17 ms·

YouTube and Spotify won't launch Apple Vision Pro apps, joining Netflix

163 points by hnuser0000 3y ago

laweijfmvo 3y ago
Presumably a wait-and-see approach? No one buying an Apple Vision Pro doesn't already use these apps, so it's not like they're missing out on a huge new user base.
- jachee 3y ago
  You don’t usually announce a wait-and-see approach. You just wait. This feels like a calculated, possibly coordinated attack.
  - morkalork 3y ago
    Companies declining to do free work for the benefit of another company's platform is not a "coordinated attack".
    - jachee 3y ago
      Companies announcing that they’re not going to do work, and actively doing work to hamper said platform (e.g. Netflix disabling the iPad app from working on the VisionPro) sure comes across that way.
gnicholas 3y ago
What’s the actual impact of this, if you can just use the website? I understand that future versions of apps might have more features to make the experience more immersive, but in the early days wouldn’t it be pretty much the same as using the website?
- iwontberude 3y ago
  I would guess one would reach for Apple TV+ or Apple Music instead, but then again I really don't like those experiences on any of the native apps -- so I wouldn't hold my breath.
- crooked-v 3y ago
  I think the main thing would be the lack of 3D film support, if Apple can manage to make people actually care about those again.
  - gnicholas 3y ago
    Ah true, that would be a differentiator. I’d guess there’s not a large catalog of content that could work. But if they could, it would be a neat trick, and might allow them to charge a hefty premium to subscribers who can afford an AVP.
    - SSLy 3y ago
      I've heard Disney is cooking some new 3D movie releases
  - nytesky 3y ago
    Wow Avatar was 15 years ago, and I remember all the hype for 3D studios and every television would be 3D…
    - gnicholas 3y ago
      And a lot of them were, for a while!
  - andsoitis 3y ago
    3D movies are a gimmick. Moreover, most video watching is TV Shows, short form content, and UGC.
    - gnicholas 3y ago
      Do you think 3D movies will continue to be considered gimmicks, even on devices like these? I thought that 3D TVs were silly, but my expectation is that they will be much better on AVP.
      - andsoitis 3y ago
- jachee 3y ago
  > What’s the actual impact of this, if you can just use the website? Go ahead and try that at 17,000ft. Might not have a particularly good experience… or any experience at all.
  - gnicholas 3y ago
    True, you'd have to plug into a device that has content already downloaded. Or use AppleTV, which presumably will have content.
- riwsky 3y ago
  Download/offline support
  - gnicholas 3y ago
    Oh good point considering they pitch it as being useful for airplanes.
  - Maxious 3y ago
    YouTube Premium has offline support in browser https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/11977233 https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/11977233 (although Spotify doesn't)
- LZ_Khan 3y ago
  Speed/responsiveness via customized UI. The youtube app is noticeably faster and easier to use than the youtube mobile website.
  - alphabettsy 3y ago
    The iPad doesn’t use the mobile version so I don’t see why this would be different. Should be the desktop experience.
- mkozlows 3y ago
  What would be the impact if they didn't make iPad apps and just let you use the browser?
paxys 3y ago
Considering most of these companies are in the middle of budget cuts and layoffs (including specifically in the YouTube division), it should be obvious that they aren’t going to be rushing to staff up teams to build an app for an untested device that will probably be in the hands of a few thousand people at launch. “Wait and see” is the best approach right now.
- Wowfunhappy 3y ago
  By why not let Vision Pro users install the iPad versions of their apps? They're explicitly opting out of that!
  - threeseed 3y ago
    Likely because the Vision SDK is going to be buggy in the beginning and they don't want to deal with the crash reports, support tickets etc. As well as all of their telemetry and product analytics data being messed up with people using their products in weird ways. If I was any of those companies I wouldn't bother either.
    - skygazer 3y ago
      I don’t think the SDK is necessary for an iPad app to run unmodified on Vision, only if you want to specialize for the environment. However, I can see them maybe actively disabling their apps until they can test them, or perhaps they were buggy but didn’t think it was worth fixing given the limited user base.
    - duggan 3y ago
      Not likely. Large companies do not make these sorts of decisions based on fear of bugs. They make them based on revenue, strategic advantage, etc. Can you imagine any hard-charging SV CEO saying "actually it might be a bit buggy or muck up our analytics data, best leave it for now folks, enjoy your weekend, take it easy"
      - threeseed 3y ago
nytesky 3y ago
I assumed Apple will be running these apps in a container that it thinks is an iPhone, and then project it onto a virtual screen in augmented space. I guess maybe resolution maybe an issue — so maybe it will be the web version or a AppleTV container that allows 4k etc (phones downsample maybe?)
- paxys 3y ago
  That will work as a stop-gap, sure, but having the app projected in 2D inside a VR headset kinda defeats the point. Vision Pro will only be successful if its apps can be immersive.
  - kergonath 3y ago
    OTOH, the visual aspect is not the most important for Spotify (as long as the music plays) or Netflix (as long as you can play the video). None of these 3 services really need to be that immersive. On iPhones and iPads their website behaves well enough. I am sure the experience will be good enough for videos being played from a website.
    - paxys 3y ago
      The app isn’t just about playing music in the background but also browsing catalogs, curating playlists, search, discovery, playback controls, casting and more. All the current UX is designed with touch in mind, so who knows what the actual experience on the Vision Pro will be.
      - dpig_ 3y ago
        I've done a bunch of web browsing on the Quest with hand-tracking. All of the important touch gestures have an intuitive equivalent.
- Wowfunhappy 3y ago
  They will, but app makers have the ability to opt-out of that.
seydor 3y ago
That shouldn't prevent apple from requiring a fair 30% cut to allow access to their websites
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
nytesky 3y ago
I would guess most Apple Vision Pro users are using Apple Music anyways? Though I’m not even sure how relevant audio apps are to a VR headset? I guess they do music videos, but hardly seems like core application to headset.
- xu_ituairo 3y ago
  I expect a use case for Spotify on the Vision Pro to be multitasking — listening to music while browsing the web or using other apps, same as phones and computers
internet2000 3y ago
I'm sure Google is a little terrified of the Vision Pro actually working out, so they'll do what they can to make it less enticing. Just like they did with Windows Phone. [1] [1] https://www.theverge.com/2013/8/16/4627342/microsoft-google-battle-over-youtube-windows-phone https://www.theverge.com/2013/8/16/4627342/microsoft-google-...
- FirmwareBurner 3y ago
  Lol, Google is still in that battle against Microsoft. They still won't release Google Chrome for Windows ARM to force people to stay on Chromebooks instead of looking at Windows ARM alternatives. Kinda petty if you ask me.
  - nytesky 3y ago
    Edge has gotten really good, how much impediment is that?
    - FirmwareBurner 3y ago
      Probably enough to annoy the users who really want to stay on Chrome and the Google ecosystem, but not enough to annoy the users who really like Windows on ARM since there's also Firefox for ARM64 Windows. Google is just being needlessly petty here IMHO.
  - blibble 3y ago
    let me know when I can get a native build of Office for Linux
    - paxys 3y ago
      Or a native Chrome browser on iOS.
    - FirmwareBurner 3y ago
      What's Linux's market share compared to the rest? From there compute the profit margins left after you subtract the amount of issues and support tickets the Linux userbase will generate in relative to the amount of sales and revenue. Chances are you're not breaking even. Meanwhile Google wouldn't need to provide support for Chrome on Windows ARM(or any other platform) since it's not a commercial product consumers pay money for and are entitled to support, it's just a free product shipped withotu warranty financed by vacuuming your personal data.
kergonath 3y ago
Considering that the main purpose of YouTube seems to be forcing me to see as many ads as physically possible, I would say good riddance. I will keep using the website, where I have some degree of control over what is being done and what I end up seeing. I don’t care about Netflix or Spotify, so meh.
- beastman82 3y ago
  Seems? That is exactly the point of an advertising company's product.
  - astrange 3y ago
    YouTube sells ad-free access for $14 a month. It's as easy to avoid as can be.
    - catketch 3y ago
      Even easier: Brave Browser. ad-free YouTube for $0/month
