New app releases for Apple Vision Pro have fallen dramatically since launch
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
As a dev, I'm still just working on my app. I had no intention of rushing anything out and was planning a visionOS 2.x release the entire time.
I'm not sure the folks "analyzing" this stuff actually understand dev cycles at all.
I'm not sure the folks "analyzing" this stuff actually understand dev cycles at all.
Upvote
80
(137
/
-57)
Upvote
229
(242
/
-13)
Not surprised at $3500 device not attracting a lot of developers. They're cool, but they're stuck in a Catch-22 of not having enough content justify a $3500 to customers, to then attract more developers for content.
Upvote
99
(106
/
-7)
Companies keep trying to make VR (AR in Apple's case) a thing, and the reality is that for most of the population, strapping something onto your head is just not a popular format for a human interface. I'm not criticizing Apple (or other VR makers), but no matter how much they perfect it, it's not going to catch on. You could release 1,000 'killer apps' and it would still never be anything but niche. That's not a good or bad thing, except for companies who keep trying to make it explode into popularity.
Upvote
166
(185
/
-19)
I don't know what they expected. At this price point, this is not a consumer product. Sure, a few die hard tech geeks will buy it, but their only hope is to have some killer apps for business, such as virtual architectural design walkthroughs, or home remodeling previews, etc. And even those apps would be limited to the high-end, because many of those types of businesses are not going to fool around with VR. Meta Quest and possibly PSVR owns the gaming market with price points around $500 - what you'd expect for a gaming console.
Upvote
67
(74
/
-7)
To describe this new category of devices, I would like to nominate the term "face hugger."
Upvote
113
(121
/
-8)
I’m really surprised that Apple got into this market. It just seems so incredibly niche. What’s their endgame here?
Upvote
62
(70
/
-8)
Funny how heavily downvoted all of the comments about "it's too expensive for developers, so there will be few apps" people were, despite being exactly right.
Upvote
63
(79
/
-16)
Ah, The Financial Times. The ardent fluffer of the corporate world, trying to create stiff competition in a flaccid market.
Apple won't get any market penetration because this particular corporate thrust has stimulated very little excitement among would-be customers. Seems like the results here will be very unsatisfying and anticlimactic.
Upvote
130
(149
/
-19)
I simply don't see how VR/AR ever goes mainstream. Too awkward. Too many trade-offs. Too antisocial.
Upvote
51
(65
/
-14)
Here's the thing, this doesn't solve a problem for Apple customers.
People pretend that nobody understood what the smart phone was going to do in their lives in 2005 or whatever, but if you talked to the really knowledgable people in 2005/6/7, they knew that mobile internet would be a gamechanger.
Sure the general public didn't understand quite how many small problems would be solved by having mobile access to all of the worlds information all the time everywhere, but in hindsight, it's obvious.
We're several years into high & mid-tier VR/AR systems being really good. Nobody has articulated a problem it solves better than a smartphone and a computer. And it's landing at a moment of tech saturation. Even regular people who aren't really thinking deeply about how they spend their time and attention have a vague awareness they are too addicted to their phones. The segment of the population clamoring for EVEN MORE IMMERSIVE experiences is truly a tiny slice at this point.
I imagine if they got them down to the size of a pair of glasses, wireless, and for the cost of under $1k, people might get into it. But then again, why are you spending $1k to solve the same problems your $1k phone and $400 TV already solve? To solve it better? In a cooler way? It's a better experience?
You don't have to trust me. Just look at the marketing for these devices. It's an aerospace tech installing parts with an overlayed map. A doctor looking a patient with an overlay. A student seeing a dinosaur in 3D.
Pssst. Those are all solved problems. None of those fields are clamoring for this tech.
People pretend that nobody understood what the smart phone was going to do in their lives in 2005 or whatever, but if you talked to the really knowledgable people in 2005/6/7, they knew that mobile internet would be a gamechanger.
Sure the general public didn't understand quite how many small problems would be solved by having mobile access to all of the worlds information all the time everywhere, but in hindsight, it's obvious.
We're several years into high & mid-tier VR/AR systems being really good. Nobody has articulated a problem it solves better than a smartphone and a computer. And it's landing at a moment of tech saturation. Even regular people who aren't really thinking deeply about how they spend their time and attention have a vague awareness they are too addicted to their phones. The segment of the population clamoring for EVEN MORE IMMERSIVE experiences is truly a tiny slice at this point.
I imagine if they got them down to the size of a pair of glasses, wireless, and for the cost of under $1k, people might get into it. But then again, why are you spending $1k to solve the same problems your $1k phone and $400 TV already solve? To solve it better? In a cooler way? It's a better experience?
You don't have to trust me. Just look at the marketing for these devices. It's an aerospace tech installing parts with an overlayed map. A doctor looking a patient with an overlay. A student seeing a dinosaur in 3D.
Pssst. Those are all solved problems. None of those fields are clamoring for this tech.
