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

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Software Apple Games

Apple Vision Pro To Launch With Over 600 Apps and Games (techcrunch.com) 83

Posted by BeauHD from the not-too-shabby dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from TechCrunch: The pace is picking up for the Apple Vison Pro apps ahead of the spatial computing device's Friday launch as developers ready their apps for the new platform. While just last week, only 150-plus apps had been specifically designed for the Vision Pro so far, according to a third-party analysis of the App Store, Apple announced today that more than 600 new apps and games are being readied for the Vison Pro ahead of its debut. These join the more than 1 million already compatible apps across iOS and iPadOS, the company says. [...]

The company says more than 600 apps and games have been designed to take advantage of the Vision Pro's capabilities and its 3D user interface that's navigated using your eyes, hands and voice. Several streaming apps have already announced their support, including Disney+, ESPN, MLB, PGA Tour, Max, Discovery+, Amazon Prime Video, Paramount+, Peacock, Pluto TV, Tubi, Fubo, Crunchyroll, Red Bull TV, IMAX, TikTok and MUBI. The PGA Tour Vision app offers a golf game with real-time shot tracking across models of real golf courses, while the NBA app will allow streaming up to five broadcasts live or on-demand at once, Apple notes. Red Bull TV will include 3D maps of races. Soccer fans will also be able to stream MLS Season Pass via Apple's own Apple TV app. That app will offer access to Apple's Originals, more than 200 3D movies and Apple Immersive Video.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Vision Pro To Launch With Over 600 Apps and Games More

Apple Vision Pro To Launch With Over 600 Apps and Games

Comments Filter:

  • The catch is (Score:3, Funny)

    by Powercntrl ( 458442 ) on Thursday February 01, 2024 @05:51PM (#64207068) Homepage

    They're all Flappy Bird clones.

    • Youâ(TM)re a flappy bird clone. -Tim

    • I was thinking Snake, maybe Tetris, played with your eyes on an over-priced contraption you strap on your head.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Entrope ( 68843 )

      Better that than the Rule 34 / Avenue Q variant, which is that they're all Fappy Bird clones.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      You joke but when MKBHD reviewed it on his YouTube channel, one thing he did remark on was how there aren't many apps for it. Even Apple's own apps are mostly not optimized for the Vision Pro, they are just the iPad app floating in front of you.

      He went on to say that there were no killer apps, no compelling reason to spend $4000 on this thing.

      The apps it does have seem quite poor. For example, there is Facetime, but it doesn't use your face. You scan your face in, and it creates an avatar that looks sort of

      • You joke but when MKBHD reviewed it on his YouTube channel, one thing he did remark on was how there aren't many apps for it. Even Apple's own apps are mostly not optimized for the Vision Pro, they are just the iPad app floating in front of you.

        He went on to say that there were no killer apps, no compelling reason to spend $4000 on this thing.

        The apps it does have seem quite poor. For example, there is Facetime, but it doesn't use your face. You scan your face in, and it creates an avatar that looks sort of like you, but is well into uncanny valley territory.

        Pray tell, where is the camera that shows your face without goggles for FaceTime going to be located?

        And don'tcha think that whining about a paucity of Apps for a Device that isn't even available until TODAY is just a bit ridiculous?

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          Well that's the point, isn't it? The basic idea of a VR Facetime app is a bad one, because at best it's going to create a creepy uncanny valley version of you.

          • Well that's the point, isn't it? The basic idea of a VR Facetime app is a bad one, because at best it's going to create a creepy uncanny valley version of you.

            So, just don't offer FaceTime on VisionOS Products? Have a gooseneck camera that you can screw on to show your begoggled face?

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

              Or don't spend 4k on a Vision Pro since it's not very good.

              • Or don't spend 4k on a Vision Pro since it's not very good.

                Oh, so just how many hours do you have logged on a Vision Pro?

                STFU and GTFO.

  • Let's revisit this gem (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Slashdot's review of the iPod. https://slashdot.org/story/01/... [slashdot.org]

    • Re:Let's revisit this gem (Score:5, Insightful)

      by sid crimson ( 46823 ) on Thursday February 01, 2024 @06:30PM (#64207176)

      Indeed.
      I'm trying to remember the last time Apple invested this kind of money and got it wrong. It's been a while.

      • I'm more than fuzzy on the details but wasn't the 1st gen ipod actually lame? As in it was the 2nd gen that fixed many of the biggest complaints and THEN it became the worldwide phenomenon? Similarly just because the apple watch is a huge success NOW doesn't mean that it was always so. In other words maybe the future will be Apple Vision and various clones but history tells us that you don't want Rev1 of an apple product unless you are an influencer of some kind.