    - olyjohn 3y ago
      For now. I guarantee they will start putting ads in your premium membership plan. It's already happening in other services. They will do it using the boiling frog method. There is no way they will pass up a chance to make even more money. This is not a slippery slope argument either, this is what has happened over and over throughout history.
  - kergonath 3y ago
    Well, at some point they pretended to care about user experience. They could not have got their user base if they were that user hostile from the beginning.
    - andsoitis 3y ago
      > YouTube began running in-video ads in August 2007, with preroll ads introduced in 2008. Google bought YouTube in 2006. YouTube began running in-video ads in August 2007, with preroll ads introduced in 2008. User and usage growth since introduction of ads in 2097/2008 suggests your assertion is not correct.
StreetChief 3y ago
https://archive.is/4kfYI https://archive.is/4kfYI
danso 3y ago
I’ve had a Quest 2 since the covid shut-in era, and I now only ever use it to watch the Netflix and Prime Video apps — both of which are basic and haven’t been updated for years. Which is weird, b/c right now, the home theater experience is one of the only things that VR indisputably (for the most part) does better than non-VR platforms. Right now the main flaw is that these basic apps stream at a low resolution (480p in Netflix’s case) It makes no sense why Netflix/Amazon would neglect apps for a 20m userbase. The most rational explanation is that the VR userbase still has a very low active/attach rate. Maybe Netflix/Amazon aren’t excited to help Meta, but it’s not like they’re making their own VR headsets yet.
- bunabhucan 3y ago
  >the home theater experience is one of the only things that VR indisputably You can't watch unless you are alone, the surround sound is reduced to stereo and the resolution is sub-4k once the rendering is done. Home theater VR is indisputably better than a phone/tablet/laptop and headphones.
  - felipeerias 3y ago
    That’s a bit reductive. On VR you can also watch immersive videos and mainstream films in 3D.
    - nickthegreek 3y ago
      From the comfort of your toilet no less. Let’s see a home theater do that.
      - epcoa 3y ago
        You’re right, I’ve never seen a home theater built in a shitter. But that doesn’t mean it can’t be done!
        wkat4242 3y ago
ifightcrime 3y ago
Damn. Gonna really boost Apple Music and Apple TV+ then over time if Apple Vision Pro works out. Already both great products. Especially with the more recent improvements made to Apple Music.
- GuB-42 3y ago
  I don't expect Apple Vision Pro to be more than a niche product, at least not in its current form. It is simply too expensive. It is more of a proof-of-concept thing, so that Apple can show off their "vision" of VR. If successful, it may lead to a mass market product in the future, but by that time, YouTube, Nexflix, Spotify, etc... may actually provide first party support.
  - wkat4242 3y ago
    True. I'm a huge VR enthusiast working in IT and even some VR/AR projects. And I wouldn't even consider this unless it drops below 2000€. It's just insanely priced. Here in Europe with tax it'll be way beyond 4000€. And I own multiple Quests. And a gaming pc with 4090. All those added up didn't cost that much. Of course it won't be as good at a €1500-2000 price point but I don't care. If it's three times as good as the quest 3 for 3 times the price, it would be amazing. But my point is, if even an enthusiast like me won't even consider it.. And I travelled to a different country to wait for hours before opening to buy the first iPad :) A product I wasn't even as passionate about as AR/VR. They're clearly aiming at the richest 1% even in the western world. But those are not necessarily the kind that would have affinity for this stuff. And the people that have enough money to buy it as a toy will have a lot of money to buy a lot more toys all competing for their attention. I think a lot of these are going to get bought and end up as an expensive showpiece without seeing much use. The amount of people who have both the affinity to make the most of it and the purchasing power to actually buy it will be so few.
    - Philpax 3y ago
      I am also a huge XR enthusiast (since just before the first Rift Kickstarter) living in Europe, with multiple headsets across generations, and I'm considering flying to another country to buy it. There is no competition for it yet, and the competition that will come out (Samsung/Google's collaboration, Meta's next attempt at Quest Pro, etc) will alike Android 1.0: planting a flag, but the actual experience will be measurably worse. It's a fully-integrated standalone MR headset with access to the wider Apple ecosystem, the highest-quality components of 2022 (yeah, it's shipping late, but it's still better than the competition), and it's backed by Apple, which will end up redefining the conversation around XR as a whole. Even as a portable home cinema I'd consider it, especially in my small European apartment :-) The price is high because it's expensive to make (~1700 USD [0]), they need to make the money back on R&D, they're supply-constrained [1], and likely because - yes - they want to limit the mass market's exposure to 1.0. Still, as an enthusiast, I've been waiting for this for many years; I'm ready to try it out for myself. [0]: https://www.uploadvr.com/meta-quest-3-apple-vision-pro-production-cost-estimate/ https://www.uploadvr.com/meta-quest-3-apple-vision-pro-produ... [1]: https://www.uploadvr.com/apple-vision-pro-production-severely-constrained/ https://www.uploadvr.com/apple-vision-pro-production-severel...
astlouis44 3y ago
They won't need apps, just use the browser. Sure you won't get native level features, but at least users can still access the web-app versions. Something is better than nothing.
hiisukun 3y ago
I'm actually a little excited by the prospect of a large company (in this case Apple) having a battle with other big tech firms that might revolve around User-Agent, or at least the concept of identifying users and treating them differently based on the software/technology they are using to connect to your services. I genuinely prefer the user experience of linux and firefox -- I'm not religiously opposed to Windows^, Chrome, MacOS, etc. I also don't generally complain when websites don't work well for me, or the experience isn't perfect, I know that kinda comes as a package deal. But, I often know that package deal is unnecessary. Netflix might not want me to watch 4K because of requirements from copyright holders, or some website might not have tested on Firefox so they throw up an error page (even though standards are standards...). But if I lie about who I am sometimes things work perfectly -- and those are the moments when I feel the unfairness sitting just adjacent to me, resting it's hand on my arm. In this case, I wonder how well Apple can make the web.spotify (and netflix etc) sites work on their hardware, and how much they will have to lie about who they are when they're connecting to those services. I'm absolutely confident that the hardware and software will be capable of correctly and capably displaying movies, playing music, etc. It's more a question of trust, truth, and power. For me, in my little home on my little street, while I don't usually fight that battle I'm still aware of the potential injustice. But when the big dogs fight over it? I feel it's good for me, shining a light on these kinds of issue. Netflix doesn't want to spend money and put dev work in to making things work perfectly on Apple's headset? That makes perfect sense, no problem. But attempting to block it, if Apple has spent the time and money to make it work? That strikes me as unfair. You might argue it's not a 100% clear cut issue - should platforms have some say in how their content is presented? - but I feel very comfortable disagreeing when a website says "must be viewed using ACME OS™", or even worse, "can be viewed everywhere except COMPETITOR OS™".
- lern_too_spel 3y ago
  All of these services are available on the web for Vision Pro. They're just not making an app.
  - weikju 3y ago
    There are so many sites out there though that will, when you browse with an iOS device, tell you to download the app and refuse to show the same website you see on desktop. This could happen here. This is what the OP was talking about. Now it would probably be stupid of Netflix etc to block VP users after refusing to also port their app or allow their iPad apps to run on the VP, but never underestimate companies' potential for counter-intuitive decisions!
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
exabrial 3y ago
Oh when monopolies clash the result is hilarity! If Apple would stop boning people over app payments, stop using MFI as a weapon, and implement RCS some people would probably come over and play. I 100% would steer very clear of any new Apple marketplace. The once friendly and open platform literally considers things you buy from them ‘theirs’ (Tim Cook’s words).
- jeroenhd 3y ago
