Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Apple Technology

Netflix Co-CEO Calls Vision Pro 'Subscale' and Wonders If Anybody Would Actually Use It (gizmodo.com) 135

Netflix is on everything. It's on your phone, computer, and game console, going all the way back to the Nintendo Wii. Hell, you can get your Netflix fix on a Peloton. One place where Netflix won't be is Apple's upcoming Vision Pro VR headset. Why isn't Netflix planning an app for what is Apple's big $3,500 gamble on the future of augmented reality? According to co-CEO Greg Peters, it's because the company doesn't know if anybody's actually going to use it. Gizmodo: More specifically, he called the device "subscale," adding that he didn't know if it would be "relevant to most of our members." That was in an interview with business analyst Ben Thompson, where Peters implied his company is being far more selective, at least when it comes to Apple's $3,500 "spatial computer."

"We have to be careful about making sure that we're not investing in places that are not really yielding a return, and I would say we'll see where things go with Vision Pro," the Netflix co-CEO said. The interview dropped barely a day after Peters got done extolling how the company gained more than 13 million new subscribers in the last three months of 2023 while also mentioning potentially increasing subscription prices. Other common apps like Spotify and YouTube also don't plan to have a Vision Pro-specific app at launch, instead directing people to log on through their Safari browser. Peters added that they still want to work with Apple, and "sometimes we find a great space of overlap. We can move very, very quickly. Sometimes it takes a little bit longer."
The investment Netflix is talking about is not unchecking a box to enable the iPad app on the Vision Pro.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Netflix Co-CEO Calls Vision Pro 'Subscale' and Wonders If Anybody Would Actually Use It

Comments Filter:
  • by Bert64 ( 520050 ) <bert AT slashdot DOT firenzee DOT com> on Friday January 26, 2024 @12:47AM (#64188764) Homepage

    That's fine, i'm sure there will be a player for the standard video formats downloaded from torrents.
    Arbitrary decisions about what devices they bother to let you use and they wonder why piracy is increasing?

    • by snowshovelboy ( 242280 ) on Friday January 26, 2024 @01:13AM (#64188782)

      There's also already a player for standard formats. Its called Safari. Netflix and its entire catalog are already on it.

      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        The question remains: why would you want to watch it on a Vision Pro?

        It's single user. It's a big weight strapped to your head. The battery life is something you have to worry about, or remain tethered to your charger.

        There are some edge cases where people don't have room for a larger TV, but can also afford to drop $3,500 on a Vision Pro. Outside of that...

        • I sort of like Netflix on my Quest 2 (a &pound;350 device rather than a $3,500 one). When I'm home with the kids, they can have the living room TV and I can settle down somewhere with a cinematic screen and fairly decent sound and watch something.

          But it's always felt like Netflix don't really care about it. There are simple things they could do to make it better with requests that have languished for years. Put a clock on the wall, so you don't have to break out of VR to check the time. Too hard, ap
          • by AnonymousNoel ( 6972222 ) on Friday January 26, 2024 @08:06AM (#64189128)

            I just don't see why that's something that needs to be implemented separately in every app.

            I would expect the VR device to provide all that functionality for you, and the Netflix app then just needs to generate the additional app-specific content that gets added into the virtual room.

            There's something very wrong with the metaverse if it requires the company who provides you with your TV service to also provide you with the room to watch it in, the clock on the wall, your choice of decorations, etc. That's just nuts!

            • by DarkOx ( 621550 )

              Because there is no metaverse, its a buzz word to sell hardware and software that are really just fancy arcade machines, and video games.

              There should be 'platforms' where you run applications that manifest as "physical objects" or places in the shared environment. That way you could place an instance of NetflixEnabledProjector.app in your existing virtual screening room. If you so desire you can also instantiate a copy of Endtable.app, and SmallClock.app with the parameters that wish.

              All if it in much the s

        • Plane, train, bus.

          Many of us never ride them. Some of us ride them every day.

          • I could not imagine a worse idea than immersing yourself in VR on a bus or train. I mean if you want to miss your stop and be late to where you're going you could just sleep in.

            Joke's aside, yeah I've used a VR headset to watch a movie on a plane. But I still wouldn't dream of doing so in a train or bus.

