12 ms·

I think this whole thing is fairly overwrought - after all, the iPhone launched with zero third party apps (maybe there were a few, but I don't recall that bein

I think this whole thing is fairly overwrought - after all, the iPhone launched with zero third party apps (maybe there were a few, but I don't recall that being the case). Given the volume of VP sales, it feels more like a production-ready dev kit and tool for enthusiasts. It's really the version that people will use to build apps on, so that v2, v3, etc., which will be lighter/cheaper/whatever else is needed to make them more mass-market, won't have the same problem when they launch. If you're Netflix et al, why support the VP now? Even if it's just checking a box, it still means you'll get some support load. You'll also have to make some design and implementation decisions that will be less-informed than if you wait a while and see what other apps are doing on there. At the end of the day, is having Netflix on the VP going to generate any incremental revenue? Tough to imagine that everybody buying it doesn't already have a Netflix subscription. Building for it right now is zero upside and some downside. We'll see a Netflix app eventually, though.

jandrese 3y ago
The iPhone was even worse, it launched without support for third party apps. Steve Jobs said that web apps would take their place. The original iPhone was also overpriced and underspecced in some areas and forced you on a crappy phone provider, but it had a significant price drop shortly after release and the iPhone 3G fixed most of the performance issues (mostly around the slow cell modem). Plus Apple released the app store and it was an enormous success, far more than the existing app stores on the Symbian phones.
- idopmstuff 3y ago
  Is that right? Man, did not recall that... funny how the state of apps today has colored my recollection.
  - mandeepj 3y ago
    > Is that right? Absolutely! I also remember those chain of events exactly that way. They are also documented in Steve Jobs biography as well.
  - mh- 3y ago
    Matches my recollection of it. iOS 3.0, which launched alongside the iPhone 3GS, is when it got copy-paste functionality. Apple has historically been very comfortable shipping devices without "table stakes" functionality - waiting until they have an implementation they like. Or sometimes never shipping it, and leaving it to third parties. My iPads still don't have a calculator app.
    - izacus 3y ago
      It also kinda needs to be said that iPhone really took off after AppStore (and 3G and copy/paste and other stuff) became a thing. Before that the market share wasn't that great.
      - threeseed 3y ago
        The market share wasn't great because it wasn't sold globally. Once that happened market share really took off.
        jdminhbg 3y ago
        And in the markets it did exist, the carrier options were limited, usually to the worst carriers, because those were the carriers who were desperate enough to accept Apple's terms.
  - rahoulb 3y ago
    Even John Gruber (Daring Fireball) described it as a shit sandwich from Apple.
- mongol 3y ago
  > Steve Jobs said that web apps would take their place Yes I remember this. But he must have known their plans and basically lied about it.
  - justinator 3y ago
    Sounds convenient, but I remember the backlash was so bad from this news, they rushed out a dev SDK to add that support in. Different time. "No Flash" sounded like a WTF, too.
    - jdewerd 3y ago
      Yeah, "webapps are all you need" is the one time I can recall Steve Jobs getting booed on stage.
      - scarface_74 3y ago
        And now developers (not end users) are whining about not being able to do good [sic] PWAs Edit: Users may not know what a PWA is. But they do know what web apps based on Electron and I have never heard any user say that they love Electron apps and they would really love to have the same experience on mobile
        hombre_fatal 3y ago
        [dead]
        dnissley 3y ago
        I mean users do complain about not being able to sideload apps, which is an issue that is at least partially/minimally addressed through PWAs.
        scarface_74 3y ago
        How many users outside of geeks complain about side loading?
- Retric 3y ago
  It forced you in a crappy phone provider with unlimited data. Having a better than average phone browser wasn’t such a big deal, having a browser you could use without thinking about it was huge.
  - matwood 3y ago
    > having a browser you could use without thinking about it was huge This right here. People forget things like roaming and data charges. $500+ phone bills were not uncommon for business travelers. Data charges made smartphones almost a non-starter for the average person. Apple broke that logjam.
    - pjmlp 3y ago
      Hardly in Europe, the contracts with data plans were mostly the same for iPhone, Blackberry, Symbian, Java feature phones, Windows CE/Pocket PC. Worse even, as while the others had pre paid plans, iPhone required a 2 year contract.
  - myko 3y ago
    and they weren't crappy everywhere, though admittedly they were extremely bad in Silicon Valley until iPhone opened up to other providers, so they get that reputation among tech enthusiasts from sites like HN that are SV-centric