  One thing the Vision Pro announcement has done is kick up some competition in the market. If the Apple Quest can get enough people excited about VR, we'll get better offerings from other companies for cheaper. It's the sort of impact I wish Microsoft HoloLens had, but I suppose HoloLens was released too early for the technology to make sense.
kmfrk 3y ago
I can't think of a worse thing than having YouTube ads beamed into my eyes, but you'd imagine the ROI on that would be pretty decent as a company that's mainly built around selling ads.
thrill 3y ago
Apple can buy Netflix for 10% of their market cap. It'd be worth it just to watch the total freakout of Amazon and Google.
- lesuorac 3y ago
  Unlikely. Apples volume today was 52,649,132 which times share price is 188$ => 9.8 Billion. Netflix's market cap is 212.41 billion so if Apple tried to print enough shares to cover the acquisition cost they'd tank their share price to 0.
  - bombcar 3y ago
    https://www.cnbc.com/2023/11/02/apple-now-has-162-billion-in-cash-on-hand-less-than-last-quarter.html https://www.cnbc.com/2023/11/02/apple-now-has-162-billion-in... Apple has $162 billion in cash on hand. They could acquire Netflix if they wanted (they don’t want to). Much more likely they buy Pixar off Disney or something.
    - paxys 3y ago
      Most of this cash is in offshore accounts and Apple can't use it domestically without paying a boat load of taxes on it. Moreover Netflix's market cap at the moment is $212B and with even a conservative 30% acquisition premium Apple would have to pay $275-300B. They simply can't afford it.
  - sushid 3y ago
    Not sure why you're multiplying trade volume with their share price? It's a stupid scenario to think of, but the offer would be some combination of cash and shares they own, not newly printed shares out of the blue. And if they did print more shares, how would it "tank their share price to 0"? It's not like a stupid acquisition would instantly vaporize a 2+ trillion market cap company overnight.
- llm_nerd 3y ago
  Apple has already set themselves up for a rotating pummelling of regulatory restrictions, having clearly demonstrated that it will not restrain itself at all from its worst instincts. There is a 0% chance most jurisdictions would allow Apple to buy Netflix, or any similar "competitor".
amadeuspagel 3y ago
> YouTube said in a statement Thursday that it isn’t planning to launch a new app for the Apple Vision Pro, nor will it allow its longstanding iPad application to work on the device. YouTube, like Netflix, is recommending that customers use a web browser if they want to see its content: “YouTube users will be able to use YouTube in Safari on the Vision Pro at launch.” > Spotify also isn’t planning a new app for visionOS — the Vision Pro’s operating system — and doesn’t expect to enable its iPad app to run on the device, according to a person familiar with matter. But the music service will still likely work from a web browser. Bloomberg News reported on Netflix’s decision Wednesday. Emphasis mine. No need for Apple loyalists to convince themselves that they never liked these services anyway.
- pupppet 3y ago
  Oh the irony if web apps end up saving the Vision Pro.
  - paxys 3y ago
    Next up – companies must pay Apple 30% of their annual revenue in order to have their websites accessible on Safari.
    - albert180 3y ago
      Is Safari still sending nasty popups if you tap too much on Websites in Full Screen in the line of "WebApps aren't permitted in Full Screen Mode" ?
- chrismsimpson 3y ago
  Apple control iOS, iPadOS and visionOS. Not only that, but they made their UI frameworks screen resolution/size independent some years ago. I am sure Apple will be able provide a premium ‘native’ experience for existing deployed iPad apps with minimal to no additional effort on their part. Does Catalyst ring a bell?
  - piva00 3y ago
dgellow 3y ago
It’s a new platform that isn’t proven, I would be surprised if large companies invest early on in new apps
DarkmSparks 3y ago
I dont even use the youtube android app any more, its become hot garbage. infinitely better experience on android vivaldi browser. Really looking forward to apple vision tbh. my last windows laptop became a macbook air, very very satisfied. And like they say, apple has decent competing products anyway, so not kike device users are going to miss them. They will need a tictok app tho.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
matricaria 3y ago
Im definitely not going to defend Apple here but I think this could drive people even more into the ecosystem. With new purchases Apple grants access to Apple Music and TV+ for some time and I think some people might stay afterwards. As far as YouTube goes, I only use it in the browser due to my adblock working there. Maybe I’m wrong but this could turn out as a win for Apple.
- paxys 3y ago
  The people who are excited enough about the Vision Pro and have $4000+ in fun money lying around to buy it on launch day are probably firmly in the demographic who have Apple TV/Apple One already.
andsoitis 3y ago
"Out of the 46 most popular apps on the App Store, none of them will have a native visionOS app at launch, according to findings from MacStories. This list could always change — and some of the apps will still offer Vision Pro support through their existing apps on iPhone and iPad — but the lack of native apps just weeks away from the Vision Pro launch isn't particularly encouraging."
dylan-m 3y ago
Considering the quality of YouTube's Apple TV app[1], this should come as no surprise, and frankly it's probably for the best. This type of thing is better off starting small with applications that actually work well, instead of bolting on some well-known names that are just going to phone it in and disappoint users in the long run. [1] Anecdotal, but: it recently added its own screensaver that plays instead of the system one, and never stops playing, meaning if I accidentally leave YouTube open, my TV never switches off. The VLC app can't discover UPNP services on my network as long as YouTube is in the recent apps list. It decides to be in French sometimes. (Our system language is not French). And, not entirely Google's fault, but there are about three different ways to cast a YouTube video from the iOS YouTube app to the same gorramn TV, and which one is actually going to work today is completely random. The indifference YouTube gets away with on Apple TV tells me, if that team made an app for Vision Pro, it would provide guaranteed headaches. Apple is dodging a bullet here.
wkat4242 3y ago
Funny because YouTube and Netflix are present in the competing meta quest ecosystem. I don't really understand why they don't go for this especially because it's not a terrible lot of work to port their iOS apps.
- solarkraft 3y ago
  Politics. They've been pissed about Apple's policies for years.
- theshackleford 3y ago
  And both applications are terrible and recommended against. I never use them and I don’t know anyone who actively does out of those I know with headsets.
rumori 3y ago
I’m on the opinion of boycotting visionOS as a protest on their link tax decisions, green bubble shenanigans and other non competitive moves. The future should be innovative and inclusive with fair competition and equal opportunity. Enough is enough.
paul7986 3y ago
I was excited in June about Vision Pro now after buying the latest meta Ray bans, wearing them pretty frequently and enjoying them I'm perplexed why Apple didn't go in the same direction? That crazy heavy looking expensive storm trooper looking helmet (vision pro) is where they chose to start in the AR space ..weird?!
- Philpax 3y ago
  The Meta glasses don't actually display anything, though. Apple will get there eventually, but they're focusing on quality and fidelity of experience first.
  - paul7986 3y ago
    Yeah but it's next update will have audio AR/AI added in ... like i think i saw Boz demo where he asked how many fingers am i holding up and it answered him (AR counting of things) or it was some type of AR/AI cool demo and it was all achieved through voice and audio. Though at this point Hey Meta's reliability of actually answering/working is 60/40, so i don't use it much. These glasses are great for taking pics and videos!
jeswin 3y ago
Probably waiting to see if enough people will tolerate a sweaty headset for long hours. Not to mention the weight. Steve Jobs had approved several dumb Apple products, but I don't think he'd have sold Vision Pro to the general public.
- gl0wa 3y ago
  Some of them (e.g. Netflix and Youtube) have official apps for Meta Quest devices, so there might be other reasons. For Youtube it kind of makes more sense, as they have 360 and 180 content on there and VR headsets are probably best devices to consume it on. But even with Netflix, having watched some TV show for about hour or so was surprisingly not so bad experience at all on Meta Quest 3.
  - EtienneK 3y ago
    I also watched something on the Quest 3 using the Amazon Prime Video app the other day. It was a cool experience, but for now, I still find a TV better. This might change as the technology improves. Which is why I find the choice not to release an app for the Apple VP odd: it has better hardware so the experience should also be better. Maybe it's because they expect the VP to sell a lot less than the Quest 3?
  - YetAnotherNick 3y ago