            • Set a timer to shortly before you are supposed to arrive. Or set the immersion to 90% instead of 100%. Or simply listen to the announcement.

              Of course if you are prone to missing your stop because you watch a movie on your phone, play an engaging game or read a book, or simply sleep, that won't help you. But then the problem isn't the VR headset.

        • The question remains: why would you want to watch it on a Vision Pro?

          It's single user. It's a big weight strapped to your head. The battery life is something you have to worry about, or remain tethered to your charger.

          There are some edge cases where people don't have room for a larger TV, but can also afford to drop $3,500 on a Vision Pro. Outside of that...

          Well, one use case I can think of that would interest me is, if I'm on the road traveling.

          I would really like this on flights, where it appears w

        • The question remains: why would you want to watch it on a Vision Pro?

          1. You can watch it while lying flat in bed. Some people have back injuries, so sitting up for extended periods is painful. Other people find lying down to be more comfortable.

          2. You can watch it while commuting, on a bus, train, plane, or self-driving car. It has anti-vibration tech to help avoid motion sickness.

          3. You can watch while exercising on a treadmill or stationary bike.

          The battery life is something you have to worry about

          The battery is good for 2.5 hours. Cars have chargers. Planes mostly have them now.

          Another option is to carry a battery-pack bric

        • I think Netflix still has some 3D content. You can't buy a TV for that anymore.

        • For that matter: why would anybody care what you think? You are just one person who owns no Apple products.
    • According to apple, anything that runs on an iPad will run on AVP, so Netflix will be there. There may not be 3D content, but so far only Disney has really offered that. I am personally not sure 3D movies are a good idea, I doubt filmmakers have figured out this medium yet and certainly arenâ(TM)t targeting it.

      Effectively heâ(TM)s just expressing ignorance about technology and his desire to focus on mediocre tv for the masses and is willing to let others experiment. For now, Netflix is the best ga

      • It doesn't have to be 3D content. These "glasses" allow the user to choose their viewing distance. They can make themselves appear to sit really close to a huge screen. That requires videos to be encoded well else encoding artefacts become more apparent.

        • It doesn't have to be 3D content. These "glasses" allow the user to choose their viewing distance. They can make themselves appear to sit really close to a huge screen. That requires videos to be encoded well else encoding artefacts become more apparent.

          "Our content is so badly encoded, we don't want you to watch them on a Vision Pro. But as long as crack team of engineers hasn't figured out how to keep you from doing so, you can still watch it in a browser, just not in our app."

          You know what, that actually sounds like something Netflix would say.

      • Netflix has opted out of default support
      • by nbvb ( 32836 )

        Well, that's the thing.

        Netflix deliberately has to go UN-check a box when they're publishing the iPad version of their app to make sure it IS NOT available for Vision Pro.

        And they've chosen to do exactly that.

        Seriously -- if they just left the default setting (Yes, make this available on Vision Pro) - there wouldn't be any discussion here.

        But they're making a deliberate choice to block it... which has to be part of some negotiation - there's no technical reason to do so.

        All it does is push me closer to can

  • by zeiche ( 81782 ) on Friday January 26, 2024 @01:00AM (#64188772)

    i’ve heard this before; “how can apple march in and take over?” hahahaha why do they pay, in this case, co-ceo so god damned much money if they won’t bother to look at apple’s history?

    • Take over? No one is watching Netflix on HMDs this size and weight. It's their market to create, not take over.

      Which is fresh territory for Apple. Being a slicker mp3 player/phone/tablet/desktop-OS is history, but spatial computing isn't better VR, it's something new. They don't even seem interested in VR.

      • by Entrope ( 68843 )

        spatial computing isn't better VR, it's something new.

        Does anybody except Apple's PR department really believe that? Magic Leap [att.com] was using the term to describe their AR system years ago, and the sales pitches I've seen boil down to "better AR but we don't want to call it that".

        • For reality, see through AR has retina display with infinite refresh rate and perfect vergence accomodation matching. Shitty augmentation, but very good reality. I doubt Apple want's to or can compete in their tiny niches, they certainly don't advertise the same use cases.

          Googly eyed, pass through HMDs have to carve out a new market.

          • OTOH Apple's solution isn't limited to having CG content on a fixed area of your view. And Apple's solution works with your prescription, with see through AR that's at best a mixed bag.
      • Take over? No one is watching Netflix on HMDs this size and weight.