        • I'm more than fuzzy on the details but wasn't the 1st gen ipod actually lame? As in it was the 2nd gen that fixed many of the biggest complaints and THEN it became the worldwide phenomenon? Similarly just because the apple watch is a huge success NOW doesn't mean that it was always so. In other words maybe the future will be Apple Vision and various clones but history tells us that you don't want Rev1 of an apple product unless you are an influencer of some kind.

          That's kind of my point: Apple plays the long game.
          Rev1 _anything_ are rarely the best option. I can't think of any that got it right out of the gate...

          Microsoft's Zune portable music player was arguably superior and was backed by a company with more assets (at the time)... it was a super cool device. I know both of the people who owned one....

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by mjwx ( 966435 )
          Apple TV, Apple Watch, just because Apple doggedly persists with a failure doesn't mean they aren't failures.

          If someone like Nintendo or LG doesn't think VR is profitable, chances are it's not. Also not like VR isn't already a well served market (small, but well served already) and Apple only tends to do well with no competition.

          • If someone like Nintendo or LG doesn't think VR is profitable, chances are it's not.

            Nintendo probably just knows they can't do a good job of it. They don't have the high-end hardware. LG, on the other hand, usually thinks they're good at everything even though they're bad at everything, so that's a pretty good argument.

          • I wouldn't call VR a well served market, there's so much that needs improving. Visual fidelity is low, with narrow FOV and obvious optical aberrations even on the most expensive headsets, headsets are big and uncomfortable, full body tracking even when available at all is kinda garbage etc. etc. I won't even bother to complain about the software since for now I think it's so massively held back by the hardware.

            The only thing I still have hopes for is that Valve isn't completely done with VR and that their n

          • Apple TV, Apple Watch, just because Apple doggedly persists with a failure doesn't mean they aren't failures.
            -snip- Apple only tends to do well with no competition.

            I'm not sure I'm following your post here. AppleTV isn't the best seller, but it's a pretty compelling product for those who live in the Apple ecosystem. Roku sells well because it's attached to a couple of super cheap TV models. Apple Watch sells well too, profitably.

            Besides, the GP post mentioned iPod started when there was "better" competition - the Nomad. And it still won the day.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Equuleus42 ( 723 )

      Great reminder, and similar to why I include Slashdot's reaction to VMware in my signature.

    • Eventually it got a better screen and developed into the iPhone !!! All the naysayers wish they had a piece of that pie / Apple stock !

  • Best Thing Ever (Score:3)

    by youngone ( 975102 ) on Thursday February 01, 2024 @06:26PM (#64207166)
    When the boys come around on Saturday to watch the football, we'll all strap our Apple headsets on and watch the game together.

    • When the boys come around on Saturday to watch the football, we'll all strap our Apple headsets on and watch the game together.

      You'd probably all have a much better visual experience; and your one friend can quietly slip over to OnlyFans to check out his favorite Naked version of the Game...

      Everybody wins!

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by zlives ( 2009072 )

      yes in the church even.

  • Oof, that's an epic fail. (Score:3)

    by dgatwood ( 11270 ) on Thursday February 01, 2024 @06:26PM (#64207168) Homepage Journal

    In 2008, Apple started out with zero iOS developers, only limited compatibility with Mac code, and nobody having any idea what they were doing, and still iOS app developers wrote 500 apps from scratch by launch day, just four months after the SDK was released.

    In 2015, iOS developers had 3000 apps available for Apple Watch on launch day, just 10 months after the SDK was released.

    This year, the entire pool of 2.8 million iOS developers managed to get just 600 apps by launch day, 8 months after the SDK was released.

    I realize VisionOS can theoretically run iOS apps, so developers have the option of being lazy and doing nothing, but that's still a really disappointing uptake.

    • I have to admit my first reaction was "only 600?"

      • ...and most of those seem to be streaming apps for which VR adds nothing much. What they seem to be lacking is the "killer app" that will make people want to spend $4k on a VR headset.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by dgatwood ( 11270 )

          ...and most of those seem to be streaming apps for which VR adds nothing much. What they seem to be lacking is the "killer app" that will make people want to spend $4k on a VR headset.

          What? You don't want a $3,500 headset that plays movies on a virtual screen so that you can pretend you're in a movie theater? We even offer these slightly sticky mats for your living room floor to help fully simulate the experience.