    Netflix for quest feels like it is coded by a single programmer learning to program VR. It hasn't been updated in last 5 years[1] [1]: https://www.meta.com/experiences/2184912004923042/ https://www.meta.com/experiences/2184912004923042/
- thih9 3y ago
  Makes sense, perhaps this isn’t a device for traditional audio/video media consumption. Is this a reason to call it dumb though? Note that when Jobs presented an ipod in 2001, people also reacted this way[1]. [1]: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/apples-new-thing-ipod.500/?post=5298 https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/apples-new-thing-ipod.5...
- ksec 3y ago
pjmlp 3y ago
Even if they did, based on past performance of VR headsets, I don't envision this being an iPhone like jackpot for Apple. It will outsell during the first years due to people with deep pockets eager to own one, and then it will wither and die, like most of the other attempts.
- cracrecry 3y ago
  I see the big difference in design. VR consumer headsets were designed being cheap first, trying to sell in the millions, then adding features later. If they don't sell millions, there is no income and the product dies, or it does have a big company like Meta burning billions of dollars at it from investors. What Apple is doing is bringing a product to market with no compromises on quality. It will be much more expensive but if it is useful for someone they will pay. They won't need millions of users for breakeven but tens of thousands. I bought and restored a second hand Lisp Machine (with hardware accelerated Lisp). It was über expensive, but was a dream at the time to use. Even today it has things normal IDEs do not have. It was super expensive but did things nobody else could do at the time and that was worth it for companies that needed those things.
  - pjmlp 3y ago
    As Lisp fan I get the point, still didn't saved them, and same will happen with Vision Pro. 30 years from now there will be generation Z folks talking about how great Vision Pro was going to be, how they had fun restoring some devices.
prmoustache 3y ago
What about pornhub and onlyfans? This is traditionnally the porno industry that leads in term of new tech adoption.
- pompino 3y ago
  It may be true for media formats, but I don't think its generally applicable like that. I doubt a mainstream tech CEO will stand up on stage to promote adult content as their early adopters in front of journalists.
- ksec 3y ago
  If I was Apple's competitor, I would fund the development of watching porn on Vision Pro and market the hell out of it.
- NoPedantsThanks 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - MagicMoonlight 3y ago
    The original deepfakes were all porn. Current cutting edge image gen is all porn.
- TheAceOfHearts 3y ago
  Adult apps aren't allowed on the Apple Store, so it'll depend entirely on the web. If you can launch multiple browser windows at the same time to cover the full FOV then I'm sure someone will eventually make use of it... I'm not sure why existing Meta headsets aren't being used for this purpose, or what features distinguish Apple's headset from existing products. If Apple's headset ships with 3D video recording then there's probably an opportunity for some pair of adult creators to go viral by recording the first porno on it.
- jug 3y ago
  Haha! This straight question is honestly the elephant in the room. It's a killer product for porn and PornHub and Xvideoes are in return top 4, 5 respectively most popular sites on the Internet (December 2023, according to Semrush). But we can't talk about it for obvious reasons. It's such a funny scenario to think of. But the allure of porn was always the ease of access and instant gratification. I don't think Vision Pro fulfills any of this due to the barrier of entry with its price point.
pavlov 3y ago
This is interesting as a symbol of how times have changed because YouTube was one of the handful of built-in apps on the original iPhone, before the App Store. (For some reason the iPhone YouTube app's icon was an image of a retro cream-and-brown 1940s TV. I guess Steve Jobs just liked that design because it certainly didn't have anything to do with YouTube's branding and didn't look like anything Google would have picked for any product.) When Microsoft shipped the revamped Windows Phone a few years later, the "app gap" was one of the main problems. High-profile apps like YouTube never became available on the platform because by then Google was busy promoting their own mobile OS.
- NoPedantsThanks 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - pavlov 3y ago
    It did? I guess it's forever stuck in my mind as the YouTube iPhone icon and I've forgotten it was used elsewhere. A quick googling doesn't come up with any instances of this icon except the iPhone. The 2005 YouTube logo was already the familiar black and red. Where else was the old TV icon used by Google?
    - SushiHippie 3y ago
      IIUC they just mean that this retro design style for logos/icons wasn't Steve Jobs/Apple and Youtube specific
      - nailer 3y ago
        Yes, I’m pretty sure the OP understands that is what is being claimed, but where else was it?
        SushiHippie 3y ago
        I don't know, I didn't say that I agree with NoPedantsThanks. But Skeuomorphism was a real hype in the 00s. But I think it got mostly popular through Apple/Steve Jobs.
NoPedantsThanks 3y ago
[flagged]
MagicMoonlight 3y ago
They want to be able to steal your data
dcchambers 3y ago
Most comments here seem to be convinced that this is because these companies don't want to put in the engineering hours to build and support an app on a niche platform. Is it possible that this is actually a coordinated message to Apple that these large media companies are done paying the 30% Apple tax? Especially if this thing has a fully-featured, desktop-like web browser. The blocking of the existing iPad apps tells me it's the later.
- siva7 3y ago
  At Youtube or Spotify scale this has nothing to do with engineering hours or project costs. It is for sure a power play message.
  - bgentry 3y ago
    In Spotify’s case I would wager it has more to do with them not having a core group of empowered and capable iOS engineers. Their app still doesn’t support AirPlay 2 many years after it was introduced, a feature that solo developers like Marco Arment (Overcast) supported long ago. I suppose it could be some bizarre internal political vendetta against Apple has led them to be unwilling to invest in improving the iOS app, but that seems like an odd strategy.
    - perryizgr8 3y ago
      Why would spotify support a feature that competes against them? Does apple music support spotify connect?
      - dijit 3y ago
        If you're serious: because third party apps can absolutely kill first party ones, and they do, all the time. Netflix remains the dominant player over Apple TV+, for example. Chrome remains more dominant than Safari. Outside of Apples specific ecosystem: Do you know anyone who seriously uses Windows Media Player or built-in Calendar/Mail apps? (Outlook is not the built-in). If your third party app is better and has better social capital: it can kill the first-party app. I'm just forgetting which ones completely died because: they are history.
dingi 3y ago
iMessage on Android in exchange for youtube app on this platform. It's only logical.
AlexandrB 3y ago
I remember the era when third party clients for online services were quite common. Now consumers get stuck in the middle of various corporate pissing matches instead.
- btreecat 3y ago
  Kinda feels like DRM did it's main job of preventing interoperability. Funny how much bad tech is still "good enough"
- MomoXenosaga 3y ago
  I'm subscribed to Netflix through my smart TV app. I'm sure Netflix pays money to LG for that button on the remote.
- rchaud 3y ago
  Windows Phone and BlackBerry had apps that acted like two-way RSS for your messages. Everything in one app. They broke frequently because the app vendors changed their APIs, not wanting their products to become dumb pipes that just sent and received messages (the horror!).
zitsarethecure 3y ago
I was excited initially about these but I am loathe to admit I have kind of lost interest. Perhaps I am getting old.
- CatWChainsaw 3y ago
  Or seeing reality for what it is, without a fancy headset :)
el_don_almighty 3y ago
PORN will drive answers to all your technology market questions What will the PORN industry decide? Does this new platform drive new, exclusive revenue sources for immersive PORN? If the answer is yes, then the technology and commercial infrastructure will follow. I suspect the answer sounds like an out-of-context Carl Sagan quote, "...Billions and Billions..." Whoever drives that content through those goggles will be rich beyond measure... unfortunately.
ecf 3y ago
In time Spotify will back down just like they did with native Apple Watch support. Pretty easy for them to take this stance when very few customers will own the first gen, but give it a decade for a cheaper version that’s mass adopted and we will see them bending over to please their customers.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
n05tr0m0 3y ago
They didn't agree on the price. When Vision Pro becomes popular so then they will come