        Exactly. Not Netflix, but instead they are watching all the other streaming services on the Vision Pro. Considering that's just Netflix's latest way to piss off their customers, just days after removing the cheapest ad-free tier.

        • by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

          Exactly. Not Netflix, but instead they are watching all the other streaming services on the Vision Pro. Considering that's just Netflix's latest way to piss off their customers, just days after removing the cheapest ad-free tier.

          I'm not sure I figure how Netflix is thinking. I mean, the Vision Pro is very expensive. People who pay that much probably are willing to pay for expensive service tiers. Thus, would it not be a desirable customer to at least go for?

          Apple has made it an option to have iPad and iPhon

    • if they won’t bother to look at apple’s history?

      Apple's history? You mean like the Newton pad?

      A device that did so poorly, that it took Palm (and Handspring) to show Apple how unobtrusive pocket computers should be done, before Apple eventually gave it another go (and an initial go with catastrophically bad battery life)?

      Vision Pro can't be a success in it's current form (Size+Weight, Price, weird product that assumes there's a market for people spending the whole day with a VR headset strapped to their head the whole day, resolution isn't that great for

    • iâ(TM)ve heard this before; âoehow can apple march in and take over?â

      Take over what? The MP3 player market was hugely taking off when Apple came in. The market for mobile phones had already taken off when Apple came in, and phones and people were straining at the limits of what people wanted to do.

      Ar and VR haven't exactly been hugely taking off. It's there but it's kinda niche.

      And in today's terms the iPhone was launched at about $700, not 5x the price like the headset.

      Apple have had their s

  • by Mirnotoriety ( 10462951 ) on Friday January 26, 2024 @01:14AM (#64188784)
    The short version, Netflix can't make VR compatible media.
    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      It will be interesting to see what Apple do. Will they start shooting their TV stuff in 3D? Or doing a 3D conversion of 2D video.

      If it's the former, will 2D viewers get a second rate product?

      I have a feeling it will mostly just "strap this to your head and see a virtual TV floating in front of you".

      • Just look at what Netflix has done lately. Whatever they will do, it will be something that pisses of their paying customers.
    • The short version, Netflix can't make VR compatible media.

      Media? ... as in soap operas and movies? Netflix is wondering how many of their customers will actually be able to pay $3500 for a VR headset to watch that kind of media and whether there are enough of these people in their customer base to make it profitable to go into the effort of making a large portion of their library VR compatible. They seem to think that the vast majority of the Netflix watching public will be perfectly happy watching soap operas and Hollywood formula movies in glorious 2D until (a)

    • Oh, I'm sure that they can. Their dev team has made a Netflix client for basically every computer, tablet, smartphone, smart tv, smart speaker, and gaming console in existence so far.

      They're probably just waiting for the 2nd generation of the product, which should sell in a much greater volume if successful.

    • by Bahbus ( 1180627 )

      There is no real demand for VR compatible media, either. And neither tv shows nor movies benefit from VR implementations.

    • The short version, Netflix can't make VR compatible media.

      Just what do you think "VR compatible media" is? Don't answer, I'll spoil it for you, it's the same media as anything else. The only exception is if you want 3D then you need to render at 8K, something that Netflix's codec is capable of but they simply haven't enabled.

      Don't confuse "can't" with "couldn't be fucked".

    • Well, neither can most other streaming services. But still they don't try to keep you from watching their other content on the Vision Pro.
  • he didn't know if it would be "relevant to most of our members."

    Of course it isn't: people who bitch and moan because their streaming provider jacks up their prices by $2 per month don't usually drop $3,500 on a VR headset.

    • he didn't know if it would be "relevant to most of our members."

      Of course it isn't: people who bitch and moan because their streaming provider jacks up their prices by $2 per month don't usually drop $3,500 on a VR headset.

      ... and it is quite amazing how many people seem to be completely unable to understand that.

      • If you are so elitist to scoff at people who "bitch" about a 20% price increase (with worse service), you may think about mocking those people who can afford an $3500 VR headset. Let alone pissing them off.
    • by nbvb ( 32836 )

      I actually disagree.

      I have a Vision Pro on the way. The $3500 isn't cheap but it doesn't break my back, either.

