Apple is turning developers against Vision Pro before it even arrives(macworld.com)
macworld.com
Apple is turning developers against Vision Pro before it even arrives
https://www.macworld.com/article/2220841/app-store-fees-maliciious-compliance-vision-pro.html
32 comments
I don't think Apple will back down in order to appease developers. Their strategy is pretty clear: make their platform so popular people pay to play by Apple's rules. Apple could charge 50% or 70% on their app store and developers would still line up. The bigger issue in the relationship is when they started building competing apps with the developers. Why would anyone want to help Apple build a platform that they will then use to undercut you? This is also after they already took a huge cut of your revenue.
This strategy works because investors will demand that companies support a popular platform.
I don't know if this will work for Vision Pro because there's still no evidence of mass market appeal for VR or AR technology. Even Facebook's money and marketing muscle hasn't been able to make Meta VR mainstream. Nor is Playstation VR going to get widespread adoption or significant software support until Sony starts bundling it with Playstations which would be very risky by making Xbox dramatically cheaper.
I think companies are making VR devices because they're appealing to their engineering department not because they actually have reason to believe there's consumer demand for such tech. But the popular alternatives to invest in are things like crypto and generative AI that also have open questions about whether the product is actually useful to the mass market.
I don't know if this will work for Vision Pro because there's still no evidence of mass market appeal for VR or AR technology. Even Facebook's money and marketing muscle hasn't been able to make Meta VR mainstream. Nor is Playstation VR going to get widespread adoption or significant software support until Sony starts bundling it with Playstations which would be very risky by making Xbox dramatically cheaper.
I think companies are making VR devices because they're appealing to their engineering department not because they actually have reason to believe there's consumer demand for such tech. But the popular alternatives to invest in are things like crypto and generative AI that also have open questions about whether the product is actually useful to the mass market.
> support a popular platform
Apple's $5k headset is not a popular platform yet, nor will it be as popular as smartphones anytime soon.
Companies want to push their apps to Apple/Google because everyone has a smartphone in their pocket at all times and has their eyes glued to it most of their spare time meaning shopping, product sales and advertising $$$.
Compared to that, even if the headset would be half price, very few people will be as absorbed into it as much as they are into phones, therefore companies are in no rush to port their apps to Apple's headset.
And I'm saying this as someone who has a VR headset and is bullish on VR. It's difficult to beat the convenience and portability of a smartphone with a clunky headset you wouldn't wear on the street.
Maybe when headsets will be as slick and as functional as Iron Man's E.D.I.T.H. glasses they'll be able to fully replace smartphones for eyeball time, but we're very far from that future, as the current iteration is more of a tethered virtual TV/monitor rather than a fully immersive stand alone AR experience device, and silicone and battery technology isn't advancing fast enough anymore to bring Iron Man tech to reality anytime soon, let alone make it affordable.
So I think devs are right in giving the headset the cold shoulder for now until it becomes a mass market product with mass appeal that people wouldn't mind wearing on the street.
Apple's $5k headset is not a popular platform yet, nor will it be as popular as smartphones anytime soon.
Companies want to push their apps to Apple/Google because everyone has a smartphone in their pocket at all times and has their eyes glued to it most of their spare time meaning shopping, product sales and advertising $$$.
Compared to that, even if the headset would be half price, very few people will be as absorbed into it as much as they are into phones, therefore companies are in no rush to port their apps to Apple's headset.
And I'm saying this as someone who has a VR headset and is bullish on VR. It's difficult to beat the convenience and portability of a smartphone with a clunky headset you wouldn't wear on the street.
Maybe when headsets will be as slick and as functional as Iron Man's E.D.I.T.H. glasses they'll be able to fully replace smartphones for eyeball time, but we're very far from that future, as the current iteration is more of a tethered virtual TV/monitor rather than a fully immersive stand alone AR experience device, and silicone and battery technology isn't advancing fast enough anymore to bring Iron Man tech to reality anytime soon, let alone make it affordable.
So I think devs are right in giving the headset the cold shoulder for now until it becomes a mass market product with mass appeal that people wouldn't mind wearing on the street.
You're making good points.
My reflective thoughts are first if you make a solid piece of software Apple should be hiring you to integrate your product into their main software stack.
