTube iPad app to run on the device.

Spotify is also not working on an app, and it does not have plans to allow the Spotify iPad app to be available through the Vision Pro App Store. YouTube and Spotify will instead be accessible through Safari, similar to Netflix.

Netflix said earlier this week that Netflix subscribers can watch content through the Vision Pro web browser, and that no dedicated app would be developed.

Given Apple's contentious relationship with Spotify, it is not surprising that Spotify has no intention of creating an Apple Vision Pro app. Many companies may also be taking a wait-and-see approach with the Vision Pro, as the device is expensive and Apple is not expected to sell many units. Far fewer people will be using the Vision Pro compared to the iPhone or the iPad, so there could be some hesitation to invest resources in the headset.

At the same time, while iPad apps can run on Vision Pro with little to no effort, YouTube and Netflix customers might be disappointed with the lackluster experience compared to entertainment apps designed specifically for Vision Pro, such as Disney+, which could cause issues for the companies. There are fewer expectations with a web-based experience, so it is likely the safest bet for streaming services not yet ready to build out full Vision Pro experiences.

If the Vision Pro headset is a hit, and apps like Disney+ and Max get a lot of use, companies that are not yet inspired to release apps could debut them in the future.

The Vision Pro App Store launched earlier this week, and visionOS compatibility is listed on App Store pages, giving some insight into which apps will be available on the headset and which apps will not. MacStories did a survey of the App Store, and found that there are as of yet no signs of several popular apps like Instagram, Facebook, WhatsApp, Snapchat, Amazon, Google, and Gmail.

While iPad apps are available on Vision Pro by default, developers can opt out of having their apps appear on the device. It is not yet clear if the major apps listed above are opting out of the Vision Pro entirely, but they have turned off iPad app access and have not yet announced dedicated Vision Pro apps.

Pre-orders for the Vision Pro begin tomorrow morning at 5:00 a.m. Pacific Time, with a launch set to follow on Friday, February 2.

Article Link: YouTube and Spotify Apps Won't Be Available on Vision Pro

It’s like YouTube and Netflix want their app experience to suck as much as possible.

 

[DaveN]

What is the target demographic then? You really think businesses are going to buy beta hardware and do what with exactly? Like most things Apple they simply market “pro” models as a tier for consumers who think they need the best of the best to edit a 5 min YouTube video.

As someone who worked in tech in a business, yes. We would buy several to evaluate them for use in training. I say ‘would’ because I’ve been retired for over a decade and can’t say ’we are’.

 

[AppleTO]

I’m curious to know exactly why some devs opt out of making their free iPad apps available on Mac and VP. Opting out probably takes more effort than not opting out.
Obviously for paid apps, they’ll want to charge additional money for using their software on an additional platform, so they need to set that up first.
But for free apps, all I can guess is it’s “just in case”. Even if they don’t have a plan, it’s easier to add it back later than to take it off later or charge for it later after people have gotten used to having it for free. But it’s doubtful they’ll ever add it later because that “just in case” will persist.

It costs a lot in various resources to maintain and support an app on yet another platform. Even though Apple claims the iPad apps “just work”, this is not always the case. Besides dealing with users who contact them for support on the various platforms, they also have to deal with potentially negative reviews and feedback. Sometimes it’s just not worth it.

 

[subjonas]

There are too many iPad users to ignore this market.

I see. Are you answering for yourself as a developer for iPad or is this from talking with other iPad developers?

 

[AeroEd]

Exactly, this is getting out of control and annoying… what’s up with these companies blocking the iPad apps on macOS (when a macOS one doesn’t exist) and now with the Vision Pro.

All the apps I have tried that didn’t tinker with the default “work everywhere” setting seem perfect enough. The apps think they are running on an iPad and all is well… notifications, widgets, etc all work.
The YouTube app on macOS would be a lot better than the browser one too.

It’s petty. Where are all the “antitrust” and “I want to do with my software what I want” et al complain crowd when you need them!

