Apple Headset Stalls, Struggles To Attract Killer Apps in First Year (msn.com) 68
Apple's $3,499 Vision Pro is struggling to attract major software-makers to develop apps for the device, a challenge that threatens to slow the progress of the company's biggest new product in a decade. WSJ: New apps released on the Vision Pro every month have slowed since its launch in January. Some of the most successful virtual-reality software developers have so far opted not to build apps for the headset. Without enough killer apps, certain users have found the device less useful and are opting to sell it. "It's a chicken-or-egg problem," said Bertrand Nepveu, who previously worked on the Vision Pro at Apple and is now an investor in this area at Triptyq Capital.
Nepveu and app developers think Apple should fund app makers to give them an incentive to port over their existing apps from other headsets or to develop fresh content. This practice has become common in the industry, with headset leader Meta Platforms funding many developers and even buying several app makers. The social-media company is a formidable competitor to Apple, with a market share of all headsets reaching 74% in the second quarter this year, according to Counterpoint Research.
Nepveu and app developers think Apple should fund app makers to give them an incentive to port over their existing apps from other headsets or to develop fresh content. This practice has become common in the industry, with headset leader Meta Platforms funding many developers and even buying several app makers. The social-media company is a formidable competitor to Apple, with a market share of all headsets reaching 74% in the second quarter this year, according to Counterpoint Research.
Virtual reality? (Score:2)
Virtual reality and Augmented Reality are no no words. What does Apple want application wise apart from virtual monitors? No idea.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is that the headsets are too bulky to put on. But you're right they can give a good feel for what the space will look like. I have the Apple Vision Pro, I can't fault the experience .. but wearing it tiring because of the weight.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That might be valid if this was the start, but we are a long way from the first VR/AR headset. The first cell phones showed up in 1983, the first consumer VR headset started selling in 1997 (Sony Glasstron). 27 years after introduction, in 2010 we had been carrying cell phones in pockets for over a decade and they've started a trend to get bigger, not smaller, since then. 27 years after introduction with VR and they're still without an application for widespread use and have gotten heavier. The top of the l
Or They Could Be Like Steve Jobs (Score:5, Insightful)
People forget that when Steve Jobs released the iPhone 1 there were no apps for it at all! He believed that Apple had written all the apps the phone would need (eg. phone, calendar, etc.) and that everything else would be taken care of by web applets.
Now, of course, smartphones proved wildly popular, and web-based apps weren't up to the challenges of everything new smartphone-owners wanted them to do.
Apple quickly reversed course, and added the now (in)famous App Store.
But the point is, when he released a product, that product was ready to be used (at least as he envisioned it). Tim Cook releasing the hardware for the VP without the software to make people want to use it shows a critical difference between the two.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, that's not true. The App store was released one year later. They didn't just create that in a weekend as an afterthought. They clearly just wanted to push a number of iphones out to early adopters so that developers would be interested in developing for the iPhone and filling their coming app store with apps.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, that's not true. The App store was released one year later. They didn't just create that in a weekend as an afterthought.
I'll never know for sure what was happening in meetings at the C-suite level, but I do know that we started working on documentation for iOS near the end of that year for a March announcement, and up until that moment, we were all still complaining about what a bad idea the web app plan was. So if there was some secret plan from the very beginning, it was so secret that even people who should have known about it did not find out until the last minute.
Bear in mind that the iPhone was a collaboration between
Re: (Score:2)
I just don't believe the narrative that SJ really just wanted web apps. I mean, why would the user interface be obviously designed to have a grid of apps? For glorified bookmarks to fill? Na, they knew what they were doing. The reason they kept it so secret was because SJ didn't want MS or BlackBerry to beat Apple to the punch. SJ was paranoid about that, for good reason.
And don't forget, Apple also partnered with giant banks to provide financing options for start ups to make apps. Those kinds of business d
Re: (Score:2)
I just don't believe the narrative that SJ really just wanted web apps. I mean, why would the user interface be obviously designed to have a grid of apps?
That's been a popular choice for smartphones since the invention of smart phones, and it works well when a touch screen is the only form of input. Behold:
https://www.microsoft.com/buxt... [microsoft.com]
or in 1999 in colour!
https://www.xorl.org/people/kr... [xorl.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Windows 95 invented crapping app icons in a grid onto your desktop.