163 points by hnuser0000 3y ago

Presumably a wait-and-see approach? No one buying an Apple Vision Pro doesn't already use these apps, so it's not like they're missing out on a huge new user base.

jachee 3y ago
You don’t usually announce a wait-and-see approach. You just wait. This feels like a calculated, possibly coordinated attack.
- morkalork 3y ago
  Companies declining to do free work for the benefit of another company's platform is not a "coordinated attack".
  - jachee 3y ago
    Companies announcing that they’re not going to do work, and actively doing work to hamper said platform (e.g. Netflix disabling the iPad app from working on the VisionPro) sure comes across that way.

gnicholas 3y ago

What’s the actual impact of this, if you can just use the website? I understand that future versions of apps might have more features to make the experience more immersive, but in the early days wouldn’t it be pretty much the same as using the website?

iwontberude 3y ago
I would guess one would reach for Apple TV+ or Apple Music instead, but then again I really don't like those experiences on any of the native apps -- so I wouldn't hold my breath.
crooked-v 3y ago
I think the main thing would be the lack of 3D film support, if Apple can manage to make people actually care about those again.
- gnicholas 3y ago
  Ah true, that would be a differentiator. I’d guess there’s not a large catalog of content that could work. But if they could, it would be a neat trick, and might allow them to charge a hefty premium to subscribers who can afford an AVP.
  - SSLy 3y ago
    I've heard Disney is cooking some new 3D movie releases
- nytesky 3y ago
  Wow Avatar was 15 years ago, and I remember all the hype for 3D studios and every television would be 3D…
  - gnicholas 3y ago
    And a lot of them were, for a while!
- andsoitis 3y ago
  3D movies are a gimmick. Moreover, most video watching is TV Shows, short form content, and UGC.
  - gnicholas 3y ago
    Do you think 3D movies will continue to be considered gimmicks, even on devices like these? I thought that 3D TVs were silly, but my expectation is that they will be much better on AVP.
    - andsoitis 3y ago
jachee 3y ago
> What’s the actual impact of this, if you can just use the website? Go ahead and try that at 17,000ft. Might not have a particularly good experience… or any experience at all.
- gnicholas 3y ago
  True, you'd have to plug into a device that has content already downloaded. Or use AppleTV, which presumably will have content.
riwsky 3y ago
Download/offline support
- gnicholas 3y ago
  Oh good point considering they pitch it as being useful for airplanes.
- Maxious 3y ago
  YouTube Premium has offline support in browser https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/11977233 https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/11977233 (although Spotify doesn't)
LZ_Khan 3y ago
Speed/responsiveness via customized UI. The youtube app is noticeably faster and easier to use than the youtube mobile website.
- alphabettsy 3y ago
  The iPad doesn’t use the mobile version so I don’t see why this would be different. Should be the desktop experience.
mkozlows 3y ago
What would be the impact if they didn't make iPad apps and just let you use the browser?

paxys 3y ago

Considering most of these companies are in the middle of budget cuts and layoffs (including specifically in the YouTube division), it should be obvious that they aren’t going to be rushing to staff up teams to build an app for an untested device that will probably be in the hands of a few thousand people at launch. “Wait and see” is the best approach right now.

Wowfunhappy 3y ago
By why not let Vision Pro users install the iPad versions of their apps? They're explicitly opting out of that!
- threeseed 3y ago
  Likely because the Vision SDK is going to be buggy in the beginning and they don't want to deal with the crash reports, support tickets etc. As well as all of their telemetry and product analytics data being messed up with people using their products in weird ways. If I was any of those companies I wouldn't bother either.
  - skygazer 3y ago
    I don’t think the SDK is necessary for an iPad app to run unmodified on Vision, only if you want to specialize for the environment. However, I can see them maybe actively disabling their apps until they can test them, or perhaps they were buggy but didn’t think it was worth fixing given the limited user base.
  - duggan 3y ago
    Not likely. Large companies do not make these sorts of decisions based on fear of bugs. They make them based on revenue, strategic advantage, etc. Can you imagine any hard-charging SV CEO saying "actually it might be a bit buggy or muck up our analytics data, best leave it for now folks, enjoy your weekend, take it easy"
    - threeseed 3y ago

nytesky 3y ago

I assumed Apple will be running these apps in a container that it thinks is an iPhone, and then project it onto a virtual screen in augmented space. I guess maybe resolution maybe an issue — so maybe it will be the web version or a AppleTV container that allows 4k etc (phones downsample maybe?)

paxys 3y ago
That will work as a stop-gap, sure, but having the app projected in 2D inside a VR headset kinda defeats the point. Vision Pro will only be successful if its apps can be immersive.
- kergonath 3y ago
  OTOH, the visual aspect is not the most important for Spotify (as long as the music plays) or Netflix (as long as you can play the video). None of these 3 services really need to be that immersive. On iPhones and iPads their website behaves well enough. I am sure the experience will be good enough for videos being played from a website.
  - paxys 3y ago
    The app isn’t just about playing music in the background but also browsing catalogs, curating playlists, search, discovery, playback controls, casting and more. All the current UX is designed with touch in mind, so who knows what the actual experience on the Vision Pro will be.
    - dpig_ 3y ago
      I've done a bunch of web browsing on the Quest with hand-tracking. All of the important touch gestures have an intuitive equivalent.
Wowfunhappy 3y ago
They will, but app makers have the ability to opt-out of that.

seydor 3y ago

That shouldn't prevent apple from requiring a fair 30% cut to allow access to their websites

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

nytesky 3y ago

I would guess most Apple Vision Pro users are using Apple Music anyways? Though I’m not even sure how relevant audio apps are to a VR headset? I guess they do music videos, but hardly seems like core application to headset.

xu_ituairo 3y ago
I expect a use case for Spotify on the Vision Pro to be multitasking — listening to music while browsing the web or using other apps, same as phones and computers

internet2000 3y ago

I'm sure Google is a little terrified of the Vision Pro actually working out, so they'll do what they can to make it less enticing. Just like they did with Windows Phone. [1] [1] https://www.theverge.com/2013/8/16/4627342/microsoft-google-battle-over-youtube-windows-phone https://www.theverge.com/2013/8/16/4627342/microsoft-google-...

FirmwareBurner 3y ago
Lol, Google is still in that battle against Microsoft. They still won't release Google Chrome for Windows ARM to force people to stay on Chromebooks instead of looking at Windows ARM alternatives. Kinda petty if you ask me.
- nytesky 3y ago
  Edge has gotten really good, how much impediment is that?
  - FirmwareBurner 3y ago
    Probably enough to annoy the users who really want to stay on Chrome and the Google ecosystem, but not enough to annoy the users who really like Windows on ARM since there's also Firefox for ARM64 Windows. Google is just being needlessly petty here IMHO.
- blibble 3y ago
  let me know when I can get a native build of Office for Linux
  - paxys 3y ago
    Or a native Chrome browser on iOS.
  - FirmwareBurner 3y ago
    What's Linux's market share compared to the rest? From there compute the profit margins left after you subtract the amount of issues and support tickets the Linux userbase will generate in relative to the amount of sales and revenue. Chances are you're not breaking even. Meanwhile Google wouldn't need to provide support for Chrome on Windows ARM(or any other platform) since it's not a commercial product consumers pay money for and are entitled to support, it's just a free product shipped withotu warranty financed by vacuuming your personal data.

kergonath 3y ago

Considering that the main purpose of YouTube seems to be forcing me to see as many ads as physically possible, I would say good riddance. I will keep using the website, where I have some degree of control over what is being done and what I end up seeing. I don’t care about Netflix or Spotify, so meh.

beastman82 3y ago
Seems? That is exactly the point of an advertising company's product.
- astrange 3y ago
  YouTube sells ad-free access for $14 a month. It's as easy to avoid as can be.
  - catketch 3y ago
    Even easier: Brave Browser. ad-free YouTube for $0/month
  - olyjohn 3y ago
    For now. I guarantee they will start putting ads in your premium membership plan. It's already happening in other services. They will do it using the boiling frog method. There is no way they will pass up a chance to make even more money. This is not a slippery slope argument either, this is what has happened over and over throughout history.
- kergonath 3y ago
  Well, at some point they pretended to care about user experience. They could not have got their user base if they were that user hostile from the beginning.
  - andsoitis 3y ago
    > YouTube began running in-video ads in August 2007, with preroll ads introduced in 2008. Google bought YouTube in 2006. YouTube began running in-video ads in August 2007, with preroll ads introduced in 2008. User and usage growth since introduction of ads in 2097/2008 suggests your assertion is not correct.