They don't have Apple and this is one of the reasons 😂😂

 

[1129846]

Odd that YT won’t enable the iPad app on AVP. I’d think they would love the extra eyes on for ad revenue. Can YouTube be wrapped inside another app and made for AVP? I almost never go to the YT website because everything plays inside my RSS feeder app.

I get why Spotify won’t be on AVP. They hate Apple enough to screw their customers.

The catch is that enable on different os only works well if you don’t do anything super custom and a non Apple way. As soon as you start doing the custom stuff things start breaking in those set ups and require fixing.

In say you tubes case this is heavy handed level of custom components so a lot of little things just break. Plus huge pain to test as you Mac’s start counting against your device limit as you can not simulate but must install on.

It a mixture of those things for super small market and they don’t want to spend the millions (yes millions) to bring it up to their standards. Engineering and testing time is far from cheap plus you are giving up even higher millions in opportunity cost.

It adds up.

 

[1129846]

There is no investment in the platform. It’s just enabling the iPad app. It’s petty. Not that it affects me much, I can’t use VR/AR headsets.

Not petty. A lot of things go wrong and require testing and fixing. That enables part works great until you have a lot of highly customized components that do things a non Apple way then it starts breaking and requires millions in cost. Big time when you factor in opportunity cost.

 

[gerald.d]

It will work fine in the browser until they make an app.

That's good to know.

 

[CarAnalogy]

Odd that YT won’t enable the iPad app on AVP. I’d think they would love the extra eyes on for ad revenue. Can YouTube be wrapped inside another app and made for AVP? I almost never go to the YT website because everything plays inside my RSS feeder app.

I get why Spotify won’t be on AVP. They hate Apple enough to screw their customers.

Google will not miss an opportunity to competitively disadvantage Apple’s new platform any way they can. Same for Spotify and basically every other company with a valuation over $1 billion that is in an even remotely similar market.

 

[mrochester]

This is where we need to enact legislation so that app developers can’t hold users to ransom by not supporting the devices that users own. If app developers chose to make cross-platform apps they should be required to make them available on all devices across those platforms so that users aren’t forced to choose what devices they own to fit around what the app developer wants to support.

 

[gerald.d]

This is where we need to enact legislation so that app developers can’t hold users to ransom by not supporting the devices that users own. If app developers chose to make cross-platform apps they should be required to make them available on all devices across those platforms so that users aren’t forced to choose what devices they own to fit around what the app developer wants to support.

Fully agree. And if they refuse? Hang, draw and quarter them, and sell their children off to slavery. How dare they not spend their time and energy satisfying your needs.

My God. The entitlement on show here is off the charts.

 

[mrochester]

Fully agree. And if they refuse? Hang, draw and quarter them, and sell their children off to slavery. How dare they not spend their time and energy satisfying your needs.

My God. The entitlement on show here is off the charts.

If they refuse they lose all their apps across all platforms.

I see nothing wrong with preventing cross platform app developers from being able to pick winners and losers on behalf of consumers. I think the consumer should decide that.

 

[contacos]

There is no investment in the platform. It’s just enabling the iPad app. It’s petty. Not that it affects me much, I can’t use VR/AR headsets.

This is why I see almost no point in this device. Everyone (well clearly not everyone lol) will just port their existing iPad app and you will just end up running the same old app on a flat floating service, wow how revolutionary. Not.

 

[contacos]

An even better question is why did Apple give developers the option for an opt-out at all? I don't think they ever got that option for iPhone apps running on the iPad. Interesting choice and I assume there's a reason for it.

yes they do. Try searching for the WhatsApp App on an iPad for example

 

[gerald.d]

If they refuse they lose all their apps across all platforms.

I see nothing wrong with preventing cross platform app developers from being able to pick winners and losers on behalf of consumers. I think the consumer should decide that.

Incredible.

I'm rarely lost for words, so well done.

 

[mrochester]

Incredible.

I'm rarely lost for words, so well done.

It gives you something to think about, and a great way to make things better for consumers too.

 

[Piggie]

Not allowing the iPad apps to run just comes across as spiteful.

You could see it that way, however I think we all understand that Apple not creating the messenger app on android was simply spiteful also, as has been proven in the secret documents that got exposed recently.