For some reason Apple thought that was a good idea and copied it, although I heard that lately you can hide apps from the home screen.
Re: (Score:2)
I just don't believe the narrative that SJ really just wanted web apps. I mean, why would the user interface be obviously designed to have a grid of apps? For glorified bookmarks to fill?
To be clear, I never thought it would be *just* web apps (though they did actually fill app slots in the home page, and they were somewhat more than glorified bookmarks, thanks to HTML5 local storage, which was brand new at the time, and was created by Apple precisely for the purpose of making it possible for a lot of apps to be web-based).
I did, however, fully expect native binary apps to be limited — at least initially, and possibly permanently — to a small number of carefully curated apps by
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
WebStorage API (HTML5 localStorage, sessionStorage) was design by Ian Hickson from Google, not Apple.
Sorry, I was talking about HTML5's SQL storage, not the key-value storage. I think I got the name slightly wrong, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
SQL storage looked neat in the specification phase. Haven't ever seen it since, though. Did it end up coming into being, or did everything end up falling back to local/sessionStorage?
Safari/WebKit supported it really early on, and IIRC also did *not* support local/session storage at first, whereas Chrome supported local/session storage, but not WebSQL/SQLite. Chrome eventually supported it and then later removed it. I think it has also been removed from WebKit. AFAIK, no non-WebKit browsers have ever supported it.
Re: (Score:3)
People forget that when Steve Jobs released the iPhone 1 there were no apps for it at all! He believed that Apple had written all the apps the phone would need (eg. phone, calendar, etc.) and that everything else would be taken care of by web applets.
Now, of course, smartphones proved wildly popular, and web-based apps weren't up to the challenges of everything new smartphone-owners wanted them to do. Apple quickly reversed course, and added the now (in)famous App Store.
But the point is, when he released a product, that product was ready to be used (at least as he envisioned it). Tim Cook releasing the hardware for the VP without the software to make people want to use it shows a critical difference between the two.
While I don't really see the point of the headset myself, outside of virtual monitors or "theater experience" viewing, I am curious why a company the size of Apple wouldn't have written at least a smattering of highly "wow" factor apps for the thing for the initial release. It's almost like they created it with no actual vision of what it was they wanted it to do. "Here's some cool new hardware. We don't know what it does well. Have fun." That's a big price for a, "Invent something cool after purchase" type
Apple *is* a luxury consumer gadgets company (Score:4, Insightful)
"Apple is a luxury brand, it does't need a reason. Make it expensive, the crowds will drool,"
This, exactly. I've always said that Apple is a luxury consumer gadgets company, nothing more (they're not serious about games, nor about business).
Re: Apple *is* a luxury consumer gadgets company (Score:2)
Not to burst your little bubble but this is hardly some sort of well kept secret. Apple marketing was literally designed following the example of Nike, where emotions and perceived value and luxury and image rule above all else.
Bewildering how people accept completely overpriced sneakers but cry about Apple.
Re: (Score:2)
Not to burst your little bubble but this is hardly some sort of well kept secret. Apple marketing was literally designed following the example of Nike, where emotions and perceived value and luxury and image rule above all else.
Bewildering how people accept completely overpriced sneakers but cry about Apple.
This and Nike isn't even a luxury brand... or even particularly overpriced here in the UK. With Nike you generally get a decent product for your money, sure, not brilliant but you can do a lot worse than Nike for a sports shoe. They tend to retail around £40 a pair, which is about the same as other sports brands (Puma, Reebok, Adidas).
When I think of a luxury brand, I'm thinking of someone like Rolls Royce, Rolex or even Chanel at a stretch... A luxury brand is not something I can afford if I'm on
Re: (Score:2)
"Apple is a luxury brand, it does't need a reason. Make it expensive, the crowds will drool,"
This, exactly. I've always said that Apple is a luxury consumer gadgets company, nothing more (they're not serious about games, nor about business).
LoL... Apple is as much of a Luxury brand as Toyota, you can tart up a Camry all you like but it's still a Camry.
No-one but sad fanboys consider Apple a luxury brand. It's just an expensive one that is finding out that it can't command a premium for being an average brand any more.