Secondly, particularly to your last point, I think this encourages short development cycles and continually pushing something new.
Since if you build a good innovative product you run the risk of Apple undercutting it like you said. Unfortunately this means that there's less incentive to maintain and update a software product in exchange for developing and selling something new.
My reflective thoughts are first if you make a solid piece of software Apple should be hiring you to integrate your product into their main software stack.
Secondly, particularly to your last point, I think this encourages short development cycles and continually pushing something new.
Since if you build a good innovative product you run the risk of Apple undercutting it like you said. Unfortunately this means that there's less incentive to maintain and update a software product in exchange for developing and selling something new.
> Why would anyone want to help Apple build a platform that they will then use to undercut you?
Awesome. I will build some apps and make the 30% then. Even if it's short term it's still a lot of money. Thanks.
Awesome. I will build some apps and make the 30% then. Even if it's short term it's still a lot of money. Thanks.
> Their strategy is pretty clear: make their platform so popular people pay to play by Apple's rules.
*by illegally excluding competing platforms
*by illegally excluding competing platforms
Apple was always about not giving a damn about developers and focusing exclusively on pleasing consumers, ever since the Steve Jobs days [1]. Please watch the video, it's gold. Looking at their valuation and market position, seems to have worked for them so far.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeqPrUmVz-o
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeqPrUmVz-o
Well that's their business plan isn't it?
Apple makes a device and sells that.
AND having more consumers means more available people for the developers to sell their product to.
Can't all be like Balmer "DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS" for Microsoft, which traditionally isn't trying to sell hardware but just software for people to run on their hardware.
So having more software on their platform is necessary to sell more of their product (for Microsoft/Windows).
Apple makes a device and sells that.
AND having more consumers means more available people for the developers to sell their product to.
Can't all be like Balmer "DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS" for Microsoft, which traditionally isn't trying to sell hardware but just software for people to run on their hardware.
So having more software on their platform is necessary to sell more of their product (for Microsoft/Windows).
>Can't all be like Balmer "DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS" for Microsoft
Marketing/selling products to developers, or enthusiasts in general, is a loosing strategy. They're a small niche that's too finicky and very difficult to please as every one of them expects different things tailored specifically to their own weird usecase that nobody else has, they have little brand loyalty and a high skillset meaning they're likely to drop you and port their shit to the competition or build their own self hosted alternative the moment you don't please them anymore. Not worth it if you're in the business of making shit tones of money.
Making products to please the Average Joe consumers is way more profitable. That's why most niche enthusiast brands end up either going bust, or making a deal with the devil and selling off to giant mega corps, or just emulating the giant mega corps, while abandoning the enthusiast userbase that made them popular. See OnePlus, Pebble, etc.
Marketing/selling products to developers, or enthusiasts in general, is a loosing strategy. They're a small niche that's too finicky and very difficult to please as every one of them expects different things tailored specifically to their own weird usecase that nobody else has, they have little brand loyalty and a high skillset meaning they're likely to drop you and port their shit to the competition or build their own self hosted alternative the moment you don't please them anymore. Not worth it if you're in the business of making shit tones of money.
Making products to please the Average Joe consumers is way more profitable. That's why most niche enthusiast brands end up either going bust, or making a deal with the devil and selling off to giant mega corps, or just emulating the giant mega corps, while abandoning the enthusiast userbase that made them popular. See OnePlus, Pebble, etc.
I think the AVP will really put this to the test, because especially for device like the AVP, 3rd party support is really going to make it or break it for a lot of people.
If no one wants to buy/use the things that were designed with only the developers in mind, what’s the point?
A lot of money has been spent, and a lot of companies have shut their doors, because they were so caught up in the cool tech that they never stopped to question if it was something people would actually want… and it turned out the answer was no did.
Every company should be starting with the customer in mind. Making things good for the developers, is also something that should be done with the customer in mind. Happy developers mean a richer ecosystem of apps, which makes the devices more useful, which is good for the customer.
A lot of money has been spent, and a lot of companies have shut their doors, because they were so caught up in the cool tech that they never stopped to question if it was something people would actually want… and it turned out the answer was no did.
