6 ms·

After finally releasing a Vision Pro version of my app last week, I've sold a total of 7 units. That's by far my worst software launch ever, even worse than my

by lapcat 2y ago

After finally releasing a Vision Pro version of my app last week, I've sold a total of 7 units. That's by far my worst software launch ever, even worse than my past failures. Don't bother developing for this platform. The customer base is miniscule.

that_lurker 2y ago
You should still get familiar with it in the event that the next one will be cheaper as that will increase the customer base a lot.
- closewith 2y ago
  On track to having sold less than 15% of their Y1 target (400,000 vs 3 MM), production deliveries slashed, and the reported shareholder near-revolts, I think it's clear that the Vision Pro has flopped and there won't be a sequel any time soon.
  - lapcat 2y ago
    > On track to having sold less than 15% of their Y1 target (400,000 vs 3 MM) This is a fictitious number. Apple never had the manufacturing capacity to reach that so-called target. > the reported shareholder near-revolts Citation needed.
    - andsoitis 2y ago
      GP is exaggerating (response below); at the same time many would argue that their overall argument that the Vision Pro is most probably a flop is in the ballpark. There's been much to say about price, the utility of VR, and most recently, the news that companies simply aren't bringing their apps to Vision Pro[1]. > On track to having sold less than 15% of their Y1 target (400,000 vs 3 MM) All the reports online reflect actual vs. expected more around 450-500k vs. 800k - 1M, not 3 million. > the reported shareholder near-revolts The stock market's reaction to the Vision Pro announcement saw Apple's shares dip by 3%, indicating a mix of investor optimism and concern, not revolt. [1] https://www.wsj.com/tech/personal-tech/apple-vision-pro-software-sales-fec324c0 https://www.wsj.com/tech/personal-tech/apple-vision-pro-soft...
      - dagmx 2y ago
        I think both you and the person you’re responding to are correct. The supply chain reports said <1M displays producible. That’s <500K devices producible. Regarding stock, Apple almost always dips by a significant amount during an event. They’re very much traded as buying on the hype and selling on the news.
  - CameronBanga 2y ago
    All supply chain reports before the release were in line with the fact that the in-headset screens were capped at 1million maximum production possible for the first year, and two screens are required for each headset. 3MM was never possible, not sure where you got these numbers.
- troupo 2y ago
  So, a developer should spend ~$5000 with no chance of ROI on the off chance that at some undefined point in the future this will pay off when they would have to spend another ~$5000 developing for the newer/cheaper/whatever device?
- jsheard 2y ago
  The rumor mill is saying it will be cheaper... but still not cheap at ~$2000. https://www.uploadvr.com/non-pro-apple-vision-headset-reportedly-2000/ https://www.uploadvr.com/non-pro-apple-vision-headset-report... Meta is having enough trouble attracting developers with hardware that's an order of magnitude cheaper and has two orders of magnitude more units in the wild. They got through the first hurdle of convincing people to try VR but keep falling at the second hurdle of user retention, headsets that are gathering dust in a closet don't make any money for developers. Apples decision to go all-in on hand tracking compounds the software problem even further because the vast majority of VR software that has already been developed is designed around controllers with IMUs/buttons/sticks/triggers/haptics, and would be very difficult to port over to the Vision Pros much more limited control scheme.
  - bee_rider 2y ago
    Apple does have the advantage of being able to project their 2D apps if they want, right? A $5k device seems like a dead end, and a $2k one seems pretty rough still (unless it totally replaces your laptop, which might make it worth considering). They clearly haven’t executed it correctly yet. But at least they do have some hope of beating the bootstrapping problem that everybody else seems to have—they could try and get users first, and then I bet developers would quickly follow.
    - marxisttemp 2y ago
      > Apple does have the advantage of being able to project their 2D apps if they want, right? Developers have to manually check a box to enable running the iPad version of their app on visionOS so it’s entirely out of Apple’s hands. Not sure why they took this approach
      - MichaelZuo 2y ago
        Likely some sort of legal or PR reason.
      - dagmx 2y ago
        It’s the opposite of your claim. It’s opt out, not opt in. > Your iPhone and iPad apps will be made available to users on Apple Vision Pro, unless you edit your apps’ availability in the App Store Connect https://developer.apple.com/help/app-store-connect/manage-your-apps-availability/manage-availability-of-iphone-and-ipad-apps-on-apple-vision-pro/ https://developer.apple.com/help/app-store-connect/manage-yo... And it makes sense for some devs to not provide their app on the platform if they use unsupported APIs or if their experience is otherwise degraded for some unknowable reason. Though the side effect is Netflix and YouTube can just withhold their apps that presumably otherwise work.
- jncfhnb 2y ago
  Could hit double digits next time
- moolcool 2y ago
  You're still making a big assumption that this is a device anybody actually wants in the first place. How many of the people who bought one of these actually still use them with any regularity?
- Cthulhu_ 2y ago
  Familiarity is fine, but don't bet your livelihood on it just yet; have enough knowledge to be able to pivot to it if it does take off. But I'm not seeing it.