Rolex is a luxury brand built on a long reputation of class, quality workmanship and good design. Rolls Royce is a luxury brand built on a long reputation of good design, quality workmanship and class... Apple is an overpric
"Luxury" = overpriced, status symbol (Score:2)
I think "luxury" in this context means more that the product is overpriced for what you get, and the for the brand name as a "status symbol". Maybe more specifically (as the OP stated) "luxury consumer", as opposed to 'luxury' as in "I'm super-rich and can waste my money on frivolous needs".
I'd also consider Google and Samsung "luxury consumer" stuff, since you can get cheaper equivalent Android phones from other manufacturers too.
On the Apple side (since there's no 3rd party iPhones), the same applies for
Re: (Score:2)
"Apple is a luxury brand, it does't need a reason. Make it expensive, the crowds will drool,"
This, exactly. I've always said that Apple is a luxury consumer gadgets company, nothing more (they're not serious about games, nor about business).
They used to be pretty serious about creative software. Logic Pro is still one of the better DAWs available, it's just too bad you have to take all the baggage that comes with being an Apple user if you want to use it. I gave it up when they started intentionally crippling systems through updates. There's better/easier ways to be creative than sucking on the Apple Teat these days.
Re: (Score:3)
Ironically, the original iPhone was overpriced, too. Apple famously had to give it a rather large price cut to stimulate sales. It's easy to forget it almost wasn't a huge smash hit, because initially it was just a glorified feature phone. It was also largely the enthusiast community jailbreaking it and creating homebrew apps that convinced Apple to create their own App Store.
Re:Or They Could Be Like Steve Jobs (Score:4, Informative)
I would say that the iPhone had a huge amount of growth due to the Cydia community, where Apple cherry picked the features that were popular there and tossed them into iOS.
Of course, the iFirewall app was one of the best, just because it could be used to block ads on the layer 2 level. There were also tons and tons of tweaks that were useful.
Re: (Score:2)
Right on the money. Nothing demonstrates the difference between Apple's strategy and Meta's more than their presentations 2 years ago. Apple spent 50 mintalking about the hardware, and 10min talking about how you could use it to make facetime calls and mirror your laptop display. Meta spent 5 minutes talking about the hardware - like a footnote in the presentation - and 55minutes showing off new games and software features.
Content is king in the VR world. No one puts on a VR headset because they like the co
Re: (Score:2)
That's one expensive chicken (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't care how good the apps for it are, until the damn thing costs less than a full-fledged gaming console there's going to be a massive segment of the market that just isn't going to buy it.
What we're witnessing here is Apple having too much pride to admit they severely overestimated the size of demographic willing to drop three-and-a-half grand on a toy.
Re: (Score:2)
...a toy without the proper infrastructure to be played on.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure CAD is the killer application. Current CAD software (at least the FOSS: FreeCAD, Blender) already support 3D visualization, whether cyan/magenta glasses, or 3D displays. It was already a possible killer app for 3D TVs but didn't pick up. If CAD users were commonly using existing solutions for 3D visualisation, they would be possibly interested in some upgrade. But a headset is not even clear it's an upgrade, it's reported as vastly more uncomfortable.
Re: (Score:2)
What we're witnessing here is Apple having too much pride to admit they severely overestimated the size of demographic willing to drop three-and-a-half grand on a toy.
Or, that they've really put out a developer prototype device to "prove" the tech, but passing it off as a consumer device that's over engineered (those "see-through eyes" gimmick) to try to sell it as such.
The only reason I would buy one... (Score:2)
The only thing I can think of that would make me want to buy a VR headset is if I worked in an "Open Office" kind of work environments and I wanted to create my own bit of privacy. Connect it to my work computer, and project a second monitor that only I could see, and make everyone else in the office disappear. .
Re: (Score:3)
We all know you'd use it to visually undress the Receptionist.
Re: (Score:2)
We all know you'd use it to visually undress the Receptionist.
Ironically, the lack of porn on Apple's App Store, coupled with Apple's refusal to allow third-party stores or direct app installation, is yet another reason why Vision Pro isn't selling.
Re: (Score:3)
She's one of the ones I really want to make disappear.
