Netflix CEO says Apple Vision Pro market is too insignificant to bother with(appleinsider.com)
appleinsider.com
Netflix CEO says Apple Vision Pro market is too insignificant to bother with
https://appleinsider.com/articles/24/01/25/netflix-ceo-says-apple-vision-pro-market-is-too-insignificant-to-bother-with
86 comments
I don’t know for how many people this is true, but if a streaming service requires a browser for playback, it’s not a consideration for me. I won’t even watch Netflix on my laptop via a browser.
What the content owners think is pretty important and might be the "missing link" here, though of course Netflix owns a lot of its own content.
So, one of the first companies to develop an app for the iphone went out of their way to disable the iPad app from working on the Vision Pro. Seems Netflix isn't hungry anymore, they've lost that edge, they're turning into an old fashioned business. To deliberately skip out on the most interesting hardware release of the year because their palms weren't greased enough... this is a mistake, even if it looks like a good decision from a purely metrics standpoint.
I'd taken the "too insignificant" as more of a threat than an observation.
I don't think anybody is expecting the Vision Pro to be anything other than niche - but it's very expensive pointy tip of what Apple hopes will be a brand new market for them. This thing is called "Pro", solely to indicate there's going to be a cheaper, mass-market version coming next.
Apple have been exceptionally good at making money recently - but less so at being innovative (aside from maybe unifying CPUs). Apple's not afraid of losing money on Vision Pro. They're afraid of losing face in the market. They need this to succeed. They've patiently waited on the sidelines for a decade of VR - now they've leapt into the ring, they not only need to beat the incumbents, they need to build a larger ring and win in that as well.
To succeed they need the hardware (which they seem to have) - but also they need content to access once it's on your head. No content, no mass-market. Apple needs Netflix to be inside their magic-goggles way more than Netflix needs to be there. Nobody's cancelling their Netflix account as their new goggles don't support it. Many people might not buy the goggles if they can only watch AppleTV.
So why might Netflix not want to roll another client? Well I suspect as AppleTV is a direct competitor and Apple has delighted in sitting between users and their subscription providers, skimming off their %.
Apple would love to have a Keynote with Disney, Youtube, Amazon, Netflix and the rest on stage. All the big boys pledging fealty to Apple and undying support for their new shiny - but wtf is in it for them? In their shoes I'd only get inside the goggles after I'd got a very long and generous list of commitments for the future met - so if the goggles take off, I share in the rewards. I'd also ensure my non-attendance was widely noted and commented upon to provide some pressure. What's the worst that can happen? I get to sit back and watch Apple absolutely haemorrhage money producing expensive content that shows the value of the headset, but can only bring in money from the relatively small number of people with it. It's not even as if Apple can punish you for not showing support. Any time you decide you do want to create a Vision Pro client, you just announce it's ready - and Apple would have a hard time explaining why it couldn't be released.
Apple have been exceptionally good at making money recently - but less so at being innovative (aside from maybe unifying CPUs). Apple's not afraid of losing money on Vision Pro. They're afraid of losing face in the market. They need this to succeed. They've patiently waited on the sidelines for a decade of VR - now they've leapt into the ring, they not only need to beat the incumbents, they need to build a larger ring and win in that as well.
To succeed they need the hardware (which they seem to have) - but also they need content to access once it's on your head. No content, no mass-market. Apple needs Netflix to be inside their magic-goggles way more than Netflix needs to be there. Nobody's cancelling their Netflix account as their new goggles don't support it. Many people might not buy the goggles if they can only watch AppleTV.
So why might Netflix not want to roll another client? Well I suspect as AppleTV is a direct competitor and Apple has delighted in sitting between users and their subscription providers, skimming off their %.
Apple would love to have a Keynote with Disney, Youtube, Amazon, Netflix and the rest on stage. All the big boys pledging fealty to Apple and undying support for their new shiny - but wtf is in it for them? In their shoes I'd only get inside the goggles after I'd got a very long and generous list of commitments for the future met - so if the goggles take off, I share in the rewards. I'd also ensure my non-attendance was widely noted and commented upon to provide some pressure. What's the worst that can happen? I get to sit back and watch Apple absolutely haemorrhage money producing expensive content that shows the value of the headset, but can only bring in money from the relatively small number of people with it. It's not even as if Apple can punish you for not showing support. Any time you decide you do want to create a Vision Pro client, you just announce it's ready - and Apple would have a hard time explaining why it couldn't be released.