    - scarface_74 3y ago
      It was 2G. It was crappy everywhere. My dumb phone on Sprint had faster internet speeds
    - Exoristos 3y ago
      They worked great in NYC.
    - matwood 3y ago
      It was Edge, ie 2.5g. It was very slow everywhere it worked at all. But, as the poster said, internet all the time with a flat rate plan was huge. For me, it really changed how I thought about the internet when I had it always with me with zero cost concerns.
- SkyPuncher 3y ago
  Sure, but that was at a time when there weren't really apps
  - CharlesW 3y ago
    There definitely were, but feature phone apps weren't great (for reasons involving hardware, app platforms, and carriers), and smartphone (Windows Mobile, Palm OS, Symbian) app distribution was mostly decentralized. Apple's innovation in the mobile app space was the App Store ecosystem.
- scarface_74 3y ago
  The original iPhone though did come with the YouTube app built in and it’s major use cases were according to Jobs were - a phone, an internet device and an iPod. The day the iPhone was introduced, the CEO of Google was on stage. One of the major use cases for the Vision Pro is video and there ars no native apps for the two most popular video sites. The day that the iPad was introduced. The CEO of Netflix was on stage.
  - shawnc 3y ago
    Wasn't the CEO of Disney on stage when the Vision Pro was introduced/announced? From an IP standpoint having Disney on stage over Netflix seems like the better choice...
  - jwells89 3y ago
    I wish so much that YouTube would allow fully featured, non-hacky third party clients again, even if only for paid users (similar to how Spotify used to). The clean platform-convention-respecting straightforwardness of the Apple iOS YouTube app is missed.
  - ribosometronome 3y ago
    Apple directly competes with Netflix, and to some extent Google, considerably more today than they did then.
    - scarface_74 3y ago
      And they compete with Disney in streaming. The fact is, Google doesn’t really compete with Apple. The amount of money that Google makes from Android, pales in comparison to what they make from YouTube.
- mrcwinn 3y ago
  Underspeced? What? Compared to what? This is not even remotely defensible. In its spec it offered a full color multi-touch gesture display —instead of a 132x65 pixel black and white screen. Like Steve Jobs said, products are a series of choices.
  - snowwrestler 3y ago
    The original iPhone had 2G cellular connection which was slow for the time, and especially silly since, as you point out, it was well powered otherwise. The iPhone 3GS caught it up to other smart phones in the market. It also launched without cut and paste available in the UI, which again, was silly given how it was otherwise an impressive mobile computer.
    - ghaff 3y ago
      While there were obviously people who bought the iPhone as soon as it became available, it was probably the 3GS when it really took off. That's when I replaced my Treo. (I also think I was starting a new and more secure job by then.)
  - jandrese 3y ago
    It was EDGE and didn't have enough memory to run the browser well, which caused significant slowdowns. Granted, it was still better than literally every other phone browser at the time, but that didn't mean it was a good as it could have been. The iPhone 3G was a significant upgrade.
    - simondotau 3y ago
      > but that didn't mean it was a good as it could have been Nothing is, and nothing can be. Not even if you eliminate cost from the equation. Not even if you eliminate manufacturability, or supply chain availability. You're holding the original iPhone to an impossible standard. The iPhone was arguably the best product Apple could have made for that price, to be released on that date. Sure it could have been better and more expensive. It could have been better and further delayed. It could have been better and also worse in some other way.
manquer 3y ago
New sales is not only source of revenue Netflix sells plans for higher resolutions for example If some just have say a laptop screen and a phone you consume content on there is little need for higher resolution plans. However let's say you buy VP then it is possible you would consider upgrading to higher resolution.
curiouscavalier 3y ago
The iPhone launched with a phone, email and an internet browser (not limited to the mobile internet) in your pocket. I think those were the killer apps, where each one had already proved their value in other form factors. I think part of the focus on apps is because while portable connectivity is an easier feature for most people to understand and appreciate (though I appreciate this may not have been quite as clear in 2007), wearability is less so, especially where the form factor is socially and ergonomically awkward. Working in AR/VR I know my team is constantly asking variations of "how can we convince someone to put this on their face?" My interpretation of pieces like this is often that they echo underlying concerns over the efficacy of use-cases, and decisions by players like Netflix to port their apps is some (albeit noisy and incomplete) data around it.
- cloogshicer 3y ago
  And Maps. Don't forget about Maps. That was one of the killer apps too.