      But that 'boiling the frog' with these subscription increases really, really piss me off.

      It's not about affordability, it's about perception. And my perception is that Apple is building a first-generation product and I'm willing to pay the early adopter's fee to play with it. But Netflix is just gouging me for content I really don't give a damn about.

      • these subscription increases really, really piss me off. [...] Netflix is just gouging me for content I really don't give a damn about.

        Thiis doesn't make sense: if you don't give a damn about Netflix' offer, why are you pissed off? Surely you don't even want to subscribe at all in the first place, so why would price hikes from a supplier you don't patronize irk you?

        I contend that you do give a damn: just enough to want to subscribe, and just not enough to find the price too steep.

        This means Netflix probably found the sweet spot in pricing to maximize their earnings - as in, if they priced their services lower, they'd earn less, and if they

        • Well, as usual you can't read. He clearly said that he isn't pissed off enough to quit. And you pretend that he isn't even a subscriber and should not complain about what Netflix offers? Wow, you honest to god sound like you work in Netflix's management.
    • he didn't know if it would be "relevant to most of our members."

      Of course it isn't: people who bitch and moan because their streaming provider jacks up their prices by $2 per month don't usually drop $3,500 on a VR headset.

      You are ignoring what Netflix's CEO ignores: the people bitching about Netflix raising their prices will probably no longer be their paying members soon. You may want to try to not piss off those who see that as small change.

    • This device is so elite that it won't be able to access any content created for plebes!
  • What's the price of building a basic netflix player? Probably not much and should be pocket money for netflix. Doesn't make too much sense but ok.
    • What's the price of building a basic netflix player?

      $0. Literally $0, because the Vision Pro can natively run iPad apps. But iPad developers have an opt-out checkbox available to them that allows them to disable access on other platforms, and Netflix chose to check that checkbox. Netflix had to spend money (in the form of the time some employee spent to find and check the checkbox) to NOT have an app on Vision Pro.

      • by jonwil ( 467024 )

        I suspect the reason Netflix (and others) don't want their standard app running on the Vision Pro is because they don't want to have to deal with support for issues that may appear on a device they haven't tested the app on.

        • I suspect also that Vision Pro users won't be the most, erm, shall we say "reasonable" about stuff not working quite right ("$3500 and they can't even show me Is it Cake? properly!). If the Netflix app on there doesn't work 100% perfectly, even if it's not Netflix's fault, there'll be a disproportionate amount of grumpy reviews and social media coming from that platform.

          Give it a year - if Vision Pro is actually popular, Netflix will adopt it - if not, then they'll stay as they are.

        • Well, I would refuse to have to support even more devices too, if my app only had 3.6 stars. But does that fear mean that Netfix is actually afraid that Vision Pro will be a success?
        • I suspect the reason Netflix (and others) don't want their standard app running on the Vision Pro is because they don't want to have to deal with support for issues that may appear on a device they haven't tested the app on.

          But if there are few VP Users, there will be few VP Netflix Support Calls.

    • Re:Vision App price (Score:4, Informative)

      by Mr. Barky ( 152560 ) on Friday January 26, 2024 @05:13AM (#64188984)

      When considering this sort of project, the cost isn't just the cost of programming. You have to think about the entire chain to evaluate the costs... purchase of equipment for development/test (at least 2 VisionPros... probably more than that), at least one full QA cycle (one never knows what bugs might show up on a new platform) and the correction of whatever bugs do show up. Plus, without a doubt, they want to have usage statistics... which might require a bit of extra code to support a new platform.

      You also don't know the nature of the contracts with content providers. Perhaps there is a cost per type of device supported - like some sort of validation/audit that is required - i.e. to make sure the content isn't pirate-able. An audit could be rather expensive.

      Additionally, one has to think of lifecycle... let's say the VisionPro isn't a success and Netflix chooses to no longer support it. There will be the inevitable headlines and loud complaints from the handful of users who are using it. The company takes a reputation hit in that case.

      All of this is with a background of ongoing development that the company may wish to prioritize (there is no organization that has all the resources it wants).

      Clearly Netflix has decided, for the moment, that it isn't worth it. The 180,000 people who are rumored to pre-order (not all who will use Netflix) aren't enough to make them do this work. Netflix thinks in terms of millions of people and 200K is a rounding error. Perhaps in 6 months, they will change their mind.