Upvote
123
(138
/
-15)
WinternetHexplorer
Smack-Fu Master, in training
Well, you don't have to wear those other devices on your face. I think this whole thing is a lot simpler than some are making it out to be. There are fewer adopters, and thereby fewer apps, because it is something unnatural (I guess glasses are "natural") that you have to wear on your face.
There is nothing to compare it to other than other things that you have to wear on your face, which also don't have tons of apps for them, and they also don't have a "killer app".
Having to wear it on your face might be the dealbreaker holding this, and things like it, back.
Edit: leighno5 beat me to this point
Last edited:
Upvote
39
(40
/
-1)
When Apple came out with the iPhone, I was already regularly carrying around an iPod and a BlackBerry, and saying to people “how long before someone combines these functionalities into one device?”
Similarly, in 2000 I was carrying the original pager-like BlackBerry and a StarTAC cell phone, and asking when those two would be combined.
These things have been on the horizon for a long time, for anyone who cared to just look around.
Upvote
85
(87
/
-2)
And I'm not sure dev cycles lead to any seasonality when averaged over thousands of apps.
Maybe a Christmas rush in the game markt, but this is probably too expensive to qualify.
Upvote
19
(21
/
-2)
At a time when people are pretty worried about spending money on big ticket items, Apple launches a massively expensive headset for $3.5k that barely does more than competition costing well under $1k.
Yes, it does things BETTER than pretty much all of those sub-$1k devices, but does it do those things 3x better? No.
Apple should've squarely aimed this at enterprise to start, with dev and marketing effort spent there, where companies are used to paying that much for comparably capable headsets. Then, they take lessons learned there, both financially and technically, to build a cheaper, consumer product to bring to the masses.
I really don't understand the strategy of, "let's put it out there and hope people buy so that other people start making content for it," which is what it seems like Apple is doing.
Yes, it does things BETTER than pretty much all of those sub-$1k devices, but does it do those things 3x better? No.
Apple should've squarely aimed this at enterprise to start, with dev and marketing effort spent there, where companies are used to paying that much for comparably capable headsets. Then, they take lessons learned there, both financially and technically, to build a cheaper, consumer product to bring to the masses.
I really don't understand the strategy of, "let's put it out there and hope people buy so that other people start making content for it," which is what it seems like Apple is doing.
Upvote
21
(31
/
-10)
The simple fact is, if I have my phone\tablet out and I need to talk to someone, it's very simple to set it down and converse, then pick back up again. With this, I have to remove the headset, probably pat down my hair (if I had any), have a conversation, then fuss with getting it situated back on my face when I want to resume what I was doing. No one wants to carry a conversation on while the other person has their face half covered .
Upvote
29
(37
/
-8)
You don't have to remove the headset at all to talk to and see people, but I recognize it would look odd.
Upvote
-14
(18
/
-32)
I don't think it's fair to say that PCs didn't take off until just before Win95. I don't think it was a lightswitch moment. Right around the time of the 256, a hair before, is when computers started to become affordable for middle-class families if you're talking PCs that ran an MS product (DOS, back then). Before that, you could get an Atari computer or Commodore 64, both of which were capable of more than just games. We had a word processor on our Atari!
Anyway, as the years went on from the mid-80s, home computers got cheaper and cheaper. As the price dropped, adoption went up. It was a curve, not a sudden spike.
I don't think the Vision is directly comparable because it's different tech. As others have stated, it doesn't really solve a problem that can't already be solved much more cheaply within the typical Apple personal device audience.
If Apple can stick with the long game, and come out with headsets that cost way less money, then I think they could start selling and growing the ecosystem.
If Meta has half a brain, they'll take the lead in this space they clearly have, come out with a $1k headset that does pretty much everything the Vision can do, at the same fidelity, and dominate the market for the foreseeable future. I'm not ROOTING for them, per se, but it seems like a thing they could absolutely do with a modicum of competence (which is something they often lack).
Upvote
27
(32
/
-5)
The amount of fluff in this article is rather impressive. Every person quoted seems to be saying some variation of, "Well it's off to a much slower start than anyone thought, but it's Apple so we're sure that success is just around the corner. Just you wait. Any day now, the floodgates will open and then we'll all be rolling in success. It's just going to take a little time. Soon. Trust us."
I can't tell if they're trying to convince others or themselves.
Upvote
75
(76
/
-1)
Remember Delicious Library? I'd like that but for everything in my home, garage, storage unit, etc. How good is object recognition these days? Good enough to recognize and categorize evey object in my home and remember where I put it?
Upvote
20
(20
/
0)
I agree that it was a curve, I just meant that it was basically undeniable that by 1993-1994, the industry had taken off. Prior to that, it was niche and often laughed at as having limited or even no usecases, even with the introduction of GUI. So people, just as they do with Vision Pro, were saying that it it doesn't really solve a problem that can't already be solved with some other tool.
