3 ms·
Quite the uphill battle for a developer. This is different territory compared to marginally useful 2D app that millions of developers produce. To make a belie
by dahwolf 3y ago
Quite the uphill battle for a developer.
This is different territory compared to marginally useful 2D app that millions of developers produce.
To make a believable virtual/3D experience requires enormous investments if you don't want it to look like a video game from 25 years ago. It's quite telling that Apple rushed through the 3rd party demo session at the event, as every example looked terrible. As terrible and useless as 99% of AR apps produced thus far.
I would suspect that only giants like Disney could produce a "killer app" experience that woes people and make this worth the money and discomfort.
And on top of that, yes, lots of developers will produce what are basically 2D apps where they take an existing app and project it in space, possibly showing multiple sub screens. Slightly more useful if done well, at best. Financially likely the only realistic scenario for most developers but it also cheapens the appeal of this device.
Not to mention that you need to apply way more real world scrutiny to possible scenarios. As an example, somebody suggested a cooking app.
To solve what problem, exactly? Cooking is instructions and timers. Yet with this device one can project more information. What information, exactly? Cooking requires free movement, to grab items, throw things in the trash, but here you are with a thing strapped to your head with low visibility. Possibly wired as you need to be thinking about battery during a long cooking session. Maybe you're cooking with two people, as couples sometimes do, then what? Countless real downsides, merely theoretical upsides.
Don't get me wrong? Will the tech elite embrace it and will a few influencers rave on about this cooking app on their channel? Sure. But that's not my point. My point is that you need convincing apps with tremendous added value to offset the price and discomfort of this device.
Without that, it will be solo movie watcher pro.
- dahwolf 3y agoI want more of those downvotes. VR developers are an especially angry bunch as they believe VR is awesome, we're just too ignorant to understand it. We get it just fine, VR sucks.
- allenu 3y agoI don't know about VR developers being angry. I'm a VR/AR skeptic too and I'm surprised at the seemingly overwhelming optimism about Vision Pro from commenters. I think maybe it's the result of a large number of people who either enjoy Apple products (I'm one) and a large number of people who want VR/AR to succeed. I agree that there are use cases that when you think them a through a bit just aren't as practical as one thinks, such as the cooking scenario. Walking through scenarios in your head and thinking through the logistical issues with using such a device is a good way to ground yourself in some of the VR hype, in my opinion.
- dahwolf 3y agoI would imagine the optimism is due to this site's core audience: SV people.
- prawn 3y agoIMO, a full blown cooking app is just a distraction. It could be the "travel app" of this platform and safer for any sane developer to ignore. A developer doesn't need to make a killer app, just supplementary apps that people will use in this environment. And yes, some people will just make money making sure their 2D iOS app works in this environment, and a subset of that will convert it appropriately to work as a volume with depth. In this environment, Apple handles the difficult spatial stuff and many developers will just build planes or volumes within that, and get solid mileage from that. As anyone who's arrived early at an ecosystem knows, you first get used to the basic stuff, try a few free gimmicks, and then you're looking for apps to try and buy. Anyone in that marketplace at that point has far easier opportunities. Leave expensive-to-develop apps like VR courtside experiences to NBA and whoever else - those will sell the device. Smallfry developers will be fine otherwise.