      • Are you saying that Netflix is now so cash strapped they can't afford to buy 2 Vision Pros for testing?
        • by flink ( 18449 )

          Are you saying that Netflix is now so cash strapped they can't afford to buy 2 Vision Pros for testing?

          The cost of the hardware is peanuts compared to the person-time to test it. And if does require some changes to work properly, to make those changes, add the new build to their pipeline, and maintain it on an ongoing basis. Then they have to add new training material for their support team to respond to any issues for their customers.

          Totally not worth it for them if this device only sells by the thousands instead of by the millions.

          • How much Vision Pros have to sell then? The Mac has been selling more than 10 million units a year for far longer than a decade. Still no Mac app from Netflix. Don't tell me it's about sales numbers.

            Now I am willing to believe that Netflix thinks their iPad app is so bad (only 3.6 stars) that they are convinced that it will be the one iPad app out of many thousands that will have many problems on Vision Pro - because most developers have not blocked their iPad app from running on Vision Pro, even those tha

  • Translation (Score:4, Insightful)

    by dgatwood ( 11270 ) on Friday January 26, 2024 @03:33AM (#64188890) Homepage Journal

    Translation: We laid off too many software engineers, and now we don't have anyone who can figure out how to get our code to work on the new platform.

    • by unami ( 1042872 )
      Nah, the Netflix iPad app already worked fine in the Vision Pro Beta, according to people who had and still have it installed. Sure, they could do an app specially done for visionOS, like Disney did, and that'd need engineers to do. But atm, they are actively worsening the Netflix experience on Vision Pro, by opting-out of making their iPad app available. It's very relatable, though, that Netflix - and Spotify - are showing Apple the one finger salute after their repeatedly abusive business practices. The
      • The Vision Pro is only being snubbed by Netflix, which is currently trying hard to make money - by pissing of their paying customers by removing password sharing, adding ads, then removing the cheapest tier without ads. And snubbing the Vision Pro of course.
    • by RobinH ( 124750 )
      True, but the root cause of that is you used to be able to borrow money at almost zero interest to finance projects like this, such as hiring people to work on projects that generate no revenue for a decade, so you could afford to take on a lot more speculative projects, and now it costs a lot more to borrow (and the price will continue increasing over the next 10 or so years). So the financial environment has changed, and now the CEO has to be very careful to only take sure bets. This is not unexpected.
    • Translation: We laid off too many software engineers, and now we don't have anyone who can figure out how to get our code to work on the new platform.

      Exactly!

  • >"We have to be careful about making sure that we're not investing in places that are not really yielding a return..."

    Yeah, they're definitely careful with that. It's not as if they'd licence a property (e.g. Witcher, Cowboy Beebop, Masters of the Universe), only to run it into the ground by adapting it for the fabled 'modern audience'. Not to mention Queen Cleopatra, to which literally thousands flocked to observe unique scholarship, such as historical fact established through the method of 'because my

    • Yeah, they're definitely careful with that. It's not as if they'd licence a property (e.g. Witcher, Cowboy Beebop, Masters of the Universe), only to run it into the ground by adapting it for the fabled 'modern audience'. Not to mention Queen Cleopatra, to which literally thousands flocked to observe unique scholarship, such as historical fact established through the method of 'because my grandmother said so'.

      Oh come on...you know this isn't about money.

      This is about promoting and proliferating "the messag

  • Un-CEO behavior (Score:4, Insightful)

    by u19925 ( 613350 ) on Friday January 26, 2024 @03:53AM (#64188910)

    He has no reason to criticize Vision Pro. There is nothing beneficial to Netflix by criticizing Apple. There are many Apple fans who might get offended. This reminds me of Sun CEO who used to waste his time criticizing MS in 90s and early 2000s. We know where Sun is. Focus on your own company and criticize your direct competitors. I can understand if he calls Apple TV service bad, but Vision Pro? What has that to do with Netflix?

    I am not planning to buy Vision Pro now or ever, so this is not about my love for Vision Pro. In fact I have Netflix and not plan to cancel it.

    Even if they are not making app for Netflix, they can still say it nicely by saying that they want to see the market adoption before investing instead of saying nobody will use it. MS said similar thing about iPad but then Apple was the direct competitor to MS.