  - seec 3y ago
    Yeah, I had relocated to Paris just after the first iPhone, seeing how useful it was I bought the 3G phone the summer of its release...
- pwthornton 3y ago
  Just having a full Web browser in your pocket was huge. Also, a touchscreen iPod! That was another massive killer app. I used to carry around a phone, PDA, and an iPod. Day 1, Apple allowed me to carry one device. And then add in a great Web browser, and you can see why it was great even before 3rd party apps. I am not convinced Apple has come up with any killer 1st party apps for the Vision Pro, and that's concerning.
  - pjmlp 3y ago
    I was already doing that for quite some time with Symbian phones.
screye 3y ago
The Vision Pro is Apple selling a combination of a tech demo, fashion item and dev kit. It isn't meant to be useful. Rather, it gives them bragging rights for being first to market (in AR) and they now control the narrative around it.
- Nullabillity 3y ago
  > Rather, it gives them bragging rights for being first to market (in AR) and they now control the narrative around it. Magic Leap says hello.
  - ftio 3y ago
    Magic what? Nobody outside of a very small, niche bubble has any idea what that is. I'm in the bubble and had to look it up.
    - OJFord 3y ago
      I think Google Glass would've been a better example. Magic Leap doesn't seem to be targeting the same market at all. Fwiw though AVP had somehow passed me by (I think I'd heard of it, but didn't know what it was) until this submission. I'm not sure the general awareness is that high, outside of people that follow Apple news/WWDC/product launches/etc., which is also a bubble.
      - sleepybrett 3y ago
        Google glass was the most anemic product i've even experienced.
        OJFord 3y ago
        I'm not really sure what you mean by that, but I don't think it's relevant - it clearly wasn't exactly a success, but it did come first, and it was the same kind of idea, what was possible at the time.
phreeza 3y ago
The situation is completely different from the iPhone launch though, 99% of mobile devices at the time probably had zero or at most one crappy Symbian app installed. The concept of an App store wasn't even really invented yet.
- pjmlp 3y ago
  It was available via each mobile operator, and app listings on magazines, which would provide a download link as reply to a SMS with app code.
EduardoBautista 3y ago
Netflix hasn't updated the Meta Quest's app in a while. The video quality is awful. Netflix is ignoring this market completely, it's not specific to the VP.
- 1000100_1000101 3y ago
  Haven't bothered with PSVR2 either, and have not updated the original PSVR app to the point where it no longer functions. Netflix is clearly saying "We don't want to be a 3D/VR movie service". Perhaps Apple will pay for 3D licenses and serve them as part of your AppleTV subscription, which would suck, because it would mean no 3D movie support on any other headset.
  - taeric 3y ago
    I'm curious what they have to do to support PSVR2? You can watch videos with the standard app, right? Is there a market for 3d movies? I'm intrigued...
    - 1000100_1000101 3y ago
      This is a sore spot. On PSVR1, Sony's "Media Player" app's only VR option was to display 360 degree mono videos with head-looking. There was no option for stereoscopic playback. YouTube did add a PSVR capable player, but streamed the videos at a very low res. A 3rd party player, Littlstar was capable for playing various 3D video formats (full 360 degree, VR180, and 3D bluray style 3D video), but demanded a subscription, even for local files... It also only worked on one or two codecs with very specific encoding options... and the decoding was poorly optimized, so large videos (only a subset of which is visible at a time, so you need a high-res video), didn't really work. Not ideal. PSVR1 could support 3D blu rays. On PSVR2, Sony still has no built in VR video playing app at all. Littlstar has rebranded as Rad, and has been struggling to get playback working. They also plan to make their subscription based on payments via some proprietary blockchain crap. PS5/PSVR2 Sony dropped 3D BluRay support. It's not clear if it will ever return.
Someone 3y ago
> the iPhone launched with zero third party apps (maybe there were a few, but I don't recall that being the case). I think Google Maps was the only one, sort-of. It shipped with the OS, but used Google’s data, and, I expect, needed Apple to negotiate with Google.
samstave 3y ago
I am sure there are plenty of companies we are not aware of who have been building apps for the platform in partner with Apple Marketing Dollars for some time. If Autodesk and Blender don't have a whole team pointed at this, I would be highly disappointment.
Kluggy 3y ago
The thing I don’t get is why Netflix won’t allow their iPad app to be used. They had to go out of their way to disable the platform from using their existing app. I get not building a new one, but reusing the existing one makes more sense imho.
- cloogshicer 3y ago
  Probably because support volume still increases even if it's not "officially" supported. And then you can't just tell those people to go away, because they'll be pissed off.
- pxeboot 3y ago