- jayd16 2y ago
  I doubt it... The platform seems like a dud without some big changes. If big changes are coming, how much time to market do you really save working on this iteration?
- layer8 2y ago
  The platform has no killer mainstream use-case besides watching movies on a big virtual screen in solitude, with the drawback of having a heavy headset strapped to your face. I doubt that it would fare very well even sub-$1000. If they invested in gaming and allowed 3D controllers, the story might be different.
reaperducer 2y ago
Don't bother developing for this platform. The customer base is miniscule. A good hockey player don't skate to where the puck is. He skates to where it will be.
- brudgers 2y ago
  50% of hockey players are below average.
  - coolspot 2y ago
    * median, below median
- bee_rider 2y ago
  I mean… I think Apple hasn’t totally missed VR, and is still the only company that seems to have much of a chance of making it work… But, a good hockey player doesn’t skate in the direction that absolutely nobody else is heading, somewhere that might even be outside the rink (in the sense that we haven’t really shown if a good UI for VR can actually be created, yet, so it might not even be a possible “part of the game,” so to speak).
  - reaperducer 2y ago
    a good hockey player doesn’t skate in the direction that absolutely nobody else is heading That doesn't make sense in this context. Unless you consider Meta, Loft Dynamics, Valve, HTC, and dozens of other companies to be "absolutely nobody."
    - bee_rider 2y ago
      I think VR is not a serious business for Meta, just something Zuck is doing for fun. Why not, rich enough to goof off, right? They spent $4b to make $400M on their headsets. A better business model would probably be to pay people a couple hundred dollars to take their headsets. At least that might result in some install base.
- 2y ago
gpm 2y ago
Any chance you can link to your app?
- gpm 2y ago
  Replying to myself, I believe it is this: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/stopthemadness-pro-spatial/id6736570079 https://apps.apple.com/us/app/stopthemadness-pro-spatial/id6...
airstrike 2y ago
In my hallucination, my customer base is myself. If I had extra time right now and one of these devices to play with, I'd build something I wish existed, not something I expect the general population to buy. If it's good enough for me, it's probably already worth my time—though https://xkcd.com/1319/ https://xkcd.com/1319/ comes to mind Then maybe some subset of the population that is closer in interests to me would also find it useful, in which case the app might get more traction. That'd be nice, but not a necessary requirement for my definition of success The big issue here is justifying spending thousands of dollars on the product. I'd go for it at $500 or so. Definitely not $2k or $5k.
- latexr 2y ago
  The developer in question makes a living selling Safari extensions, and the Vision Pro app they’re referring to is a version of what’s probably their most well-known. So we’re talking about an established developer with an established user base selling a version of an established app. Your advice makes sense in general but doesn’t apply to this specific case.
  - airstrike 2y ago
    It still applies to this specific case. He's released a version of his existing app hoping others might use, instead of solving a problem he identified would be best tackled with a Vision Pro than with a desktop app. All I'm saying is "don't build an app for the masses if the market is small. build something that solves a real need that you have personally identified"
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - lapcat 2y ago
      > He's released a version of his existing app hoping others might use I released a version of my existing app because customers requested it. I had no independent interest in the platform. > instead of solving a problem he identified would be best tackled with a Vision Pro than with a desktop app. I can't think of any problems that would be best tackled with a Vision Pro than with a desktop app.
FumblingBear 2y ago
For what it's worth, I'm a big fan of your app and was hoping for a Vision Pro release. I didn't know you released it, but will be buying it today. I know that doesn't pay the bills, but I appreciate the hard work you do.
azinman2 2y ago
What’s the app?
- georginikolov 2y ago
  Hey, OP here. The game is called RAYQUEST, please check it out here: https://rayquestgame.com/ https://rayquestgame.com/
assassinator42 2y ago
I would assume targeting OpenXR would be much more productive? It's unfortunate that Apple insists on being so proprietary.
- gpm 2y ago
  The app in question appears to be a safari extension... so... unlikely.
- spookie 2y ago
  They are a latecomer to this market. Decisions like this are going to kill any hopes of success... (Just a guy who has seen all proprietary APIs in this space being left in the dust when a standard arrived)
corysama 2y ago
I've always assumed the Vision Pro was an experimental platform that is available publicly solely to enable developers to figure out what the heck can be done with a high-quality MR device.
- wpm 2y ago
  Nothing can really be done with it until Apple provides more software and APIs for it, at least, aside from some medicore iPad app ports. And yes I'm talking about most of the "native apps".
wpm 2y ago
Friggin Apple didn't even bother porting all their apps over, not sure why anyone else should.
xivusr 2y ago
What's yr app? I'll check it out if its still available

by lapcat 2y ago

that_lurker 2y ago

You should still get familiar with it in the event that the next one will be cheaper as that will increase the customer base a lot.