I'd note that there is Netflix for Meta Quest but it gets 2.5 stars
https://www.meta.com/experiences/2184912004923042/
I haven't tried that one but I have tried Peacock and some others my reaction is "meh". Not so much that it a bad idea because it's not, but because as Karl Guttag has pointed out, apps like that seem to have had no thought into the user interface to control the location of the "screen". I find it baffling because it doesn't seem to be a hard problem.
In my case I have 2 TVs and I'm still most likely to watch TV on my tablet half because my XBOX sucks (doesn't like the coding tools used in many video files I have) and half because I like to get full-on cozy and lay on my side on the couch or the bed and hold the tablet size. If I could lock the screen to my head and do the same w/ VR that would be a reason to use VR.
The one thing that would get me to watch movies in VR is stereoscopy, if this list of 3D titles on Netflix is current
https://www.whats-on-netflix.com/library/3d-titles-on-netfli...
the pick is pretty dismal.
https://www.meta.com/experiences/2184912004923042/
I haven't tried that one but I have tried Peacock and some others my reaction is "meh". Not so much that it a bad idea because it's not, but because as Karl Guttag has pointed out, apps like that seem to have had no thought into the user interface to control the location of the "screen". I find it baffling because it doesn't seem to be a hard problem.
In my case I have 2 TVs and I'm still most likely to watch TV on my tablet half because my XBOX sucks (doesn't like the coding tools used in many video files I have) and half because I like to get full-on cozy and lay on my side on the couch or the bed and hold the tablet size. If I could lock the screen to my head and do the same w/ VR that would be a reason to use VR.
The one thing that would get me to watch movies in VR is stereoscopy, if this list of 3D titles on Netflix is current
https://www.whats-on-netflix.com/library/3d-titles-on-netfli...
the pick is pretty dismal.
I honestly want to see interviews of people who will use their Apple Vision Pro almost every day for a few months with 1hr+ sessions / day.
Like usage of MacBook/iPhone/iPad/ear pods/watch.
Will it be an everyday thing or a very expensive toy for the rich that will sit on their shelves after 6 months.
A lot of people have $4k to blow on a new Apple Toy so I’m guessing they’ll probably get a billion or two in revenue.
Apple could release a shiny piece of aluminum with nothing else and people would shit $1000 on it.
But every flop tarnishes the brand slightly.
Like usage of MacBook/iPhone/iPad/ear pods/watch.
Will it be an everyday thing or a very expensive toy for the rich that will sit on their shelves after 6 months.
A lot of people have $4k to blow on a new Apple Toy so I’m guessing they’ll probably get a billion or two in revenue.
Apple could release a shiny piece of aluminum with nothing else and people would shit $1000 on it.
But every flop tarnishes the brand slightly.
at 3500 for this damn thing with its horrendous fashion look which is odd became apple is the company that has been essentially turning Tech into a fashion statement for a long time and infected the marketplace with Designer thinking rather than developer thinking and enshrined the idea that end consumers want our devices to look beautiful rather than to be fucking functional. this is hardly surprising.
I have no use for a MacBook, or an iPhone anymore, Only want to hack my way into iMessage because of it's dating implications.
Its tech is functionally useless for me. For the primary reason that I'm not really all that keen on being a content creator for VIDEO platforms. I might OCCASIONALLY broadcast, but I'm not looking at it as a job or career prospect and because of that Final Cut pro has essentially no use or function for me. Anything mac does in the multimedia space is useless to me or has better replacements on Windows, and Windows is binary compatible with a whole range of software That Apple is not and likely never will be.
I mean this company might like port one triple A game a year, but that's assuming I even want to play the Triple A games, I'm hot a "mainstream gamer" I am a role-playing game enthusiast who prefers turn based games like Octopath Traveller 2 and might watch an anime virtual novel every so often.