  > why Netflix won’t allow their iPad app to be used Support costs? Bad PR when it doesn't work well? There are a lot of reasons they may not want it to be used yet.
- xu_ituairo 3y ago
  Maybe if Vision Pro takes off they’ll charge a higher fee for it like they do for higher resolution subscriptions.
  - evilduck 3y ago
    If they wanted to start producing 3D content and charging extra for that, I'd see the reason but I'd balk at them charging more for delivering the same 2D content to a new system. I wouldn't expect a Vision Pro app delivering a 2D content experience to be dramatically more expensive to build and maintain than their vast array of apps for set-top boxes, hotels, streaming sticks, or the Meta Quest they've already supported but not charged extra for. Why would they draw the line here?
    - fauigerzigerk 3y ago
      Companies often charge as much as they think customers will pay, regardless of costs. Apple's RAM upgrade prices are a prime example. But I doubt that Netflix would do it on this occasion.
bradgessler 3y ago
Yeah, this reminds me of the Apple Watch launch. I think Twitter & Slack launched watch apps, but they performed poorly on v1 and they learned people really just want notifications on their watch, so they pulled their apps. Today we just have notifications and it’s completely fine. That and dev teams are running leaner these days, so it makes sense to wait-and-see for companies with content leverage like YouTube and Netflix.
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> If you're Netflix et al, why support the VP now? It’s a nice beachhead they’re exposing. There might be a niche for someone to build an AI that converts flat video into immersive content, and then plant a bunch of patent land mines around it.
- asadotzler 3y ago
  Netflix will have the patents and decide not to do anything with them. They're not idiots. Not making an app and not investing in R&D for future display formats are quite different. The first is reasonable but the second would be unacceptable for a strong video platform.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > Netflix will have the patents and decide not to do anything with them. They're not idiots …they don’t. They should. Which is why I’m calling it a beachhead.
georgeecollins 3y ago
I completely disagree. There are a bunch of mixed reality headsets and I think the one with the best apps will win. Good news for APPL, META is messing up their store as well. https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/meta-platforms-sued-by-virtual-reality-fitness-app-developer-after-deal-craters-2023-10-11/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/meta-platforms-s... Disclosure: I own APPL / META stock.
aeturnum 3y ago
I think this is somewhat overwrought, but I think the iphone comparison obscures more than it reveals. The Vision Pro isn't in a new hardware category. It's actually entering a somewhat crowded field of companies offering headsets of various kinds. The VP is different in a few ways of course, but it's not clear exactly what prevented previous offerings to get wide adoption. If this product is going to be "successful" (whatever that ends up meaning) you would expect something about the VP to diverge from the trajectory of previous offerings. So far, at least as far as apps go, it seems like it's doing worse. > v2, v3, etc., which will be lighter/cheaper/whatever else I understand what you're gesturing at here, but this isn't v1 at all. This would be the equivalent of entering the smart phone market in 2015. If Apple isn't able to offer a noticeably more compelling experience with this realease, it does not speak well for their overall vision.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- roughly 3y ago
  At the time of the iPhone release, Blackbirds were widely available, as were high-spec phones from Nokia and others. We don’t recognize them as smartphones today because the iPhone redefined the category, but at the time, we did.
NoPedantsThanks 3y ago
[dead]
raydev 3y ago
You are underselling the original iPhone, it entered a very different cell phone market, where the same quality tech existed but was hard to find, and the UX on all smartphones was, to be generous, poor, especially for the mass market. Even beloved Blackberry was in need of improvements that RIM didn't even have on their roadmap until the iPhone showed up. Despite all its initial shortcomings, the iPhone still raised the bar for the entire market, set a new standard that every other manufacturer/developer would be chasing for years. The Vision Pro is being watched by the mass market and it will be competing against Meta for better or worse. Apple has put in zero effort into removing that appearance. They are not selling a devkit, they are advertising a mass market device at an absurdly high price.
sleepybrett 3y ago
Watch was the same way. They weren't generally available so any third party that wanted to make an app either had to have an in with Apple to get access to even a simulator under heavy NDA or just wait until the thing hit the streets. I think you'll see the same thing here. Of course in this case with the price point being where it is it will probably take a bit to explore the possibility space and get some killer apps that propel the platform.