    • Re:Un-CEO behavior (Score:4, Informative)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Friday January 26, 2024 @06:45AM (#64189044) Homepage Journal

      He's probably getting questions from journalists asking if Netflix has any VR/AR compatible shows in the works.

      The answer is obviously going to be "no". At $3,500 per headset, it's a pretty niche market, and most players are probably going to wait to see if it takes off, and for cheaper options to hit the market.

      • The answer is obviously going to be "no". At $3,500 per headset, it's a pretty niche market

        There are cheaper headsets, some of which have sold in the millions. Netflix is probably eventually going to enter this market. God knows plenty of other ... ahem ... "media" companies have.

      • Why would he get that question? Does anybody else get that question? I doubt Peacock will ever have any VR/AR compatible shows, and still their app (among many other streaming apps) runs on Vision Pro. Because it literally costs no extra money or effort to do it.

        But you are right, the Vision Pro owners unsubscribing from Netflix over this will just be a drop in the bucket compared to all the others they have lost lately. Better than to invest not a penny into that, they should pay a developer to uncheck th

    • Re: Un-CEO behavior (Score:5, Informative)

      by ThumpBzztZoom ( 6976422 ) on Friday January 26, 2024 @07:52AM (#64189114)

      they can still say it nicely by saying that they want to see the market adoption before investing instead of saying nobody will use it.

      You're staying that he should have said exactly what he actually did say. At no point did he say nobody will use it, that is your inference from the badly written Gizmodo article.

      The full quote from the interview paints a very different picture than the summary of the article about the interview, which you apparently didn't read until the end because what you claim he should have said is quoted in the summary.

      When asked about why they are not developing an app for the vision pro, he responded:

      "Not by any unwillingness or lack of desire to do that, but even when you note we look at as close to ubiquity on devices perspective, the decisions that lead to that are we try and be very rigorous about, âoeWhatâ(TM)s the effort to integrate on any given set of devices and whatâ(TM)s the benefit for the members that we serve?â. We have to be careful when making sure that weâ(TM)re not investing in places that are not really yielding a return, and I would say weâ(TM)ll see where things go with Vision Pro. Certainly weâ(TM)re always in discussions with Apple to try and figure that out but right now, the device is so subscale that itâ(TM)s not really particularly relevant to most of our members."

      180,000 devices which is subscale to Netflix, there nothing disparaging or inaccurate about that. Especially when every other similar device has not caught on, and there is no indication that a higher quality, more expensive one will be any different. It's not an improbable outcome that a year or two after release, the majority are infrequently, or never used. Given the history of VR/AR, this could be considered the most likely outcome.

      • by u19925 ( 613350 )

        Thanks for the correction. I went by part of the Gizmodo article. Also, the statement was too long where he could have simply saying that he would wait for market adoption before committing a significant investment (then perhaps I might have read it! ).

        180k+ was sold the weekend. I am sure Apple will sell many more than that. It still maybe below Netflix threshold, I have no idea. Netflix and Apple, both are great. But everything has a price. I won't buy 3500 vision pro (want less than 1000, preferably belo

        • But people are not even asking them to invest millions into developing anything for the Vision Pro. They are merely asking them to actually "couldn't care less about the Vision Pro" by not doing anything instead of actively blocking the existing Netflix iPad app to run on Vision Pro, even if that only takers very minor effort. Because even that little proves that "they could care less" - funny that finally somebody managed to prove that there can be a valid reason to say that.
    • He does have a reason to criticise Apple though. Netflix would love it if you could just get a subscription by clicking the 'BUY' button in the app store. But they can't do that without having to give Apple their big cut.

      I bet you that when Tim rings around Netflix, Spotify etc to ask them if they can do an app for the Vision Pro, the first thing they'll say is, 'well sure, but what can you do for us about the subscription issue?'. Apple wants these guys to push their new product right now, and I can bet yo

      • He does have a reason to criticise Apple though. Netflix would love it if you could just get a subscription by clicking the 'BUY' button in the app store. But they can't do that without having to give Apple their big cut.