I do run a Gentoo Linux box in the other room for you, fellow hackers. I'm definitely interested in upskilling towards pentesting and such.
And I love the Gentoo Linux Design philosophy. but I administer multiple boxes to be able to maintain binary compatibility with BOTH Linux AND windows.
So if I wanted to sacrifice all that binary compatibility because Microsofts software or hardware sucked like, ARM has much better battery life, or because Fuck windows amiright? I'd just go over to Linux. To me there's only really one operating system that is compettiive with Windows and it isn't MAcOS, it's Gnu/Linux.
I have no use for a MacBook, or an iPhone anymore, Only want to hack my way into iMessage because of it's dating implications.
Its tech is functionally useless for me. For the primary reason that I'm not really all that keen on being a content creator for VIDEO platforms. I might OCCASIONALLY broadcast, but I'm not looking at it as a job or career prospect and because of that Final Cut pro has essentially no use or function for me. Anything mac does in the multimedia space is useless to me or has better replacements on Windows, and Windows is binary compatible with a whole range of software That Apple is not and likely never will be.
I mean this company might like port one triple A game a year, but that's assuming I even want to play the Triple A games, I'm hot a "mainstream gamer" I am a role-playing game enthusiast who prefers turn based games like Octopath Traveller 2 and might watch an anime virtual novel every so often.
I do run a Gentoo Linux box in the other room for you, fellow hackers. I'm definitely interested in upskilling towards pentesting and such.
And I love the Gentoo Linux Design philosophy. but I administer multiple boxes to be able to maintain binary compatibility with BOTH Linux AND windows.
So if I wanted to sacrifice all that binary compatibility because Microsofts software or hardware sucked like, ARM has much better battery life, or because Fuck windows amiright? I'd just go over to Linux. To me there's only really one operating system that is compettiive with Windows and it isn't MAcOS, it's Gnu/Linux.
And he's right.
As Fatboy Slim would put it "We're number one, why try harder?"
Netflix is at the point where adding customers and wowing people with the latest shiny is secondary to controlling costs and being profitable. Contrast that to some newcomer who is desperate to do anything that will get free publicity and attention. On top of that, Apple is their rival anyway.
Netflix is at the point where adding customers and wowing people with the latest shiny is secondary to controlling costs and being profitable. Contrast that to some newcomer who is desperate to do anything that will get free publicity and attention. On top of that, Apple is their rival anyway.
I have a hard time believing that there are many people in this world who can afford to spend $3,500 on an Apple Vision Pro, care to have a Netflix account, and don't already have one.
Certainly not enough to be able to reasonably expect to generate positive ROI on the price of developing and maintaining an app for it.
Certainly not enough to be able to reasonably expect to generate positive ROI on the price of developing and maintaining an app for it.
I am willing to buy someone who can afford a 3.5k apple vision pro re-subscribing after letting their netflix subscription lapse if it means watching Stranger Things in like IMAX quality or something
… both Meta and Apple are pushing pano and half pano videos which can be the next best thing to being there. It would be a big investment for Netflix to add a new content type like that.
I recently got into the habit of sitting in the front row at college basketball games so I was really excited to try the court side pano video from NBA games on Xtadium which unfortunately doesn’t quite work on 20 Mbps DSL.
I recently got into the habit of sitting in the front row at college basketball games so I was really excited to try the court side pano video from NBA games on Xtadium which unfortunately doesn’t quite work on 20 Mbps DSL.
I'm outside the Venn Diagram overlap on this one, but I preordered an AVP and do not have an active Netflix account. I subscribe to watch Stranger Things whenever there's a new season and then unsub until the next one. But I just don't watch a lot of tv or movies in general, so Netflix is right on not pursuing me.
That's another great point, though. Early adopters are a fickle market, precisely because they're early adopters - being more wont to try new things also means more wont to move on if something more interesting comes along.
That's a great tradeoff when you're first trying to build a market for a new innovation. But I doubt Netflix even particularly wants that kind of customer anymore - at least not enough to actively chase after them. They want stable, reliable ARR, and for an incumbent like them that means slower-moving consumers who will subscribe and then just keep their subscription and watch whatever happens to be on Netflix simply because it's on Netflix and they already have Netflix and inertia.