jandrese 3y ago

The iPhone was even worse, it launched without support for third party apps. Steve Jobs said that web apps would take their place. The original iPhone was also overpriced and underspecced in some areas and forced you on a crappy phone provider, but it had a significant price drop shortly after release and the iPhone 3G fixed most of the performance issues (mostly around the slow cell modem). Plus Apple released the app store and it was an enormous success, far more than the existing app stores on the Symbian phones.

idopmstuff 3y ago
Is that right? Man, did not recall that... funny how the state of apps today has colored my recollection.
- mandeepj 3y ago
  > Is that right? Absolutely! I also remember those chain of events exactly that way. They are also documented in Steve Jobs biography as well.
- mh- 3y ago
  Matches my recollection of it. iOS 3.0, which launched alongside the iPhone 3GS, is when it got copy-paste functionality. Apple has historically been very comfortable shipping devices without "table stakes" functionality - waiting until they have an implementation they like. Or sometimes never shipping it, and leaving it to third parties. My iPads still don't have a calculator app.
  - izacus 3y ago
    It also kinda needs to be said that iPhone really took off after AppStore (and 3G and copy/paste and other stuff) became a thing. Before that the market share wasn't that great.
    - threeseed 3y ago
      The market share wasn't great because it wasn't sold globally. Once that happened market share really took off.
      - jdminhbg 3y ago
        And in the markets it did exist, the carrier options were limited, usually to the worst carriers, because those were the carriers who were desperate enough to accept Apple's terms.
- rahoulb 3y ago
  Even John Gruber (Daring Fireball) described it as a shit sandwich from Apple.
mongol 3y ago
> Steve Jobs said that web apps would take their place Yes I remember this. But he must have known their plans and basically lied about it.
- justinator 3y ago
  Sounds convenient, but I remember the backlash was so bad from this news, they rushed out a dev SDK to add that support in. Different time. "No Flash" sounded like a WTF, too.
  - jdewerd 3y ago
    Yeah, "webapps are all you need" is the one time I can recall Steve Jobs getting booed on stage.
    - scarface_74 3y ago
      And now developers (not end users) are whining about not being able to do good [sic] PWAs Edit: Users may not know what a PWA is. But they do know what web apps based on Electron and I have never heard any user say that they love Electron apps and they would really love to have the same experience on mobile
      - hombre_fatal 3y ago
        [dead]
      - dnissley 3y ago
        I mean users do complain about not being able to sideload apps, which is an issue that is at least partially/minimally addressed through PWAs.
        scarface_74 3y ago
        How many users outside of geeks complain about side loading?
Retric 3y ago
It forced you in a crappy phone provider with unlimited data. Having a better than average phone browser wasn’t such a big deal, having a browser you could use without thinking about it was huge.
- matwood 3y ago
  > having a browser you could use without thinking about it was huge This right here. People forget things like roaming and data charges. $500+ phone bills were not uncommon for business travelers. Data charges made smartphones almost a non-starter for the average person. Apple broke that logjam.
  - pjmlp 3y ago
    Hardly in Europe, the contracts with data plans were mostly the same for iPhone, Blackberry, Symbian, Java feature phones, Windows CE/Pocket PC. Worse even, as while the others had pre paid plans, iPhone required a 2 year contract.
- myko 3y ago
  and they weren't crappy everywhere, though admittedly they were extremely bad in Silicon Valley until iPhone opened up to other providers, so they get that reputation among tech enthusiasts from sites like HN that are SV-centric
  - scarface_74 3y ago
    It was 2G. It was crappy everywhere. My dumb phone on Sprint had faster internet speeds
  - Exoristos 3y ago
    They worked great in NYC.
  - matwood 3y ago
    It was Edge, ie 2.5g. It was very slow everywhere it worked at all. But, as the poster said, internet all the time with a flat rate plan was huge. For me, it really changed how I thought about the internet when I had it always with me with zero cost concerns.
SkyPuncher 3y ago
Sure, but that was at a time when there weren't really apps
- CharlesW 3y ago
  There definitely were, but feature phone apps weren't great (for reasons involving hardware, app platforms, and carriers), and smartphone (Windows Mobile, Palm OS, Symbian) app distribution was mostly decentralized. Apple's innovation in the mobile app space was the App Store ecosystem.
scarface_74 3y ago
The original iPhone though did come with the YouTube app built in and it’s major use cases were according to Jobs were - a phone, an internet device and an iPod. The day the iPhone was introduced, the CEO of Google was on stage. One of the major use cases for the Vision Pro is video and there ars no native apps for the two most popular video sites. The day that the iPad was introduced. The CEO of Netflix was on stage.
- shawnc 3y ago
  Wasn't the CEO of Disney on stage when the Vision Pro was introduced/announced? From an IP standpoint having Disney on stage over Netflix seems like the better choice...
- jwells89 3y ago
  I wish so much that YouTube would allow fully featured, non-hacky third party clients again, even if only for paid users (similar to how Spotify used to). The clean platform-convention-respecting straightforwardness of the Apple iOS YouTube app is missed.
- ribosometronome 3y ago
  Apple directly competes with Netflix, and to some extent Google, considerably more today than they did then.
  - scarface_74 3y ago
    And they compete with Disney in streaming. The fact is, Google doesn’t really compete with Apple. The amount of money that Google makes from Android, pales in comparison to what they make from YouTube.
mrcwinn 3y ago
Underspeced? What? Compared to what? This is not even remotely defensible. In its spec it offered a full color multi-touch gesture display —instead of a 132x65 pixel black and white screen. Like Steve Jobs said, products are a series of choices.
- snowwrestler 3y ago
  The original iPhone had 2G cellular connection which was slow for the time, and especially silly since, as you point out, it was well powered otherwise. The iPhone 3GS caught it up to other smart phones in the market. It also launched without cut and paste available in the UI, which again, was silly given how it was otherwise an impressive mobile computer.
  - ghaff 3y ago
    While there were obviously people who bought the iPhone as soon as it became available, it was probably the 3GS when it really took off. That's when I replaced my Treo. (I also think I was starting a new and more secure job by then.)
- jandrese 3y ago
  It was EDGE and didn't have enough memory to run the browser well, which caused significant slowdowns. Granted, it was still better than literally every other phone browser at the time, but that didn't mean it was a good as it could have been. The iPhone 3G was a significant upgrade.
  - simondotau 3y ago
    > but that didn't mean it was a good as it could have been Nothing is, and nothing can be. Not even if you eliminate cost from the equation. Not even if you eliminate manufacturability, or supply chain availability. You're holding the original iPhone to an impossible standard. The iPhone was arguably the best product Apple could have made for that price, to be released on that date. Sure it could have been better and more expensive. It could have been better and further delayed. It could have been better and also worse in some other way.

