5 ms·

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
    Large companies do not have the CEO getting involved in Product decisions like which platforms to develop for or the various downstream implications of those decisions. It's left up to Product Managers who very much do care about whether their analytics data is messed up given that it is often used to evaluate their performance.
    - mastercheif 3y ago
      > Large companies do not have the CEO getting involved in Product decisions like which platforms to develop for My sweet summer child, the relationship between Apple and Netflix/Google is entirely determined by their respective platform Bizdev teams + executive relationships. Product happens after the business terms are hashed out.
paxys 3y ago
I assume because they haven’t been able to fully test them yet. Better to offer no app than a broken one.
- kergonath 3y ago
  Particularly when the website is working quite well already.
  - jachee 3y ago
    …unless you want to watch offline. Say, for example, on a plane.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - jasonlotito 3y ago
      The YouTube web app allows you to download videos you might want to watch offline. Not sure about the other apps, but it's easy. So, no need for an app there.
      - NBJack 3y ago
        See above; this app sadly won't be available.
        lasean 3y ago
        You're implying native app. Previous comment said (browser) web app. Not sure who is correct on feature support, but you're cross talking on the product SKU.
      - Mindwipe 3y ago
        Not in Safari you can't. Chrome, Edge, Firefox or Opera only. Either Google only built it to use Widevine (which Safari doesn't support) or Safari's limitations on the amount of data that can be stored make it too unreliable to roll out to customers.
jbverschoor 3y ago
They want more control over their apps and tracking. Allowing their content on Apple’s platform will create a gap in case they want to compete in the future
627467 3y ago
Because you can't have it both ways? I thought people in Apple world desired the walled garden experience where the guardian is so strict to "monitor the quality and safety of apps" that you can't possibly allow for side loading. Why allow subpart experiences onto a new platform that makers can't afford to make "safe and perfect"?
alphabettsy 3y ago
Netflix says the iPad version will work or did something change?
- layer8 3y ago
  Yes, they changed their mind: https://www.theverge.com/2024/1/17/24042179/netflix-apple-vision-pro-app https://www.theverge.com/2024/1/17/24042179/netflix-apple-vi...
gmerc 3y ago
As someone who worked on platform and partnership in big tech: Because they smell leverage. Vision Pro adoption has to be subsidized by Apple, there’s no demand. To bootstrap demand popular apps with users need to be available. They have no risk of losing customers to a competitor by not shipping this. So they are building negotiation ammo for a bit for the next round of conversations over platform fees, app review processes, etc.
- fidotron 3y ago
  Heavy +1, as someone often involved from the other side. For whatever reason the VR industry has been a particularly strange stand off ground in this universe because of a certain huge player trying to get mainstream user interest to take off to make their negotiating hand with potential suppliers much stronger, but it has not worked.
- thih9 3y ago
  All the more reason for apple to invest in apple tv+ and apple music i guess.
- monkeydust 3y ago
  Yea that's is exactly it and fair play. Eg afaik Netflix pays double digit percentage points for in app sales to Apple through their app. Why shouldn't they then question that if Apple want them to support a totally new UX paradigm.
notatoad 3y ago
Theverge article on this words it as "adapt their ipad apps for vision pro". Sounds like not so much an explicit opt-out as holding out for apple to make the headset run their existing apps.

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
  Large companies do not have the CEO getting involved in Product decisions like which platforms to develop for or the various downstream implications of those decisions. It's left up to Product Managers who very much do care about whether their analytics data is messed up given that it is often used to evaluate their performance.
  - mastercheif 3y ago
    > Large companies do not have the CEO getting involved in Product decisions like which platforms to develop for My sweet summer child, the relationship between Apple and Netflix/Google is entirely determined by their respective platform Bizdev teams + executive relationships. Product happens after the business terms are hashed out.

paxys 3y ago

I assume because they haven’t been able to fully test them yet. Better to offer no app than a broken one.

kergonath 3y ago
Particularly when the website is working quite well already.
- jachee 3y ago
  …unless you want to watch offline. Say, for example, on a plane.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - jasonlotito 3y ago
    The YouTube web app allows you to download videos you might want to watch offline. Not sure about the other apps, but it's easy. So, no need for an app there.
    - NBJack 3y ago
      See above; this app sadly won't be available.
      - lasean 3y ago
        You're implying native app. Previous comment said (browser) web app. Not sure who is correct on feature support, but you're cross talking on the product SKU.
    - Mindwipe 3y ago
      Not in Safari you can't. Chrome, Edge, Firefox or Opera only. Either Google only built it to use Widevine (which Safari doesn't support) or Safari's limitations on the amount of data that can be stored make it too unreliable to roll out to customers.

jbverschoor 3y ago

They want more control over their apps and tracking. Allowing their content on Apple’s platform will create a gap in case they want to compete in the future

627467 3y ago

Because you can't have it both ways? I thought people in Apple world desired the walled garden experience where the guardian is so strict to "monitor the quality and safety of apps" that you can't possibly allow for side loading. Why allow subpart experiences onto a new platform that makers can't afford to make "safe and perfect"?

alphabettsy 3y ago

Netflix says the iPad version will work or did something change?

layer8 3y ago
Yes, they changed their mind: https://www.theverge.com/2024/1/17/24042179/netflix-apple-vision-pro-app https://www.theverge.com/2024/1/17/24042179/netflix-apple-vi...

gmerc 3y ago

As someone who worked on platform and partnership in big tech: Because they smell leverage. Vision Pro adoption has to be subsidized by Apple, there’s no demand. To bootstrap demand popular apps with users need to be available. They have no risk of losing customers to a competitor by not shipping this. So they are building negotiation ammo for a bit for the next round of conversations over platform fees, app review processes, etc.

fidotron 3y ago
Heavy +1, as someone often involved from the other side. For whatever reason the VR industry has been a particularly strange stand off ground in this universe because of a certain huge player trying to get mainstream user interest to take off to make their negotiating hand with potential suppliers much stronger, but it has not worked.
thih9 3y ago
All the more reason for apple to invest in apple tv+ and apple music i guess.
monkeydust 3y ago
Yea that's is exactly it and fair play. Eg afaik Netflix pays double digit percentage points for in app sales to Apple through their app. Why shouldn't they then question that if Apple want them to support a totally new UX paradigm.

notatoad 3y ago

Theverge article on this words it as "adapt their ipad apps for vision pro". Sounds like not so much an explicit opt-out as holding out for apple to make the headset run their existing apps.