StreetChief 3y ago

https://archive.is/4kfYI https://archive.is/4kfYI

danso 3y ago

I’ve had a Quest 2 since the covid shut-in era, and I now only ever use it to watch the Netflix and Prime Video apps — both of which are basic and haven’t been updated for years. Which is weird, b/c right now, the home theater experience is one of the only things that VR indisputably (for the most part) does better than non-VR platforms. Right now the main flaw is that these basic apps stream at a low resolution (480p in Netflix’s case) It makes no sense why Netflix/Amazon would neglect apps for a 20m userbase. The most rational explanation is that the VR userbase still has a very low active/attach rate. Maybe Netflix/Amazon aren’t excited to help Meta, but it’s not like they’re making their own VR headsets yet.

bunabhucan 3y ago
>the home theater experience is one of the only things that VR indisputably You can't watch unless you are alone, the surround sound is reduced to stereo and the resolution is sub-4k once the rendering is done. Home theater VR is indisputably better than a phone/tablet/laptop and headphones.
- felipeerias 3y ago
  That’s a bit reductive. On VR you can also watch immersive videos and mainstream films in 3D.
  - nickthegreek 3y ago
    From the comfort of your toilet no less. Let’s see a home theater do that.
    - epcoa 3y ago
      You’re right, I’ve never seen a home theater built in a shitter. But that doesn’t mean it can’t be done!
      - wkat4242 3y ago

ifightcrime 3y ago

Damn. Gonna really boost Apple Music and Apple TV+ then over time if Apple Vision Pro works out. Already both great products. Especially with the more recent improvements made to Apple Music.

GuB-42 3y ago
I don't expect Apple Vision Pro to be more than a niche product, at least not in its current form. It is simply too expensive. It is more of a proof-of-concept thing, so that Apple can show off their "vision" of VR. If successful, it may lead to a mass market product in the future, but by that time, YouTube, Nexflix, Spotify, etc... may actually provide first party support.
- wkat4242 3y ago
  True. I'm a huge VR enthusiast working in IT and even some VR/AR projects. And I wouldn't even consider this unless it drops below 2000€. It's just insanely priced. Here in Europe with tax it'll be way beyond 4000€. And I own multiple Quests. And a gaming pc with 4090. All those added up didn't cost that much. Of course it won't be as good at a €1500-2000 price point but I don't care. If it's three times as good as the quest 3 for 3 times the price, it would be amazing. But my point is, if even an enthusiast like me won't even consider it.. And I travelled to a different country to wait for hours before opening to buy the first iPad :) A product I wasn't even as passionate about as AR/VR. They're clearly aiming at the richest 1% even in the western world. But those are not necessarily the kind that would have affinity for this stuff. And the people that have enough money to buy it as a toy will have a lot of money to buy a lot more toys all competing for their attention. I think a lot of these are going to get bought and end up as an expensive showpiece without seeing much use. The amount of people who have both the affinity to make the most of it and the purchasing power to actually buy it will be so few.
  - Philpax 3y ago
    I am also a huge XR enthusiast (since just before the first Rift Kickstarter) living in Europe, with multiple headsets across generations, and I'm considering flying to another country to buy it. There is no competition for it yet, and the competition that will come out (Samsung/Google's collaboration, Meta's next attempt at Quest Pro, etc) will alike Android 1.0: planting a flag, but the actual experience will be measurably worse. It's a fully-integrated standalone MR headset with access to the wider Apple ecosystem, the highest-quality components of 2022 (yeah, it's shipping late, but it's still better than the competition), and it's backed by Apple, which will end up redefining the conversation around XR as a whole. Even as a portable home cinema I'd consider it, especially in my small European apartment :-) The price is high because it's expensive to make (~1700 USD [0]), they need to make the money back on R&D, they're supply-constrained [1], and likely because - yes - they want to limit the mass market's exposure to 1.0. Still, as an enthusiast, I've been waiting for this for many years; I'm ready to try it out for myself. [0]: https://www.uploadvr.com/meta-quest-3-apple-vision-pro-production-cost-estimate/ https://www.uploadvr.com/meta-quest-3-apple-vision-pro-produ... [1]: https://www.uploadvr.com/apple-vision-pro-production-severely-constrained/ https://www.uploadvr.com/apple-vision-pro-production-severel...

astlouis44 3y ago

They won't need apps, just use the browser. Sure you won't get native level features, but at least users can still access the web-app versions. Something is better than nothing.

hiisukun 3y ago

I'm actually a little excited by the prospect of a large company (in this case Apple) having a battle with other big tech firms that might revolve around User-Agent, or at least the concept of identifying users and treating them differently based on the software/technology they are using to connect to your services. I genuinely prefer the user experience of linux and firefox -- I'm not religiously opposed to Windows^, Chrome, MacOS, etc. I also don't generally complain when websites don't work well for me, or the experience isn't perfect, I know that kinda comes as a package deal. But, I often know that package deal is unnecessary. Netflix might not want me to watch 4K because of requirements from copyright holders, or some website might not have tested on Firefox so they throw up an error page (even though standards are standards...). But if I lie about who I am sometimes things work perfectly -- and those are the moments when I feel the unfairness sitting just adjacent to me, resting it's hand on my arm. In this case, I wonder how well Apple can make the web.spotify (and netflix etc) sites work on their hardware, and how much they will have to lie about who they are when they're connecting to those services. I'm absolutely confident that the hardware and software will be capable of correctly and capably displaying movies, playing music, etc. It's more a question of trust, truth, and power. For me, in my little home on my little street, while I don't usually fight that battle I'm still aware of the potential injustice. But when the big dogs fight over it? I feel it's good for me, shining a light on these kinds of issue. Netflix doesn't want to spend money and put dev work in to making things work perfectly on Apple's headset? That makes perfect sense, no problem. But attempting to block it, if Apple has spent the time and money to make it work? That strikes me as unfair. You might argue it's not a 100% clear cut issue - should platforms have some say in how their content is presented? - but I feel very comfortable disagreeing when a website says "must be viewed using ACME OS™", or even worse, "can be viewed everywhere except COMPETITOR OS™".

lern_too_spel 3y ago
All of these services are available on the web for Vision Pro. They're just not making an app.
- weikju 3y ago
  There are so many sites out there though that will, when you browse with an iOS device, tell you to download the app and refuse to show the same website you see on desktop. This could happen here. This is what the OP was talking about. Now it would probably be stupid of Netflix etc to block VP users after refusing to also port their app or allow their iPad apps to run on the VP, but never underestimate companies' potential for counter-intuitive decisions!