manquer 3y ago

New sales is not only source of revenue Netflix sells plans for higher resolutions for example If some just have say a laptop screen and a phone you consume content on there is little need for higher resolution plans. However let's say you buy VP then it is possible you would consider upgrading to higher resolution.

curiouscavalier 3y ago

The iPhone launched with a phone, email and an internet browser (not limited to the mobile internet) in your pocket. I think those were the killer apps, where each one had already proved their value in other form factors. I think part of the focus on apps is because while portable connectivity is an easier feature for most people to understand and appreciate (though I appreciate this may not have been quite as clear in 2007), wearability is less so, especially where the form factor is socially and ergonomically awkward. Working in AR/VR I know my team is constantly asking variations of "how can we convince someone to put this on their face?" My interpretation of pieces like this is often that they echo underlying concerns over the efficacy of use-cases, and decisions by players like Netflix to port their apps is some (albeit noisy and incomplete) data around it.

cloogshicer 3y ago
And Maps. Don't forget about Maps. That was one of the killer apps too.
- seec 3y ago
  Yeah, I had relocated to Paris just after the first iPhone, seeing how useful it was I bought the 3G phone the summer of its release...
pwthornton 3y ago
Just having a full Web browser in your pocket was huge. Also, a touchscreen iPod! That was another massive killer app. I used to carry around a phone, PDA, and an iPod. Day 1, Apple allowed me to carry one device. And then add in a great Web browser, and you can see why it was great even before 3rd party apps. I am not convinced Apple has come up with any killer 1st party apps for the Vision Pro, and that's concerning.
- pjmlp 3y ago
  I was already doing that for quite some time with Symbian phones.

screye 3y ago

The Vision Pro is Apple selling a combination of a tech demo, fashion item and dev kit. It isn't meant to be useful. Rather, it gives them bragging rights for being first to market (in AR) and they now control the narrative around it.