        I bet you that when Tim rings around Netflix, Spotify etc to ask them if they can do an app for the Vision Pro, the first thing they'll say is, 'well sure, but what can you do for us about the subscription issue?'. Apple wants these guys to push their new product right now, and I can bet you they're using that position to generate as much leverage against Apple as they can.

        So these two billion dollar companies (not the others who do have apps for the Vision Pro, mind you), are still so pissed they can't put an in-app purchase of their subscription in the app without paying the in-app purchase fee (*). So they decide to force the users of Vision Pro to watch/listen their content in the browser instead of the already existing app. Okay, first of all, they did realize they are pissing off their own paying users much more than they inconvenience Apple, did they?

        (*) BTW that too

    • He has no reason to criticize Vision Pro.

      Strange. The CEO remarked that there might not be much demand for a $3,500 headset and you see that as criticism?

      What about the statement was critical to Apple? I am failing to understand how it is a criticism.

      And yet, facts can apparently offer a critique. It is unfortunate that the Universe does not tend to our feelings.

  • No need For an app.
    • So does it stream Netflix, or does it play Netflix content that you downloaded with some other app? Because the interesting thing about the Netflix app is that it actually allows you to download Netflix content to watch it offline.
  • Netflix is specifically blocking (explicitly opting out) the Netflix iOS app on the Vision Pro. A lot of companies are in a fight with Apple over the 30% app store tax, which is ultimately passed onto consumers. All these Apps being blocked have browser alternatives that work just fine. You'll be able to fire up the Safari browser in the Vision Pro and use Netflix as if you were on a Macbook.
    • A lot of companies are in a fight with Apple over the 30% app store tax, which is ultimately passed onto consumers.

      Not that nonsense again. People sign up to Netflix on their TV, or they enter "Netflix" in their browser and sign up. I don't even know if you _can_ pay for Netflix on their phone app, I just googled for "Netflix sign up on iPhone" and the first link is to the Netflix site and explains how you sign up without using the iPhone app. Zero of my Netflix cost has gone to Apple. Same with Amazon Prime.

      • Actually you once could pay for Netflix on your iPhone, but too many people renewed their subscription on the iPhone because it was so much more convenient than every other way you could do that. Netflix was so pissed that they suddenly had to pay Apple for their long time subscriptions, so they removed the option. And have been pissed at Apple for making it so easy to pay for stuff in your app ever since.
  • by gnasher719 ( 869701 ) on Friday January 26, 2024 @06:38AM (#64189038)
    Years ago, a company had a discussion because their lead developer didn't want to port their software to a Mac. His argument: "These Apple fanbois have more money than sense". The marketing guy said: "That makes them the perfect customer, doesn't it?"

    Mr. Netflix, people who have enough money to spend $3,500 on a headset are people who can afford your most expensive plans. And if you piss them off, they'll get their movies elsewhere.
  • Why listen to it on there? Nothing to watch on Spotify, it's not like they do music videos like MTV used to. Netflix's gaff is a mute as you can watch thru a browser.
  • The investment Netflix is talking about is not unchecking a box to enable the iPad app on the Vision Pro.

    Yeah, SEND IT!

    Hint: Testing and Support.

    Netflix is not new. They understand you have to do validation if you don't want to wind up looking incompetent, and it costs money.

  • "We have to be careful about making sure that we're not investing in places that are not really yielding a return"

    From what i understand that statement doesn't make sense, they don't have to invest anything additional as they can just let their run of the mill Apple app run in comparability mode. But they appear to have gone out of their way to even opt out of that. I think it's safe to say that something else (likely money related) is going on here.

  • Vision Pro needs to sell more units than Netflix is losing subscribers. With just 160,000 on the first weekend that just doesn't cut it.
    • It all adds up. Slapping 180,000 customers in the face who can afford a $3,500 device is not a clever move. And it will be many more by the end of the year.
      • Netflix is estimated to have 260,000,000 subscribers worldwide. Apple is estimated to have sold between 160,000 and 180,000 Vision Pro units. Even if every buyer of the Vision Pro is an avid Netflix fan, that's still only 0.069% of Netflix's market. And will Netflix lose any significant marketshare by taking a wait-and-see approach? That could end up happening if AppleTV+ support for the Vision Pro is extremely compelling, but right now the future of this device is far from certain. I'd bet decent mone

Crazee Edeee, his prices are INSANE!!!

Working...