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

exabrial 3y ago

Oh when monopolies clash the result is hilarity! If Apple would stop boning people over app payments, stop using MFI as a weapon, and implement RCS some people would probably come over and play. I 100% would steer very clear of any new Apple marketplace. The once friendly and open platform literally considers things you buy from them ‘theirs’ (Tim Cook’s words).

jeroenhd 3y ago
One thing the Vision Pro announcement has done is kick up some competition in the market. If the Apple Quest can get enough people excited about VR, we'll get better offerings from other companies for cheaper. It's the sort of impact I wish Microsoft HoloLens had, but I suppose HoloLens was released too early for the technology to make sense.

kmfrk 3y ago

I can't think of a worse thing than having YouTube ads beamed into my eyes, but you'd imagine the ROI on that would be pretty decent as a company that's mainly built around selling ads.

thrill 3y ago

Apple can buy Netflix for 10% of their market cap. It'd be worth it just to watch the total freakout of Amazon and Google.

lesuorac 3y ago
Unlikely. Apples volume today was 52,649,132 which times share price is 188$ => 9.8 Billion. Netflix's market cap is 212.41 billion so if Apple tried to print enough shares to cover the acquisition cost they'd tank their share price to 0.
- bombcar 3y ago
  https://www.cnbc.com/2023/11/02/apple-now-has-162-billion-in-cash-on-hand-less-than-last-quarter.html https://www.cnbc.com/2023/11/02/apple-now-has-162-billion-in... Apple has $162 billion in cash on hand. They could acquire Netflix if they wanted (they don’t want to). Much more likely they buy Pixar off Disney or something.
  - paxys 3y ago
    Most of this cash is in offshore accounts and Apple can't use it domestically without paying a boat load of taxes on it. Moreover Netflix's market cap at the moment is $212B and with even a conservative 30% acquisition premium Apple would have to pay $275-300B. They simply can't afford it.
- sushid 3y ago
  Not sure why you're multiplying trade volume with their share price? It's a stupid scenario to think of, but the offer would be some combination of cash and shares they own, not newly printed shares out of the blue. And if they did print more shares, how would it "tank their share price to 0"? It's not like a stupid acquisition would instantly vaporize a 2+ trillion market cap company overnight.
llm_nerd 3y ago
Apple has already set themselves up for a rotating pummelling of regulatory restrictions, having clearly demonstrated that it will not restrain itself at all from its worst instincts. There is a 0% chance most jurisdictions would allow Apple to buy Netflix, or any similar "competitor".

amadeuspagel 3y ago

> YouTube said in a statement Thursday that it isn’t planning to launch a new app for the Apple Vision Pro, nor will it allow its longstanding iPad application to work on the device. YouTube, like Netflix, is recommending that customers use a web browser if they want to see its content: “YouTube users will be able to use YouTube in Safari on the Vision Pro at launch.” > Spotify also isn’t planning a new app for visionOS — the Vision Pro’s operating system — and doesn’t expect to enable its iPad app to run on the device, according to a person familiar with matter. But the music service will still likely work from a web browser. Bloomberg News reported on Netflix’s decision Wednesday. Emphasis mine. No need for Apple loyalists to convince themselves that they never liked these services anyway.

pupppet 3y ago
Oh the irony if web apps end up saving the Vision Pro.
- paxys 3y ago
  Next up – companies must pay Apple 30% of their annual revenue in order to have their websites accessible on Safari.
  - albert180 3y ago
    Is Safari still sending nasty popups if you tap too much on Websites in Full Screen in the line of "WebApps aren't permitted in Full Screen Mode" ?
chrismsimpson 3y ago
Apple control iOS, iPadOS and visionOS. Not only that, but they made their UI frameworks screen resolution/size independent some years ago. I am sure Apple will be able provide a premium ‘native’ experience for existing deployed iPad apps with minimal to no additional effort on their part. Does Catalyst ring a bell?
- piva00 3y ago

dgellow 3y ago

It’s a new platform that isn’t proven, I would be surprised if large companies invest early on in new apps

DarkmSparks 3y ago

I dont even use the youtube android app any more, its become hot garbage. infinitely better experience on android vivaldi browser. Really looking forward to apple vision tbh. my last windows laptop became a macbook air, very very satisfied. And like they say, apple has decent competing products anyway, so not kike device users are going to miss them. They will need a tictok app tho.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

matricaria 3y ago

Im definitely not going to defend Apple here but I think this could drive people even more into the ecosystem. With new purchases Apple grants access to Apple Music and TV+ for some time and I think some people might stay afterwards. As far as YouTube goes, I only use it in the browser due to my adblock working there. Maybe I’m wrong but this could turn out as a win for Apple.

paxys 3y ago
The people who are excited enough about the Vision Pro and have $4000+ in fun money lying around to buy it on launch day are probably firmly in the demographic who have Apple TV/Apple One already.

andsoitis 3y ago

"Out of the 46 most popular apps on the App Store, none of them will have a native visionOS app at launch, according to findings from MacStories. This list could always change — and some of the apps will still offer Vision Pro support through their existing apps on iPhone and iPad — but the lack of native apps just weeks away from the Vision Pro launch isn't particularly encouraging."

dylan-m 3y ago

Considering the quality of YouTube's Apple TV app[1], this should come as no surprise, and frankly it's probably for the best. This type of thing is better off starting small with applications that actually work well, instead of bolting on some well-known names that are just going to phone it in and disappoint users in the long run. [1] Anecdotal, but: it recently added its own screensaver that plays instead of the system one, and never stops playing, meaning if I accidentally leave YouTube open, my TV never switches off. The VLC app can't discover UPNP services on my network as long as YouTube is in the recent apps list. It decides to be in French sometimes. (Our system language is not French). And, not entirely Google's fault, but there are about three different ways to cast a YouTube video from the iOS YouTube app to the same gorramn TV, and which one is actually going to work today is completely random. The indifference YouTube gets away with on Apple TV tells me, if that team made an app for Vision Pro, it would provide guaranteed headaches. Apple is dodging a bullet here.

wkat4242 3y ago

Funny because YouTube and Netflix are present in the competing meta quest ecosystem. I don't really understand why they don't go for this especially because it's not a terrible lot of work to port their iOS apps.

solarkraft 3y ago
Politics. They've been pissed about Apple's policies for years.
theshackleford 3y ago
And both applications are terrible and recommended against. I never use them and I don’t know anyone who actively does out of those I know with headsets.

rumori 3y ago

I’m on the opinion of boycotting visionOS as a protest on their link tax decisions, green bubble shenanigans and other non competitive moves. The future should be innovative and inclusive with fair competition and equal opportunity. Enough is enough.

paul7986 3y ago

I was excited in June about Vision Pro now after buying the latest meta Ray bans, wearing them pretty frequently and enjoying them I'm perplexed why Apple didn't go in the same direction? That crazy heavy looking expensive storm trooper looking helmet (vision pro) is where they chose to start in the AR space ..weird?!

Philpax 3y ago
The Meta glasses don't actually display anything, though. Apple will get there eventually, but they're focusing on quality and fidelity of experience first.
- paul7986 3y ago
  Yeah but it's next update will have audio AR/AI added in ... like i think i saw Boz demo where he asked how many fingers am i holding up and it answered him (AR counting of things) or it was some type of AR/AI cool demo and it was all achieved through voice and audio. Though at this point Hey Meta's reliability of actually answering/working is 60/40, so i don't use it much. These glasses are great for taking pics and videos!

jeswin 3y ago

Probably waiting to see if enough people will tolerate a sweaty headset for long hours. Not to mention the weight. Steve Jobs had approved several dumb Apple products, but I don't think he'd have sold Vision Pro to the general public.