Every company should be starting with the customer in mind. Making things good for the developers, is also something that should be done with the customer in mind. Happy developers mean a richer ecosystem of apps, which makes the devices more useful, which is good for the customer.
kudos to them. it worked so well that they became a monopoly. Now it is time to be regulated.
There's a large disconnect between this article's title and content. Nothing within describes anything specific about the Vision Pro that "turns developers away" apart from selling way less units than other Apple product lines, as expected. I don't see this point as newsworthy.
The real content is the mention of two other headlines from earlier this week or last:
- Apple's wacky EU App Store compliance - The various big-name apps that won't be on the Vision Pro
The real content is the mention of two other headlines from earlier this week or last:
- Apple's wacky EU App Store compliance - The various big-name apps that won't be on the Vision Pro
You're misreading the title. It's not saying that `Vision Pro "turns developers away"`. It's saying that Apple is antagonizing developers in general, and that has an outsized impact on Vision Pro vs. their other platforms.
You're right, thanks for clarifying. I misread it as having some causation.
The checkbox for having iPad apps to work on the Vision Pro is really just a courtesy.
Apple could just as well decide that all iPad apps are available on the Vision Pro.
You could even imagine that Apple start requiring iOS app developers with more than X million users to also provide a Vision Pro optimized version of the app. To provide a better user experience, of course.
Apple does not lack imagination on ways to leverage their ecosystem, I'm not worried about them one bit.
You could even imagine that Apple start requiring iOS app developers with more than X million users to also provide a Vision Pro optimized version of the app. To provide a better user experience, of course.
Apple does not lack imagination on ways to leverage their ecosystem, I'm not worried about them one bit.
Related:
The disastrous communication from Apple to apps developers
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39193423
The disastrous communication from Apple to apps developers
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39193423
The article headline is inaccurate. It’s about the EU ruling and nothing specific to Vision Pro itself.
I think the point is this new product is coming out that requires dev support, but they are at the same time pushing devs away with the new EU app store rules. So this is going to work against the Vision Pro being successful.
The Vision Pro desperately needs app support to succeed. As it stands, I'm forecasting that most people will try it out for a day or two and then put it away or sell since it really can't do much at the moment. App support is extremely limited on launch day, with even the major developers like Netflix choosing to sit this round out. The steep price point of $3499 does not help indie developer exposure and the creation of specific Vision Pro apps either.
Apple really needs to justify this spending to the end user by having more convincing use cases than watching movies in it.
If I was Apple, I would offer extreme incentives for developers with a proven track record on the App Store, going even as far as offering free headsets for those who have over a specific amount of sales on App Store or apps with over certain DAU and good reviews. At the end of the day, Apple makes at least a 15% commission from sales and even if they were to give out free Vision Pro headsets, they will break even as soon as an app has sales over $23k which is not much at all.
Apple really needs to justify this spending to the end user by having more convincing use cases than watching movies in it.
If I was Apple, I would offer extreme incentives for developers with a proven track record on the App Store, going even as far as offering free headsets for those who have over a specific amount of sales on App Store or apps with over certain DAU and good reviews. At the end of the day, Apple makes at least a 15% commission from sales and even if they were to give out free Vision Pro headsets, they will break even as soon as an app has sales over $23k which is not much at all.
"Apple first, users second, developers last."
Thus is the Apple way.
Thus is the Apple way.
“Apple first” is really “shareholders first”. If apple has a choice between making the shareholders more money or making the customer happy, they will pick the shareholder almost every time.
Pleasing shareholders vs pleasing customers isn't a zero sum game, though.
Apple could probably make shareholders very happy and customers very unhappy, but they can only get away with that for a quarter or so. Their success has been in getting shareholders to be patient while they focus on the customer, and eventually the happy customers pay off for the shareholders.
Apple could probably make shareholders very happy and customers very unhappy, but they can only get away with that for a quarter or so. Their success has been in getting shareholders to be patient while they focus on the customer, and eventually the happy customers pay off for the shareholders.
Semi-related on the developer hatred, AFAIK developers still cannot create custom Apple Watch faces or even complications that are clickable\have animations.
[deleted]
Clickbait trash
Thought it was Europe that was making Apple do this forcing them to open to security issues. Apple is just saying ok hey if you want to do this, we are not gonna make it easy.