Re: (Score:2)
I would have bought one on the spot if it was capable:
1) not only powered by a battery
2) two or more HDMI inputs; not a lower quality wireless stream of 1 mac's single screen.
They seriously need a pro version that is for REAL professionals. like industrial... no face screen and maybe less powerful so it weighs less and I think a foam bike helmet type thing would not bother you being on your head all day long. I don't need to walk around; I want a the BEST monitor setup and that headset was almost it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't care if people think I'm retarded; I'd prefer it to looking like some hipster wearing big heavy ski goggles that are not useful for real work that only show off my disposable income. Besides, realistically, it would have LEDs and a big logo etc and not even a child would confuse it for a retard helmet.
A bike helmet works all day long; although, I rarely do that and might someday get in an accident and become "special." man that is a moronic label... retard was a real word and shorthand for mentally
Re: (Score:2)
I can see about using one of these for FPV drone stuff, or specialized tasks. That, or for long bus rides just so people don't try to bug you, they are good. However, who has time in their life to devote to another screen? There is already the phone, the tablet, the TV, the smart fridge, the infotainment system, the computer, the smart mirror on the ceiling in the bedroom... shouldn't people be pushing to get away from glowy things for physical/mental health reasons?
Lol no shit (Score:1)
Again I am reminded of the breathless fanboyism abour VR from 10 years ago... some Slashdotter predicted 100 million head mounted displays by 2019 or he'd eat his shorts...
Re: (Score:2)
10 years? How long has the last scene room of The Carousel of Progress at Disney World had the adult son character playing with the VR headset that he got for Christmas? And I've lost count of the number of movies where VR was featured, like the first Jurassic Park movie, where they're using headsets to sequence DNA to create dinosaurs. Come to think of it, bringing back dinosaurs would still be more interesting than VR.
People have been predicting this stuff is gonna catch on in a big way for a long time
Re: (Score:2)
Aren't they all going to stall? (Score:3)
I think Zuckerberg had the right idea to use it for business because then he could get your boss to force you to use it for you job (and you'd just have to put up with the motion sickness and headaches). But he botched it so bad it doesn't matter (which is typical of these tech billionaires who blundered into one good idea but are actually terrible businessmen).
Re: (Score:1)
You'd be quite wrong. 1/3rd of the population is billions of people. 1/3rd of the population is more than all gamers out there who have sunk collective billions into game consoles over the years. 3D TVs weren't about the 1/3rd of the population, they were about 99.99% of the population. 3D TV suck, but the concept didn't die and 3D is alive and well at the cinemas.
VR is a lot of fun. Fun content will easily outweigh the pain of wearing a headset. Virtually every gamer with the disposable income who has trie
Re: (Score:2)
When was the last time you went and saw a 3D movie? It was pre-COVID for my family and I.
Vision Pro is an Exotic Animal (Score:2)
And nobody is really ready to put it to good use for differing reasons:
- It's too expensive for most consumers to purchase as a discretionary entertainment expense
- It's also a risky expense for businesses looking for commercial-grade heavy duty gear that can withstand employee wear and tear
- It requires too much dedicated software development manpower to properly inte
Re: (Score:2)
Vision Pro is a new, exotic animal... [...]So far I can't name one such app.
It's not exactly. It's like a device somewhere half way between a hololens and an occulus. No one else has released a large feed through AR headset, but high end AR headsets aren't even new. The headset market isn't exactly big now, and so every device is quite unique, but as things go it's not super-super-extra-never-been-seen-before-unique.
But actually this is the problem: it ain't new. The hololens has been with us for 8 years as
Is it really a surprise? (Score:4, Interesting)
Apple's $3,499 Vision Pro is struggling to attract major software-makers to develop apps for the device
Is this really a surprise - just look at the cost!
- People won't be incentivized to buy it if there's no real content (utility/stuff) for it.
- Devs won't develop for it if they don't see a big enough market for it (no buyers).
It's a classic catch-22. This one is of Apple's own making - they're selling the thing as a consumer device, but it's really a developer preview/prototype - one that's been over engineered (that goofy "see-through eyes" thing) in order to make it "sellable" as a consumer device, thereby increasing its costs (again: that cost!!).