          • ...and most of those seem to be streaming apps for which VR adds nothing much. What they seem to be lacking is the "killer app" that will make people want to spend $4k on a VR headset.

            What? You don't want a $3,500 headset that plays movies on a virtual screen so that you can pretend you're in a movie theater? We even offer these slightly sticky mats for your living room floor to help fully simulate the experience.

            I thought Apple said No Porn?

            • > I thought Apple said No Porn?

              If you have a headset, and you haven't tried VR Porn filmed with a 180 camera, you're missing out.

              I've watched porn since the birth of the internet, always for free. VR Porn is the first time I've ever actually paid for it. A lifetime subscription, in fact.

              The "full eye-contact" appeal has been mentioned, but let's not forget having the talent whisper in your ear while she sits in your lap. Mind blowing.

        • I think that killer app is the ability to take and watch immersive 3D videos. Give in a few years when more people are generating content in 3D. I have only been to the a movie theater about a dozen times in the last decade. I used to go weekly when I was younger. The only thing I found worth watching in a theater was a movie in 3D on a huge screen. Otherwise the experience is just better at home. Especially given that theaters are rarely packed these days so being part of a laughing or jumped scared large

          • I think that killer app is the ability to take and watch immersive 3D videos.

            If that was so great then why did 3D IMax films not work out? You don't really even see 3D on ordinary cinema screens anymore. If nobody is willing to pay a few extra dollars on their cinema ticket for 3D what makes you think they will pay $4k for a headset?

            3D video is unlikely to ever work because it adds almost nothing to the 2D experience while, at the same time, causing eye strain because unlike real life the image is at a fixed distance from the eye thus forcing the eye to focus differently vs real

        • I believe that the killer app for VR is 3D spreadsheets.

          Going from 2D (x,y) to 3D (x,y,z) allows you to cube your information density. You can go from tracking a single cause, effect, to adding a literal new dimension of cause,cause,effect.

          And, it would lead to a network effect: if you weren't visualizing your biz data in 3D, you'd be behind the times and left out of the conversation. Everyone that wanted to look at the same data would need the same 3D app, which means a VR headset to do it with.

          Also, in

          • The problem with that is that we can only see one 2D slice of the sheet at any given time because our retinas are two dimensional. So I think you are going the wrong way - the VP will allow for 3D controls because our hands do operate in 3D but information will always have to be presented to us in a basically 2D format because that is what our eyes can see.

    • nobody having any idea what they were doing, and still iOS app developers wrote 500 apps from scratch by launch day, just four months after the SDK was released.

      I had an app in the iOS App Store at launch.

      What you have left out, is that most of us doing iOS programming had the published jailbroken internal APIs as references much earlier. Before the SDK was launched, I had already been programing iOS apps for around a year.

      And because UIKit was loosely based on AppKit (OSX UI libraries) in fact a lot of pe

    • In 2008, Apple started out with zero iOS developers, only limited compatibility with Mac code, and nobody having any idea what they were doing, and still iOS app developers wrote 500 apps from scratch by launch day, just four months after the SDK was released.

      In 2015, iOS developers had 3000 apps available for Apple Watch on launch day, just 10 months after the SDK was released.

      This year, the entire pool of 2.8 million iOS developers managed to get just 600 apps by launch day, 8 months after the SDK was released.

      I realize VisionOS can theoretically run iOS apps, so developers have the option of being lazy and doing nothing, but that's still a really disappointing uptake.

      Depending on the App, I would venture a guess that developing a non-trivial truly AR/VR App using just the VP Simulator is likely a bit more daunting than an App for a device that is essentially just a handheld version of the already-familiar 2D GUI environment.

      Once Devs actually get their hands on the real thing, App-Submission rate will take a sharp curve upward; both in quantity quality.

  • One thing worth considering, is how right out of the gate Apple will have almost double the count from the official Quest App Store (though apparently there are around 1500 apps in something called "App Lab" [roadtovr.com].

    The ease of use of the Vision, in particular development is just so much greater than other VR systems. The apps I've seen examples of are not just super simplistic 3D apps, they are apps that make pretty good use of the AR features or "spatial computing" aspect (which is mainly lots of floating work p

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by narcc ( 412956 )

      You've confused your fantasy for reality again. Just take a look at what Apple [apple.com] has elected to highlight.