That's a great tradeoff when you're first trying to build a market for a new innovation. But I doubt Netflix even particularly wants that kind of customer anymore - at least not enough to actively chase after them. They want stable, reliable ARR, and for an incumbent like them that means slower-moving consumers who will subscribe and then just keep their subscription and watch whatever happens to be on Netflix simply because it's on Netflix and they already have Netflix and inertia.
> Netflix is at the point where adding customers and wowing people with the latest shiny is secondary to controlling costs and being profitable
Netflix won the streaming war [1]. Their competitors need to control costs to become profitable. They don't [2].
[1] https://www.reuters.com/technology/netflix-soars-earnings-hi...
[2] https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/NFLX/netflix/profi...
Netflix won the streaming war [1]. Their competitors need to control costs to become profitable. They don't [2].
[1] https://www.reuters.com/technology/netflix-soars-earnings-hi...
[2] https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/NFLX/netflix/profi...
The streaming war isn't over yet.
Netflix had a hilariously dominant market position, with a subscription to them being basically a no-brainer. As media companies have developed their own streaming platforms, Netflix has been losing quite a lot of content. Previously a Netflix subscription would give the user access to pretty much anything they wanted to watch, now Netflix only provides a small fraction. Sure, Netflix might still be the largest streaming platform, but that's not saying much anymore.
The real war is going to be retaining their user base over the coming years, as more and more people realize that getting access to the content they want means paying >$100 / month for half a dozen different streaming services. People ditched cable television for streaming because cable provided shitty content at high prices. Now streaming is rapidly becoming the same.
Netflix had a hilariously dominant market position, with a subscription to them being basically a no-brainer. As media companies have developed their own streaming platforms, Netflix has been losing quite a lot of content. Previously a Netflix subscription would give the user access to pretty much anything they wanted to watch, now Netflix only provides a small fraction. Sure, Netflix might still be the largest streaming platform, but that's not saying much anymore.
The real war is going to be retaining their user base over the coming years, as more and more people realize that getting access to the content they want means paying >$100 / month for half a dozen different streaming services. People ditched cable television for streaming because cable provided shitty content at high prices. Now streaming is rapidly becoming the same.
> The streaming war isn't over yet
Competition will never be over. But the chapter that began with ZIRP and ended with Covid has concluded. Netflix won that.
> real war is going to be retaining their user base over the coming years
What characterised the "war" was the massive infusion of capital into a set of competitors who could not collectively survive without a massive burst in consumer spending on content. That burst did initially start to happen. But then it stalled. Consolidation ensued, with those who couldn't make money being shaken out. Those who are profitable, now, are on the winning side. Among them, Netflix is king.
Now they may not hold the users they conquered. But that doesn’t make the win nonexistent. It may just be a Pyrrhic victory.
Competition will never be over. But the chapter that began with ZIRP and ended with Covid has concluded. Netflix won that.
> real war is going to be retaining their user base over the coming years
What characterised the "war" was the massive infusion of capital into a set of competitors who could not collectively survive without a massive burst in consumer spending on content. That burst did initially start to happen. But then it stalled. Consolidation ensued, with those who couldn't make money being shaken out. Those who are profitable, now, are on the winning side. Among them, Netflix is king.
Now they may not hold the users they conquered. But that doesn’t make the win nonexistent. It may just be a Pyrrhic victory.
Agreed. I think the other commenter saying Netflix won the war is not talking to any normal folk. Netflix feels a lot like Facebook does. Sure, it was amazing in the beginning. But now we mostly have it because we had it before. I'm always surprised when people can't seem to acknowledge that consumer perception matters more than the actual business of it all. Consumers feel that Netflix is not a great deal anymore.
Netflix “won” by forcing its competitors to follow them in business model which in turn blew up the cable TV which they found profitable and comfortable.
You and I have different definitions on won, then. I define won here as retaining customers and money. Everyone I know is ditching their subscription due to low quality, forgettable content. Netflix lost in that it was demoted from King of Streaming to being comparable to HBO Max, aka a content collection, not a library.
> retaining customers and money
They have the most customers and are making the most money! The Allies won WWII, that didn’t mean they were henceforth infallible.