closewith 2y ago
On track to having sold less than 15% of their Y1 target (400,000 vs 3 MM), production deliveries slashed, and the reported shareholder near-revolts, I think it's clear that the Vision Pro has flopped and there won't be a sequel any time soon.
- lapcat 2y ago
  > On track to having sold less than 15% of their Y1 target (400,000 vs 3 MM) This is a fictitious number. Apple never had the manufacturing capacity to reach that so-called target. > the reported shareholder near-revolts Citation needed.
  - andsoitis 2y ago
    GP is exaggerating (response below); at the same time many would argue that their overall argument that the Vision Pro is most probably a flop is in the ballpark. There's been much to say about price, the utility of VR, and most recently, the news that companies simply aren't bringing their apps to Vision Pro[1]. > On track to having sold less than 15% of their Y1 target (400,000 vs 3 MM) All the reports online reflect actual vs. expected more around 450-500k vs. 800k - 1M, not 3 million. > the reported shareholder near-revolts The stock market's reaction to the Vision Pro announcement saw Apple's shares dip by 3%, indicating a mix of investor optimism and concern, not revolt. [1] https://www.wsj.com/tech/personal-tech/apple-vision-pro-software-sales-fec324c0 https://www.wsj.com/tech/personal-tech/apple-vision-pro-soft...
    - dagmx 2y ago
      I think both you and the person you’re responding to are correct. The supply chain reports said <1M displays producible. That’s <500K devices producible. Regarding stock, Apple almost always dips by a significant amount during an event. They’re very much traded as buying on the hype and selling on the news.
- CameronBanga 2y ago
  All supply chain reports before the release were in line with the fact that the in-headset screens were capped at 1million maximum production possible for the first year, and two screens are required for each headset. 3MM was never possible, not sure where you got these numbers.
troupo 2y ago
So, a developer should spend ~$5000 with no chance of ROI on the off chance that at some undefined point in the future this will pay off when they would have to spend another ~$5000 developing for the newer/cheaper/whatever device?
jsheard 2y ago
The rumor mill is saying it will be cheaper... but still not cheap at ~$2000. https://www.uploadvr.com/non-pro-apple-vision-headset-reportedly-2000/ https://www.uploadvr.com/non-pro-apple-vision-headset-report... Meta is having enough trouble attracting developers with hardware that's an order of magnitude cheaper and has two orders of magnitude more units in the wild. They got through the first hurdle of convincing people to try VR but keep falling at the second hurdle of user retention, headsets that are gathering dust in a closet don't make any money for developers. Apples decision to go all-in on hand tracking compounds the software problem even further because the vast majority of VR software that has already been developed is designed around controllers with IMUs/buttons/sticks/triggers/haptics, and would be very difficult to port over to the Vision Pros much more limited control scheme.
- bee_rider 2y ago
  Apple does have the advantage of being able to project their 2D apps if they want, right? A $5k device seems like a dead end, and a $2k one seems pretty rough still (unless it totally replaces your laptop, which might make it worth considering). They clearly haven’t executed it correctly yet. But at least they do have some hope of beating the bootstrapping problem that everybody else seems to have—they could try and get users first, and then I bet developers would quickly follow.
  - marxisttemp 2y ago
    > Apple does have the advantage of being able to project their 2D apps if they want, right? Developers have to manually check a box to enable running the iPad version of their app on visionOS so it’s entirely out of Apple’s hands. Not sure why they took this approach
    - MichaelZuo 2y ago
      Likely some sort of legal or PR reason.
    - dagmx 2y ago
      It’s the opposite of your claim. It’s opt out, not opt in. > Your iPhone and iPad apps will be made available to users on Apple Vision Pro, unless you edit your apps’ availability in the App Store Connect https://developer.apple.com/help/app-store-connect/manage-your-apps-availability/manage-availability-of-iphone-and-ipad-apps-on-apple-vision-pro/ https://developer.apple.com/help/app-store-connect/manage-yo... And it makes sense for some devs to not provide their app on the platform if they use unsupported APIs or if their experience is otherwise degraded for some unknowable reason. Though the side effect is Netflix and YouTube can just withhold their apps that presumably otherwise work.
jncfhnb 2y ago
Could hit double digits next time
moolcool 2y ago
You're still making a big assumption that this is a device anybody actually wants in the first place. How many of the people who bought one of these actually still use them with any regularity?
Cthulhu_ 2y ago
Familiarity is fine, but don't bet your livelihood on it just yet; have enough knowledge to be able to pivot to it if it does take off. But I'm not seeing it.
jayd16 2y ago
I doubt it... The platform seems like a dud without some big changes. If big changes are coming, how much time to market do you really save working on this iteration?
layer8 2y ago
The platform has no killer mainstream use-case besides watching movies on a big virtual screen in solitude, with the drawback of having a heavy headset strapped to your face. I doubt that it would fare very well even sub-$1000. If they invested in gaming and allowed 3D controllers, the story might be different.