      An amazing 250 ordinary video games you can play on a virtual display. A bunch of streaming TV apps so that you can watch TV by yourself. There are also sports streaming apps that let you watch sports ... but also show sports statistics! Really cutting edge stuff here.

      For AR games, they've elected to showcase Super Fruit Ninja ... which appears to be just regular Fruit Ninja on a virtual display with a

      • It's better than nothing for travel if you really need a multi-monitor setup, but that's about it.

        And that, along with immersive movie watching on an airplane are the reasons I'd buy one....

        Anything else would be gravy for me at this point.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by narcc ( 412956 )

          And that, along with immersive movie watching on an airplane are the reasons I'd buy one

          If that's what you want, there are other options that are smaller, lighter, less obtrusive, and significantly less expensive. Oh, and can actually make it through a whole movie before the battery gives out.

          Really, for your use case, the battery life alone makes this a non-starter.

          • Really, for your use case, the battery life alone makes this a non-starter.

            It appears you can swap batteries....?

            That's not a deal breaker for me.

            I mean, as a photographer, when using digital, I often have to swap out spare batteries during the day....not a big deal to carry a couple spares, especially when traveling, I generally have my backpack with me.

    • One thing worth considering, is how right out of the gate Apple will have almost double the count from the official Quest App Store (though apparently there are around 1500 apps in something called "App Lab" [roadtovr.com].

      The ease of use of the Vision, in particular development is just so much greater than other VR systems. The apps I've seen examples of are not just super simplistic 3D apps, they are apps that make pretty good use of the AR features or "spatial computing" aspect (which is mainly lots of floating work planes around you).

      Once it ships anyone with a device will be able to work on an app in device, run a new build, and test that out directly.

      Apple has just done a great job really preparing the way for developers over many years to make cool things on this device.

      Exactly.

      I was kinda amazed that that many ostensibly working and Approved visionOS Apps would be available without any reasonable access to actual hardware.

      This will take off quite nicely, once Devs get their grubby little mitts on these things. . .

      • I was kinda amazed that that many ostensibly working and Approved visionOS Apps would be available without any reasonable access to actual hardware.

        It's not amazing to people who understand the situation. Most of those apps are just flat iOS apps floating in space in front of you with zero changes from the version you would run on your iPhone or iPad. Even Apple's most active detractors (including myself) fully expected Apple to have that working properly, since the new device runs a barely warmed over version of the same OS that runs on the other devices.

        • I was kinda amazed that that many ostensibly working and Approved visionOS Apps would be available without any reasonable access to actual hardware.

          It's not amazing to people who understand the situation. Most of those apps are just flat iOS apps floating in space in front of you with zero changes from the version you would run on your iPhone or iPad. Even Apple's most active detractors (including myself) fully expected Apple to have that working properly, since the new device runs a barely warmed over version of the same OS that runs on the other devices.

          I understand the situation just fine, thank you.

          I also like the way that you have reviewed the entirety of the visionOS App Store Content with no access to a way to actually do so.

          Do you think it would have served either Apple or its prospective Customers better to have Apple start from absolute scratch to create VisionOS? What would have been better with another 3-5 years of delay, plus perhaps little to no compatibility with the millions of iOS/iPadOS Apps already available? Who would have been better ser

  • 600 apps and games and like all VR/AR releases 590 of them will be garbage shovelware hoping to cash in.

    • 600 apps and games and like all VR/AR releases 590 of them will be garbage shovelware hoping to cash in.

      And this is different from All App offerings for All Mobile Devices for All Platforms, how, exactly?

      • It isnt different, just shows Apple is as full of shit as every other company no matter what the moron fan boys claim.

        • It isnt different, just shows Apple is as full of shit as every other company no matter what the moron fan boys claim.

          Wrong.

          It just shows most App Developers are simply greedy, talentless, no-imagination Hacks.

          Apple has no more control over that sad state of affairs than does Google.

      • Exactly, apple is no better than any other company no matter how hard the shills on here try and claim they are. Actually apple is sigificantly worse than the rest of them

        • Exactly, apple is no better than any other company no matter how hard the shills on here try and claim they are.
          Actually apple is sigificantly worse than the rest of them

          And Apple controls the Talent (or lack thereof) of the third-party Developer Pool how, exactly?

  • Taking existing apps and shoehorning them into a VR interface or making them usable with VR controls is quite frankly a disaster that hasn't worked out well for a single app or game so far. They are desperate to show that there's something to do with this while not actually demonstrating their killer use case.