They have the most customers and are making the most money! The Allies won WWII, that didn’t mean they were henceforth infallible.
> the firm has won the streaming wars with a strong content slate.
Sorry what? Are they watching the same Netflix?
Sorry what? Are they watching the same Netflix?
> Are they watching the same Netflix?
Apparently, based on the viewership numbers.
I don’t watch much TV. Much less Netflix. But I also don’t watch cable news nor live sports; that doesn’t mean they aren’t supremely popular.
Apparently, based on the viewership numbers.
I don’t watch much TV. Much less Netflix. But I also don’t watch cable news nor live sports; that doesn’t mean they aren’t supremely popular.
[deleted]
Isn't adding customers a way of getting profit?
Not if you spent more money developing for the new platform than you got from the new customers it gained.
... and if AVP is a big hit they can do something about it then.
Because not checking a box costs a ton of money...
This is 100% a spite move. They could have let their iPad app run on the Vision Pro but instead disabled it.
This is 100% a spite move. They could have let their iPad app run on the Vision Pro but instead disabled it.
Don't get me wrong, I'm definitely disappointed that Netflix went out of their way to disable backwards compatibility for their iOS app. They think they won't get an ROI. I hope they'll realize their mistake soon.
this seems like a good time to shit on apple, so a lot of companies are going to go along with this wave
Netflix has been at low-level odds with Apple for a while so this comes as little surprise. They also don't exactly leap to support new or even established peripherals (for example, Nintendo Switch).
They are at odds with everyone and act like they are porting a heavy adobe product when its basically just a clunky dime a dozen media center app since the back end databases will always be the same. It amazes me how it can make a powerful gaming console on a gigabit line behave like a computer running windows xp. Long load times and a ton of input lag. Just give me a web wrapper at this point and be done with it if there won’t be any effort applied to optimization anyhow. This is what happens when you have an effective monopoly for netflix service: quality of the software sinks to the bottom compared if there were third parties allowed to eat their unwatched lunch replacing the netflix app with something actually usefull that can also do the trivial task of querying a database through an api layer.
I feel the same way everytime I close the netflix app because there isn't anything significant worth watching.
Mark Gurman: "Netflix has built apps for the Nvidia Shield and the Facebook Portal." https://twitter.com/markgurman/status/1750764937125962095
Nvidia Shield is Android TV. Netflix doesn't build for the Nvidia Shield in the same way that they don't build for every TV model from every manufacturer. They have an SDK that the manufacturers integrate.
It also can install apk packages directly without a store, so there is no barrier to platform adoption
Maybe he had learned a lesson
They also have a quest app but it is awful and clearly abandoned.
Yeah, people pointing at the Quest app are misguided. If anything it is proof that Netflix should NOT release an app, since they aren't even willing to handle ones already out.
Are we assuming they developed those for free?
isn't that just a differently branded glorified TV and a tablet? That probably took changing ten lines of code or something. Building an app for a VR headset I'd guess is more involved
[deleted]
zuck already sank billions of dollars into the VR market without seeing much return. Unless Apple can vastly outdo quest in terms of adoption and functionality this will be a continued money sink.
It's a long play, the quest 3 is great.. that golf game is awesome.
And Asgard's Wrath 2, Angry Birds VR, The 7th Guest, etc.
VR titles on MQ3 are great. The MQ3 comes with an awesome MR demo that you might miss because it has a stupid name. They opened up the API for MR apps to developers not long after the MQ3 hit the streets but MR apps have been slow to show up in the store, I did preorder Demeter which the headset should have downloaded yesterday so I should check it out.
Big picture the MQ3 is based on Android the same way the AVP is based on iOS but unlike the AVP you can sideload apps to the MQ3. There is not really a "metaverse" but rather an app store that works a lot like a phone or game console. Horizon Worlds shows some of the difficulties w/ the "metaverse" concept, namely there is just so much geometry and texture data you can hold in a headset so you are limited to at most 20 players, at the cost of having a simpler world than the 8 player, and you can't use your own textures -- brand Z can't use their logo and I can't make worlds based on photography and visual art like I want to) Asgard's Wrath 2 is amazing as a single-player game but a game like that today on consoles would feel the need to have multiplayer features but AW2 only has a leaderboard and the occasional meaningless corpse. Given Facebook's market position you'd think they'd be working on multiplayer but multiplayer experiences are thin on the ground right now.