Nullabillity 3y ago
> Rather, it gives them bragging rights for being first to market (in AR) and they now control the narrative around it. Magic Leap says hello.
- ftio 3y ago
  Magic what? Nobody outside of a very small, niche bubble has any idea what that is. I'm in the bubble and had to look it up.
  - OJFord 3y ago
    I think Google Glass would've been a better example. Magic Leap doesn't seem to be targeting the same market at all. Fwiw though AVP had somehow passed me by (I think I'd heard of it, but didn't know what it was) until this submission. I'm not sure the general awareness is that high, outside of people that follow Apple news/WWDC/product launches/etc., which is also a bubble.
    - sleepybrett 3y ago
      Google glass was the most anemic product i've even experienced.
      - OJFord 3y ago
        I'm not really sure what you mean by that, but I don't think it's relevant - it clearly wasn't exactly a success, but it did come first, and it was the same kind of idea, what was possible at the time.

phreeza 3y ago

The situation is completely different from the iPhone launch though, 99% of mobile devices at the time probably had zero or at most one crappy Symbian app installed. The concept of an App store wasn't even really invented yet.

pjmlp 3y ago
It was available via each mobile operator, and app listings on magazines, which would provide a download link as reply to a SMS with app code.

EduardoBautista 3y ago

Netflix hasn't updated the Meta Quest's app in a while. The video quality is awful. Netflix is ignoring this market completely, it's not specific to the VP.

1000100_1000101 3y ago
Haven't bothered with PSVR2 either, and have not updated the original PSVR app to the point where it no longer functions. Netflix is clearly saying "We don't want to be a 3D/VR movie service". Perhaps Apple will pay for 3D licenses and serve them as part of your AppleTV subscription, which would suck, because it would mean no 3D movie support on any other headset.
- taeric 3y ago
  I'm curious what they have to do to support PSVR2? You can watch videos with the standard app, right? Is there a market for 3d movies? I'm intrigued...
  - 1000100_1000101 3y ago
    This is a sore spot. On PSVR1, Sony's "Media Player" app's only VR option was to display 360 degree mono videos with head-looking. There was no option for stereoscopic playback. YouTube did add a PSVR capable player, but streamed the videos at a very low res. A 3rd party player, Littlstar was capable for playing various 3D video formats (full 360 degree, VR180, and 3D bluray style 3D video), but demanded a subscription, even for local files... It also only worked on one or two codecs with very specific encoding options... and the decoding was poorly optimized, so large videos (only a subset of which is visible at a time, so you need a high-res video), didn't really work. Not ideal. PSVR1 could support 3D blu rays. On PSVR2, Sony still has no built in VR video playing app at all. Littlstar has rebranded as Rad, and has been struggling to get playback working. They also plan to make their subscription based on payments via some proprietary blockchain crap. PS5/PSVR2 Sony dropped 3D BluRay support. It's not clear if it will ever return.

Someone 3y ago

> the iPhone launched with zero third party apps (maybe there were a few, but I don't recall that being the case). I think Google Maps was the only one, sort-of. It shipped with the OS, but used Google’s data, and, I expect, needed Apple to negotiate with Google.

samstave 3y ago

I am sure there are plenty of companies we are not aware of who have been building apps for the platform in partner with Apple Marketing Dollars for some time. If Autodesk and Blender don't have a whole team pointed at this, I would be highly disappointment.