And again, this is all of Apple's own making - they insist on never producing non-consumer devices, even when this one is clearly a developer preview-type device, to "prove" the technology, but stubborn and arrogant Apple can't bring itself to really face the true nature of their own product.
(p.s. OK, maybe that first-ever "Apple TV" was properly sold as more of a prototype than consumer device, but that now feels like a ancient-history exception that never happens anymore).
Re: (Score:2)
Apple honestly could have solved a *LOT* of these issues had they done some form of developer wooing before releasing this to the mainstream. I know, since it's giant corporation land, they'd only release it to giant corporation land developers, and certainly not stoop to offering freebies or even super discounted preview hardware to your average independent dev, but at least they could have had something out there for it when it was released. Right now it's a great big expense for a computing device, with
Re: (Score:2)
Apple honestly could have solved a *LOT* of these issues had they done some form of developer wooing before releasing this to the mainstream.
I'm not so sure. I think the reason we're talking about this so long after the Vision Pro release is that developers largely think the device is a failure and not worth their time to invest. Maybe if they didn't tell developers what the price of this ludicrously expensive thing would be they would have been on board. But the cost of this headset just makes it an incredibly niche item that may not be worth developing for.
Heck the Quest is 1/10th of the price, has sold 20x the number of units and developers a
Re: (Score:2)
Apple honestly could have solved a *LOT* of these issues had they done some form of developer wooing before releasing this to the mainstream.
I'm not so sure. I think the reason we're talking about this so long after the Vision Pro release is that developers largely think the device is a failure and not worth their time to invest. Maybe if they didn't tell developers what the price of this ludicrously expensive thing would be they would have been on board. But the cost of this headset just makes it an incredibly niche item that may not be worth developing for.
Oh, they definitely would have had to woo devs by pretending it was going to be baseline computer cost, not "Apple Professional" price. I still think it was a huge mistake to just toss it out on the open market, at its price point, with the mentality that developers would slobber all over themselves to develop a software ecosystem for them. Creative types, even developers, have been burned by Apple quite a bit recently. I don't think anyone was pounding down the doors to get ahold of this thing.
Heck the Quest is 1/10th of the price, has sold 20x the number of units and developers are still second guessing whether it's worth developing for, relying on direct stimulus investments from Meta to target the platform.
The Quest ha
Re: (Score:2)
App store needs work (Score:1)
still saving for a house. (Score:2)
If I avoid buying 200 of them...
It's the weight, stupid (Score:2)
The experience is good, probably the future of movies eventually. The regular format won't die, but VR will exist as one of many entertainment formats. Once VR headsets with Apple Vision Pro-like resolution are available that weigh less than 120 grams (like the Bigscreen Beyond VR headset) instead of 600 grams (Apple Vision Pro) then the format has a chance. The glasses Meta showed of its Orion AR glasses weighing 98 grams. If they can make a production XR version of that, with higher resolution (6K per eye
Re: (Score:2)
forgot to add .. not just movies .. gaming too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Naw.
It's the lack of any apparent use case.
Also the weight, but without the use case Even a light one won't sell
Not good enough (Score:2)
Wankers, YouTubers, Humilation (Score:2)
All the YouTubers have made their unboxing/demo videos for the likes and subscribes, and have since returned them and moved on to the next thing
All the memes and videos that came out showing how goofy and ridiculous VP users look in public have reduced or eliminated the coolness factor of owning the VP, so that kills anyone seeking to buy a VP as a status item.
The price tag was the final nail in
Spatial video (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I gotta say, I was blown away by the demo.
And it's basically an iOS - level system with a full virtual display, so all the apps are readily available.
The deal breaker for me wasn't price, but typing. Unless youre an accomplished touch typist, the getting text into that thing is problematic. And the 'virtual keyboard' is a joke.
It's not the apps... (Score:2)
Our vision system finds VR and AR exhausting. Our vision is very, very adapted to the real world and the cues it gives. Getting stereo 2D isn't the same. Integrating 2D information into a 3D scene isn't the same. It takes cognitive effort, and for something that is for entertainment, productivity and so on. The novelty quickly wears off in the face of that additional load.
Also, don't forget that the older populations that have more money to burn? They need reading glasses and these environments *extra suck*
Doesn't make sense (Score:2)