MQ and AVP and Magic Leap and Hololens 2 all support WebXR and I found it really stunning to share a space with a boulder from Mars that a grad student built a 3-d model based on images from the Pathfinder rover and the great thing is you can make worlds like that with
https://aframe.io/
that work on headsets and work on desktop computers, phones, etc.
VR titles on MQ3 are great. The MQ3 comes with an awesome MR demo that you might miss because it has a stupid name. They opened up the API for MR apps to developers not long after the MQ3 hit the streets but MR apps have been slow to show up in the store, I did preorder Demeter which the headset should have downloaded yesterday so I should check it out.
Big picture the MQ3 is based on Android the same way the AVP is based on iOS but unlike the AVP you can sideload apps to the MQ3. There is not really a "metaverse" but rather an app store that works a lot like a phone or game console. Horizon Worlds shows some of the difficulties w/ the "metaverse" concept, namely there is just so much geometry and texture data you can hold in a headset so you are limited to at most 20 players, at the cost of having a simpler world than the 8 player, and you can't use your own textures -- brand Z can't use their logo and I can't make worlds based on photography and visual art like I want to) Asgard's Wrath 2 is amazing as a single-player game but a game like that today on consoles would feel the need to have multiplayer features but AW2 only has a leaderboard and the occasional meaningless corpse. Given Facebook's market position you'd think they'd be working on multiplayer but multiplayer experiences are thin on the ground right now.
MQ and AVP and Magic Leap and Hololens 2 all support WebXR and I found it really stunning to share a space with a boulder from Mars that a grad student built a 3-d model based on images from the Pathfinder rover and the great thing is you can make worlds like that with
https://aframe.io/
that work on headsets and work on desktop computers, phones, etc.
I think this will be a mistake.
The displays in this device are crazy. I honestly didn't think they'd be able to put together a value proposition, but I think they legitimately did. It's super expensive, and some of the cost of the device seems kind of silly (if I heard correctly, the display on the front is 3d and gives different perspectives based upon the viewers), so obviously they're going to have a lot of room to improve value in subsequent generations.
But it's going to be a hit. HN is going to be swamped with "How I used Vision Pro to..." posts when it comes out.
The displays in this device are crazy. I honestly didn't think they'd be able to put together a value proposition, but I think they legitimately did. It's super expensive, and some of the cost of the device seems kind of silly (if I heard correctly, the display on the front is 3d and gives different perspectives based upon the viewers), so obviously they're going to have a lot of room to improve value in subsequent generations.
But it's going to be a hit. HN is going to be swamped with "How I used Vision Pro to..." posts when it comes out.
The Vision Pro is a $3500 device. That price point is high enough that very few people will be able to afford it, especially because it doesn't really seem to be a game-changing device.
Anyone with the funds to spend $3500 on what is essentially a toy will almost certainly already have a $10.000 television way more suitable for watching Netflix on. Why spend the engineering effort making an app only a handful of people will ever use?
Anyone with the funds to spend $3500 on what is essentially a toy will almost certainly already have a $10.000 television way more suitable for watching Netflix on. Why spend the engineering effort making an app only a handful of people will ever use?
I am reluctant to agree with Netflix given how they still don't support the Apple TV app for discovery out of some need to control the user experience.
But he isn't wrong, but that shouldn't be news and isn't a bad thing. It's been clear that this was going to be the situation from the beginning and Apple is playing the long game here.
This is just clickbait headlines being spread around.
This was never going to be a mass market device at this price and that is fine, I mean we don't complain that there isn't a Netflix app for Mac?
But he isn't wrong, but that shouldn't be news and isn't a bad thing. It's been clear that this was going to be the situation from the beginning and Apple is playing the long game here.
This is just clickbait headlines being spread around.
This was never going to be a mass market device at this price and that is fine, I mean we don't complain that there isn't a Netflix app for Mac?