reaperducer 2y ago

Don't bother developing for this platform. The customer base is miniscule. A good hockey player don't skate to where the puck is. He skates to where it will be.

brudgers 2y ago
50% of hockey players are below average.
- coolspot 2y ago
  * median, below median
bee_rider 2y ago
I mean… I think Apple hasn’t totally missed VR, and is still the only company that seems to have much of a chance of making it work… But, a good hockey player doesn’t skate in the direction that absolutely nobody else is heading, somewhere that might even be outside the rink (in the sense that we haven’t really shown if a good UI for VR can actually be created, yet, so it might not even be a possible “part of the game,” so to speak).
- reaperducer 2y ago
  a good hockey player doesn’t skate in the direction that absolutely nobody else is heading That doesn't make sense in this context. Unless you consider Meta, Loft Dynamics, Valve, HTC, and dozens of other companies to be "absolutely nobody."
  - bee_rider 2y ago
    I think VR is not a serious business for Meta, just something Zuck is doing for fun. Why not, rich enough to goof off, right? They spent $4b to make $400M on their headsets. A better business model would probably be to pay people a couple hundred dollars to take their headsets. At least that might result in some install base.
2y ago

gpm 2y ago

Any chance you can link to your app?

gpm 2y ago
Replying to myself, I believe it is this: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/stopthemadness-pro-spatial/id6736570079 https://apps.apple.com/us/app/stopthemadness-pro-spatial/id6...

airstrike 2y ago

In my hallucination, my customer base is myself. If I had extra time right now and one of these devices to play with, I'd build something I wish existed, not something I expect the general population to buy. If it's good enough for me, it's probably already worth my time—though https://xkcd.com/1319/ https://xkcd.com/1319/ comes to mind Then maybe some subset of the population that is closer in interests to me would also find it useful, in which case the app might get more traction. That'd be nice, but not a necessary requirement for my definition of success The big issue here is justifying spending thousands of dollars on the product. I'd go for it at $500 or so. Definitely not $2k or $5k.

latexr 2y ago
The developer in question makes a living selling Safari extensions, and the Vision Pro app they’re referring to is a version of what’s probably their most well-known. So we’re talking about an established developer with an established user base selling a version of an established app. Your advice makes sense in general but doesn’t apply to this specific case.
- airstrike 2y ago
  It still applies to this specific case. He's released a version of his existing app hoping others might use, instead of solving a problem he identified would be best tackled with a Vision Pro than with a desktop app. All I'm saying is "don't build an app for the masses if the market is small. build something that solves a real need that you have personally identified"
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - lapcat 2y ago
    > He's released a version of his existing app hoping others might use I released a version of my existing app because customers requested it. I had no independent interest in the platform. > instead of solving a problem he identified would be best tackled with a Vision Pro than with a desktop app. I can't think of any problems that would be best tackled with a Vision Pro than with a desktop app.

FumblingBear 2y ago

For what it's worth, I'm a big fan of your app and was hoping for a Vision Pro release. I didn't know you released it, but will be buying it today. I know that doesn't pay the bills, but I appreciate the hard work you do.

azinman2 2y ago

What’s the app?

georginikolov 2y ago
Hey, OP here. The game is called RAYQUEST, please check it out here: https://rayquestgame.com/ https://rayquestgame.com/

assassinator42 2y ago

I would assume targeting OpenXR would be much more productive? It's unfortunate that Apple insists on being so proprietary.

gpm 2y ago
The app in question appears to be a safari extension... so... unlikely.
spookie 2y ago
They are a latecomer to this market. Decisions like this are going to kill any hopes of success... (Just a guy who has seen all proprietary APIs in this space being left in the dust when a standard arrived)

corysama 2y ago

I've always assumed the Vision Pro was an experimental platform that is available publicly solely to enable developers to figure out what the heck can be done with a high-quality MR device.

wpm 2y ago
Nothing can really be done with it until Apple provides more software and APIs for it, at least, aside from some medicore iPad app ports. And yes I'm talking about most of the "native apps".

wpm 2y ago

Friggin Apple didn't even bother porting all their apps over, not sure why anyone else should.

xivusr 2y ago

What's yr app? I'll check it out if its still available