Why compare the two industries in the first place? Because they are both computing platforms, they both generally have to tried to be understood, they both had massive skepticism, they both had failed forecasts, doom and gloom, and companies dropping out, they have similar growth trajectories, PCs are the closest cousin of VR.
Upvote
-19
(8
/
-27)
How many of those have actually put the effort into creating a good tablet experience rather then just checking a box in Xcode and hoping for the best.
Upvote
39
(39
/
0)
In 2000, I worked briefly as an independent contractor at a company that made a hand-held device with an optical scanner that read QR codes and which you connected to your computer with a cord, like a mouse. They called it the "Cat" and it was shaped like a little cat. The idea was to make it easier for people to find things on the web by putting the codes in ads in magazines. They thought it was going to become as ubiquitous as the mouse.
Upvote
43
(45
/
-2)
WinternetHexplorer
Smack-Fu Master, in training
I think some of this boils down to cost. For example, for $3.5K, I could get 2 CoPilot+ PC's, or a couple of mid-tier gaming desktops. Or two high-end table saws. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that people reasoned that for the cost of an early PC, they could get two (or more) television sets, or maybe even a car.*
* I'll admit to not doing the math on inflation/time-value money, but hopefully my drift is gotten.
Upvote
11
(12
/
-1)
From a coding perspective, building good 3D spatial computing apps is hard. Compared to regular phone apps, it's a much greater challenge for smaller indy devs to create VR apps. The fact they have "2,000" apps is actually rather impressive - to the point where I'm already forced to wonder how good they all are? In my experience on other VR platforms, there's a lot of trash, and that's kinda the problem. They need to concentrate on quality experiences, not quantity. Given the lack of a large customer base, I don't think Apple will be able to rely on third parties to get this ball rolling for them.
Edit: 23 years on Ars, and this is my 1000th comment, woo
Edit: 23 years on Ars, and this is my 1000th comment, woo
Upvote
77
(78
/
-1)
I think you've just pointed out another misstep, which is Apple marketing this as some sort of mobile device.
I use my VR headset, often, to play games or work out (usually both at the same time). It's awesome, and I love it for that, but I don't think of my VR setup as a mobile thing. I wouldn't buy a Quest 2 with the idea of walking around outside or going to Starbucks with it. These are devices that I use at home for things I do at home.
If they were more like a pair of sunglasses? Sure, I might go somewhere with them, but even then . . . what problem am I solving that I can't already solve with my phone? The only thing I can think of is gaming or productivity, and there are better, cheaper products out there for both of those things.
Productivity: plug AR glasses and a keyboard into your phone or order a Spacetop.
Gaming: same or a Meta Quest
You could buy a Meta Quest AND a Spacetop and still spend $1,100 less than you would on a Vision Pro.
sigh
Upvote
11
(15
/
-4)
I mean it's a cool toy, but without some compelling killer app it's just that, a toy. It's way too expensive to make a must-have purchase the way a phone that was also a camera, a PDA, an MP3 player, a GPS and many other things as well did.
All the way back to VisiCalc on the Apple 2, it wasn't fancy hardware that sold hardware, it was compelling software.
All the way back to VisiCalc on the Apple 2, it wasn't fancy hardware that sold hardware, it was compelling software.
Last edited:
Upvote
24
(26
/
-2)
Was that Apple or some of the more breathless tech press? Everything I saw had it at home/office or, at most, on a plane. I think the big mistake was simply not calling it a dev kit or something else along those lines when it was pretty clear that was how everyone was thinking about it as starting to establish the concepts. I’m betting it’ll be at least fall before we see apps doing anything exciting since this category of interface is inordinately expensive compared to phone apps.
Upvote
6
(9
/
-3)
I think the elephant in the room is how clunky and clumsy such devices are.
Let's say I have to attend a mandatory, but boring and useless TEAMS meeting. At the moment, I can turn on my camera, have a coffee, surf the web while pretending to listen, write messages with my phone etc.
But with such a headset, I can just be bored. I guess even drinking coffee wouldn't be easy. So I'd fight tooths and nails not to be forced to wear that thing, even if my employer would pay for it.
Let's say I have to attend a mandatory, but boring and useless TEAMS meeting. At the moment, I can turn on my camera, have a coffee, surf the web while pretending to listen, write messages with my phone etc.
But with such a headset, I can just be bored. I guess even drinking coffee wouldn't be easy. So I'd fight tooths and nails not to be forced to wear that thing, even if my employer would pay for it.
Upvote
33
(38
/
-5)
I like how the FT went out and found all 6 people this product was made specifically for and they’re all (strangely) extremely positive about the device! Oddly enough, they also have a vested interest in convincing users to buy one.
Doing a journalism is easy when all you have to do is ask rich people what their companies sell.
Doing a journalism is easy when all you have to do is ask rich people what their companies sell.
Upvote
34
(39
/
-5)
That was tech press. Apple has been very outspoken about how this shouldn't be used outside in public. It's in their guidelines.
Upvote
21
(23
/
-2)