gl0wa 3y ago
Some of them (e.g. Netflix and Youtube) have official apps for Meta Quest devices, so there might be other reasons. For Youtube it kind of makes more sense, as they have 360 and 180 content on there and VR headsets are probably best devices to consume it on. But even with Netflix, having watched some TV show for about hour or so was surprisingly not so bad experience at all on Meta Quest 3.
- EtienneK 3y ago
  I also watched something on the Quest 3 using the Amazon Prime Video app the other day. It was a cool experience, but for now, I still find a TV better. This might change as the technology improves. Which is why I find the choice not to release an app for the Apple VP odd: it has better hardware so the experience should also be better. Maybe it's because they expect the VP to sell a lot less than the Quest 3?
- YetAnotherNick 3y ago
  Netflix for quest feels like it is coded by a single programmer learning to program VR. It hasn't been updated in last 5 years[1] [1]: https://www.meta.com/experiences/2184912004923042/ https://www.meta.com/experiences/2184912004923042/
thih9 3y ago
Makes sense, perhaps this isn’t a device for traditional audio/video media consumption. Is this a reason to call it dumb though? Note that when Jobs presented an ipod in 2001, people also reacted this way[1]. [1]: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/apples-new-thing-ipod.500/?post=5298 https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/apples-new-thing-ipod.5...
ksec 3y ago

pjmlp 3y ago

Even if they did, based on past performance of VR headsets, I don't envision this being an iPhone like jackpot for Apple. It will outsell during the first years due to people with deep pockets eager to own one, and then it will wither and die, like most of the other attempts.

cracrecry 3y ago
I see the big difference in design. VR consumer headsets were designed being cheap first, trying to sell in the millions, then adding features later. If they don't sell millions, there is no income and the product dies, or it does have a big company like Meta burning billions of dollars at it from investors. What Apple is doing is bringing a product to market with no compromises on quality. It will be much more expensive but if it is useful for someone they will pay. They won't need millions of users for breakeven but tens of thousands. I bought and restored a second hand Lisp Machine (with hardware accelerated Lisp). It was über expensive, but was a dream at the time to use. Even today it has things normal IDEs do not have. It was super expensive but did things nobody else could do at the time and that was worth it for companies that needed those things.
- pjmlp 3y ago
  As Lisp fan I get the point, still didn't saved them, and same will happen with Vision Pro. 30 years from now there will be generation Z folks talking about how great Vision Pro was going to be, how they had fun restoring some devices.

prmoustache 3y ago

What about pornhub and onlyfans? This is traditionnally the porno industry that leads in term of new tech adoption.

pompino 3y ago
It may be true for media formats, but I don't think its generally applicable like that. I doubt a mainstream tech CEO will stand up on stage to promote adult content as their early adopters in front of journalists.
ksec 3y ago
If I was Apple's competitor, I would fund the development of watching porn on Vision Pro and market the hell out of it.
NoPedantsThanks 3y ago
[flagged]
- MagicMoonlight 3y ago
  The original deepfakes were all porn. Current cutting edge image gen is all porn.
TheAceOfHearts 3y ago
Adult apps aren't allowed on the Apple Store, so it'll depend entirely on the web. If you can launch multiple browser windows at the same time to cover the full FOV then I'm sure someone will eventually make use of it... I'm not sure why existing Meta headsets aren't being used for this purpose, or what features distinguish Apple's headset from existing products. If Apple's headset ships with 3D video recording then there's probably an opportunity for some pair of adult creators to go viral by recording the first porno on it.
jug 3y ago
Haha! This straight question is honestly the elephant in the room. It's a killer product for porn and PornHub and Xvideoes are in return top 4, 5 respectively most popular sites on the Internet (December 2023, according to Semrush). But we can't talk about it for obvious reasons. It's such a funny scenario to think of. But the allure of porn was always the ease of access and instant gratification. I don't think Vision Pro fulfills any of this due to the barrier of entry with its price point.

pavlov 3y ago

This is interesting as a symbol of how times have changed because YouTube was one of the handful of built-in apps on the original iPhone, before the App Store. (For some reason the iPhone YouTube app's icon was an image of a retro cream-and-brown 1940s TV. I guess Steve Jobs just liked that design because it certainly didn't have anything to do with YouTube's branding and didn't look like anything Google would have picked for any product.) When Microsoft shipped the revamped Windows Phone a few years later, the "app gap" was one of the main problems. High-profile apps like YouTube never became available on the platform because by then Google was busy promoting their own mobile OS.

NoPedantsThanks 3y ago
[flagged]
- pavlov 3y ago
  It did? I guess it's forever stuck in my mind as the YouTube iPhone icon and I've forgotten it was used elsewhere. A quick googling doesn't come up with any instances of this icon except the iPhone. The 2005 YouTube logo was already the familiar black and red. Where else was the old TV icon used by Google?
  - SushiHippie 3y ago
    IIUC they just mean that this retro design style for logos/icons wasn't Steve Jobs/Apple and Youtube specific
    - nailer 3y ago
      Yes, I’m pretty sure the OP understands that is what is being claimed, but where else was it?
      - SushiHippie 3y ago
        I don't know, I didn't say that I agree with NoPedantsThanks. But Skeuomorphism was a real hype in the 00s. But I think it got mostly popular through Apple/Steve Jobs.

NoPedantsThanks 3y ago

[flagged]

MagicMoonlight 3y ago

They want to be able to steal your data

dcchambers 3y ago

Most comments here seem to be convinced that this is because these companies don't want to put in the engineering hours to build and support an app on a niche platform. Is it possible that this is actually a coordinated message to Apple that these large media companies are done paying the 30% Apple tax? Especially if this thing has a fully-featured, desktop-like web browser. The blocking of the existing iPad apps tells me it's the later.

siva7 3y ago
At Youtube or Spotify scale this has nothing to do with engineering hours or project costs. It is for sure a power play message.
- bgentry 3y ago
  In Spotify’s case I would wager it has more to do with them not having a core group of empowered and capable iOS engineers. Their app still doesn’t support AirPlay 2 many years after it was introduced, a feature that solo developers like Marco Arment (Overcast) supported long ago. I suppose it could be some bizarre internal political vendetta against Apple has led them to be unwilling to invest in improving the iOS app, but that seems like an odd strategy.
  - perryizgr8 3y ago
    Why would spotify support a feature that competes against them? Does apple music support spotify connect?
    - dijit 3y ago
      If you're serious: because third party apps can absolutely kill first party ones, and they do, all the time. Netflix remains the dominant player over Apple TV+, for example. Chrome remains more dominant than Safari. Outside of Apples specific ecosystem: Do you know anyone who seriously uses Windows Media Player or built-in Calendar/Mail apps? (Outlook is not the built-in). If your third party app is better and has better social capital: it can kill the first-party app. I'm just forgetting which ones completely died because: they are history.

dingi 3y ago

iMessage on Android in exchange for youtube app on this platform. It's only logical.

AlexandrB 3y ago

I remember the era when third party clients for online services were quite common. Now consumers get stuck in the middle of various corporate pissing matches instead.

btreecat 3y ago
Kinda feels like DRM did it's main job of preventing interoperability. Funny how much bad tech is still "good enough"
MomoXenosaga 3y ago
I'm subscribed to Netflix through my smart TV app. I'm sure Netflix pays money to LG for that button on the remote.
rchaud 3y ago
Windows Phone and BlackBerry had apps that acted like two-way RSS for your messages. Everything in one app. They broke frequently because the app vendors changed their APIs, not wanting their products to become dumb pipes that just sent and received messages (the horror!).

zitsarethecure 3y ago

I was excited initially about these but I am loathe to admit I have kind of lost interest. Perhaps I am getting old.

CatWChainsaw 3y ago
Or seeing reality for what it is, without a fancy headset :)

el_don_almighty 3y ago

PORN will drive answers to all your technology market questions What will the PORN industry decide? Does this new platform drive new, exclusive revenue sources for immersive PORN? If the answer is yes, then the technology and commercial infrastructure will follow. I suspect the answer sounds like an out-of-context Carl Sagan quote, "...Billions and Billions..." Whoever drives that content through those goggles will be rich beyond measure... unfortunately.

ecf 3y ago

In time Spotify will back down just like they did with native Apple Watch support. Pretty easy for them to take this stance when very few customers will own the first gen, but give it a decade for a cheaper version that’s mass adopted and we will see them bending over to please their customers.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

n05tr0m0 3y ago

They didn't agree on the price. When Vision Pro becomes popular so then they will come