> given how they still don't support the Apple TV app
The people buying Apple Vision Pro are developers and the rich. Neither is particularly relevant to Netflix–they don't have a platform nor premium product. They're also not ad driven, so a competitor slicing their highest-earning customers away isn't an existential problem.
The people buying Apple Vision Pro are developers and the rich. Neither is particularly relevant to Netflix–they don't have a platform nor premium product. They're also not ad driven, so a competitor slicing their highest-earning customers away isn't an existential problem.
This is a strange take given that the headset supports iPad apps (like the Netflix iPad app) by default, no “bothering with it” necessary.
Netflix specifically opt out of Vision Pro. Their iPad app won’t be available:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-01-18/youtube-a...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-01-18/youtube-a...
iPads run iPhone apps by default, but it's terrible. How does Vision Pro running iPad apps compare?
On another hand, ARM Macs can run some iOS/iPad apps, and plenty of them work great and with zero issues. Not all, ofc, but many do. I think it’s because of zero expectations of them having to fill the entirety of your screen, so you just have it running in a window on your desktop, and it is quite good.
I would assume the situation with Vision Pro would be closer to Macs running iPhone/iPad apps, as opposed to iPads running iPhone apps. Mostly because of a similar “desktop with windows” feel I get from visionOS videos I’ve seen, as opposed to the “smartphone experience” feel i get on both iPadOS and iOS. Until I get my own hands on a VisionPro unit next week, this is just pure speculation though.
I would assume the situation with Vision Pro would be closer to Macs running iPhone/iPad apps, as opposed to iPads running iPhone apps. Mostly because of a similar “desktop with windows” feel I get from visionOS videos I’ve seen, as opposed to the “smartphone experience” feel i get on both iPadOS and iOS. Until I get my own hands on a VisionPro unit next week, this is just pure speculation though.
John Gruber says they work great. I guess we will see.
I believe it’s up to developers whether iPad apps work on Vision, and Netflix isn’t even doing that.
Realistically how many extra subs would they sell for this device? People who can afford it are already very likely subscribed. And do not stop because it doesn't have support. So what would be the point?
The halo effect of supporting their most influential customers, the relatively free marketing, for basically no extra marginal cost.
Likewise being petty like this might not make someone cancel their subscription, but it's the kind of petty move that might make some people work harder on Vision Pro streaming alternatives.
Likewise being petty like this might not make someone cancel their subscription, but it's the kind of petty move that might make some people work harder on Vision Pro streaming alternatives.
Netflix subscriber count: 260m worldwide
Vision Pro Orders: Thought to be around 180k
Seems like netflix is making the right move. Why invest until that userbase is in 8 figures or until their web access telemetry shows a substantial use of their site from Vision users.
Vision Pro Orders: Thought to be around 180k
Seems like netflix is making the right move. Why invest until that userbase is in 8 figures or until their web access telemetry shows a substantial use of their site from Vision users.
It's a check box in the project target for their iPad app. It's not like preliminary support is some huge investment. But I guess anything that takes away from Netflix's core business of canceling shows and raising subscription prices isn't worth the investment.
1. investment cycles in things like this are multiple years, even if on someone else's platform.
2. Apple is a competitor to Netflix for the next decade of sports rights for things like the NBA, streaming deals, etc. Fan and movie viewer experience will matter.
3. AR/MR/VR is a green field right now and a lot of the best experiences in it from emerge from tinkering around, even if the current scale is zero. The next decade of streaming will not be determined by the same things as the last decade. Netflix was a leader to developing a digital-native approach to entertainment but that's just not going to be enough.
2. Apple is a competitor to Netflix for the next decade of sports rights for things like the NBA, streaming deals, etc. Fan and movie viewer experience will matter.
3. AR/MR/VR is a green field right now and a lot of the best experiences in it from emerge from tinkering around, even if the current scale is zero. The next decade of streaming will not be determined by the same things as the last decade. Netflix was a leader to developing a digital-native approach to entertainment but that's just not going to be enough.
Plus Netflix will still be accessible for the 180K via Safari on the Vision Pro. Apple has shown onboard Safari being used like this and a streaming tab "placed" into the virtual environment.