    There's a wild difference in quality of experience for something designed for VR and something made to work with VR but designed for something else. Unless your 600 apps includes Metro Awakening VR App

  • Money loser for developers (Score:3, Insightful)

    by MytQuinn ( 1846480 ) on Thursday February 01, 2024 @07:44PM (#64207312)
    Even though it's an Apple product, it's essentially a high priced tech demo. Really hard to get developers to invest into creating software for a niche product in a walled garden. The Vision Pro is a big step up in VR, but ROI in VR software is hard to come by. Being a brand new space for Apple and zero install base, its hard to prioritizing this as a developer. This really is a prototype halo product. It won't sell millions of units by design. Apple will lose money on it, but they will also wow people and build an ecosystem for version 2. Developing for version 1 isn't going to pay off for years, assuming there is a version 2 for the masses. If there is a version 2, even at $1500, developers will be jumping on board with real development. Not just tech demos and ports like most of VR.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by narcc ( 412956 )

      Even though it's an Apple product, it's essentially a high priced tech demo.

      "Even though"? Over priced and underdeveloped is their thing.

      The Vision Pro is a big step up in VR

      What makes you say that? It has a nice display, but I'm not seeing anything revolutionary here.

      but they will also wow people

      That doesn't seem likely, given what we've seen so far.

      and build an ecosystem for version 2

      An app store full of shovelware might be "an ecosystem", but I don't see that driving sales.

      If there is a version 2, even at $1500, developers will be jumping on board with real development.

      Why would they? A marketplace flooded with crap and very few potential customers isn't exactly enticing.

      Not just tech demos and ports like most of VR.

      That's just silly. If there was some "killer app" for VR, we'd have seen it by now. No one was out the

      • That's just silly. If there was some "killer app" for VR, we'd have seen it by now. No one was out there waiting patiently for a ridiculously overpriced headset to unveil their world-changing software.

        We'll all remember you said this. . .

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by narcc ( 412956 )

          A wise decision. You'd do well to listen and remember the things I say.

        • Remember how you fanboied over macintosh portable, macintosh tv, newton, pippin, ipod hifi, mobileme, ping, airpower, that round mouse, eworld, apple III. We all do.
    • And it's people like you that said the same thing about the iPhone !!!! And got it So wrong !!!!

    • The Vision Pro is a big step up in VR, but ROI in VR software is hard to come by.

      And it's even harder when the device your software would run on costs as much as a used car, so only a small subset of potential users can afford one.

      Apple can afford to spend money this way, the product doesn't have to be financially successful to give them experience in the market, so it might well be a smart thing for them to have released it now and at this price point. But it's not a smart thing for developers to bet their farm on apps for it, at all.

      If there is a version 2, even at $1500, developers will be jumping on board with real development. Not just tech demos and ports like most of VR.

      I don't think that's cheap enough. The thing about a

    • Re:Money loser for developers (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Dixie_Flatline ( 5077 ) <vincent@jan@goh.gmail@com> on Friday February 02, 2024 @11:05AM (#64208402) Homepage

      WILL Apple lose money on it, though? Like, they've reportedly sold on the order of 200000 units already. That's $700,000,000 (at a minimum, that's just the base price of the model with no accessories). And I realize they've been doing many many years of development on the project, but that's a lot of money. I'm curious what their break-even point is, but I have to imagine it's already in reach. There's probably a massive margin on this just so that future margins can be smaller.

      That's what happens when you're one of the most successful tech companies in history, you find a way to not lose money on your big bets.

    • Maybe that's the way the tech bros of today look at it but, remember, Apple is one of the oldest tech companies still around.

      And, the old-school view is that you should invest heavily in wooing the early adopters. They are the ones who will set the "tone" and direction of any new product space so, getting them into your camp early is well worth the investment.

  • umm (Score:2)

    by nomadic ( 141991 )

    Nobody can afford games after they buy the Vision Pro.

  • Youtube, Netflix, Hulu, Plex, etc. etc.

    s/AVP/Glasshole/

  • No punches pulled, you can see they spent a LOT of effort reviewing - https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

    There's no real surprises though, I think everyone kinda knew that this first iteration is for early adopters with deep pockets.

    The conclusion is so on the money - right now, there's no compelling reason for the Vision Pro to be used to get work done.
    At best, it's an expensive and amazing device to watch movies on ... alone.
    And the word "alone" is used a lot here, as in a lonely experience.

    Also the video t

Slashdot Top Deals

If all the world's economists were laid end to end, we wouldn't reach a conclusion. -- William Baumol

Close