Kluggy 3y ago

The thing I don’t get is why Netflix won’t allow their iPad app to be used. They had to go out of their way to disable the platform from using their existing app. I get not building a new one, but reusing the existing one makes more sense imho.

cloogshicer 3y ago
Probably because support volume still increases even if it's not "officially" supported. And then you can't just tell those people to go away, because they'll be pissed off.
pxeboot 3y ago
> why Netflix won’t allow their iPad app to be used Support costs? Bad PR when it doesn't work well? There are a lot of reasons they may not want it to be used yet.
xu_ituairo 3y ago
Maybe if Vision Pro takes off they’ll charge a higher fee for it like they do for higher resolution subscriptions.
- evilduck 3y ago
  If they wanted to start producing 3D content and charging extra for that, I'd see the reason but I'd balk at them charging more for delivering the same 2D content to a new system. I wouldn't expect a Vision Pro app delivering a 2D content experience to be dramatically more expensive to build and maintain than their vast array of apps for set-top boxes, hotels, streaming sticks, or the Meta Quest they've already supported but not charged extra for. Why would they draw the line here?
  - fauigerzigerk 3y ago
    Companies often charge as much as they think customers will pay, regardless of costs. Apple's RAM upgrade prices are a prime example. But I doubt that Netflix would do it on this occasion.

bradgessler 3y ago

Yeah, this reminds me of the Apple Watch launch. I think Twitter & Slack launched watch apps, but they performed poorly on v1 and they learned people really just want notifications on their watch, so they pulled their apps. Today we just have notifications and it’s completely fine. That and dev teams are running leaner these days, so it makes sense to wait-and-see for companies with content leverage like YouTube and Netflix.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> If you're Netflix et al, why support the VP now? It’s a nice beachhead they’re exposing. There might be a niche for someone to build an AI that converts flat video into immersive content, and then plant a bunch of patent land mines around it.

asadotzler 3y ago
Netflix will have the patents and decide not to do anything with them. They're not idiots. Not making an app and not investing in R&D for future display formats are quite different. The first is reasonable but the second would be unacceptable for a strong video platform.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > Netflix will have the patents and decide not to do anything with them. They're not idiots …they don’t. They should. Which is why I’m calling it a beachhead.

georgeecollins 3y ago

I completely disagree. There are a bunch of mixed reality headsets and I think the one with the best apps will win. Good news for APPL, META is messing up their store as well. https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/meta-platforms-sued-by-virtual-reality-fitness-app-developer-after-deal-craters-2023-10-11/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/meta-platforms-s... Disclosure: I own APPL / META stock.

aeturnum 3y ago

I think this is somewhat overwrought, but I think the iphone comparison obscures more than it reveals. The Vision Pro isn't in a new hardware category. It's actually entering a somewhat crowded field of companies offering headsets of various kinds. The VP is different in a few ways of course, but it's not clear exactly what prevented previous offerings to get wide adoption. If this product is going to be "successful" (whatever that ends up meaning) you would expect something about the VP to diverge from the trajectory of previous offerings. So far, at least as far as apps go, it seems like it's doing worse. > v2, v3, etc., which will be lighter/cheaper/whatever else I understand what you're gesturing at here, but this isn't v1 at all. This would be the equivalent of entering the smart phone market in 2015. If Apple isn't able to offer a noticeably more compelling experience with this realease, it does not speak well for their overall vision.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
roughly 3y ago
At the time of the iPhone release, Blackbirds were widely available, as were high-spec phones from Nokia and others. We don’t recognize them as smartphones today because the iPhone redefined the category, but at the time, we did.

NoPedantsThanks 3y ago

[dead]

raydev 3y ago

You are underselling the original iPhone, it entered a very different cell phone market, where the same quality tech existed but was hard to find, and the UX on all smartphones was, to be generous, poor, especially for the mass market. Even beloved Blackberry was in need of improvements that RIM didn't even have on their roadmap until the iPhone showed up. Despite all its initial shortcomings, the iPhone still raised the bar for the entire market, set a new standard that every other manufacturer/developer would be chasing for years. The Vision Pro is being watched by the mass market and it will be competing against Meta for better or worse. Apple has put in zero effort into removing that appearance. They are not selling a devkit, they are advertising a mass market device at an absurdly high price.

sleepybrett 3y ago

Watch was the same way. They weren't generally available so any third party that wanted to make an app either had to have an in with Apple to get access to even a simulator under heavy NDA or just wait until the thing hit the streets. I think you'll see the same thing here. Of course in this case with the price point being where it is it will probably take a bit to explore the possibility space and get some killer apps that propel the platform.