If that’s all they are thinking about then that’s pretty shortsighted. Understanding new technology and investing r&d dollars into developing better cinematic experiences for their customers will yield results in the long run. What they are saying is just bluffery, at least it should be.
Yeah sure this is the reason, also the iOS market is too insignificant to bother with apparently making a native app. Having it work for that minor platform called ios does make it a bit easier to work on that tiny platform called Vision Pro.
Also totally get other reasons why you may not want to develop on ios, but just state them. Dont play games.
I don't think this was the whole calculus. I think they wanted Apple to grease their palms a bit more and Apple declined.
Yeah, probably something like “we'll make the shiniest Vision Pro app on launch day if you knock a few percentage points off the in-app purchases/subscription fee across our apps”.
[deleted]
While you can't argue with that statement at face value, it's also true that in the past these same companies would be fighting each other and bending to Apple's will for a chance to get on stage during the keynote for any new iDevice launch and brag about how much they support Apple. Heck being featured in a couple Apple ads would by itself justify the development costs of converting your iOS app to work with Vision Pro even if it had zero users.
The fact that this usual circus is absent now (that too for possibly their biggest and splashiest new launch in years) kinda shows just how much their relationship with big developers has soured in recent years.
The fact that this usual circus is absent now (that too for possibly their biggest and splashiest new launch in years) kinda shows just how much their relationship with big developers has soured in recent years.
No, it just shows that the Apple headset is a niche product.
You could only get on that stage a few updates into the iOS age. It didn’t release with an app store and when they finally provided one they already sold millions of devices.
Netflix isn’t even on most smart projectors. Doesn’t surprise me at all.
They aren't on CHEAP Smart Projectors. Most of which aren't even Google certified and lack the Play Store.
But cheap or expensive, they all suck compared to any dedicated streaming box.
But cheap or expensive, they all suck compared to any dedicated streaming box.
They are also not on expensive smart projectors. They are on some projectors but it's unclear on which ones. There are very few projectors with Netflix and it's not clear what the certification requirements are. Even the most expensive XGIMI does not have Netflix, yet a simple cheap BenQ does (and presumably because it just embeds an HDMI stick).
It is very clear how you get Netflix certified ("Netflix Partner Program"), manufacturers just want to save money in one way or another.
First off you need to be Google certified. Next you need to have high enough spec hardware to run Netflix smoothly (min CPU/RAM/at a min resolution with specific codecs). You also need to have DRM support (which, you guessed it, required certification).
There is a direct cost in certifying (e.g. mandatory 3rd party testing) but also a much bigger cost in the "smart" part of the projector being powerful enough to deliver a GOOD Netflix experience.
You're acting like manufacturers are confused, they aren't at all, they're making a cost/benefit decision on putting in cheaper hardware in exchange for no Netflix. My advice is to stop buying "smart" projectors at all, because the "smart" part is commonly cheap and bad.
First off you need to be Google certified. Next you need to have high enough spec hardware to run Netflix smoothly (min CPU/RAM/at a min resolution with specific codecs). You also need to have DRM support (which, you guessed it, required certification).
There is a direct cost in certifying (e.g. mandatory 3rd party testing) but also a much bigger cost in the "smart" part of the projector being powerful enough to deliver a GOOD Netflix experience.
You're acting like manufacturers are confused, they aren't at all, they're making a cost/benefit decision on putting in cheaper hardware in exchange for no Netflix. My advice is to stop buying "smart" projectors at all, because the "smart" part is commonly cheap and bad.
I have no idea how to get Netflix certified and quite frankly as a customer I do not care. It’s a fact that the most appealing smart projectors support any app besides Netflix. You can watch Apple TV, Disney+, Amazon Prime etc. but Netflix is the one platform that blocks non approved devices.
Netflix does not even maintain a list of approved projectors.
From where I stand: Netflix has an issue with projectors. Why I cannot tell.
Netflix does not even maintain a list of approved projectors.
From where I stand: Netflix has an issue with projectors. Why I cannot tell.
(I don't have any specific insight to the Apple + Netflix discussion, but I used to work on video playback at Daydream and Oculus so I had similar discussions about engineering tradeoff for a native app vs web streaming in the past.)