[MDWolinski]

Meh. This is just latching on to some large companies (Netflix, etc) who already stated they won't be building custom apps for it. Netflix doesn't even have a native Mac app, so it's not surprising that they wouldn't have a native app for the Vision Pro, especially if the built in Safari can do everything a native App could or would.

Now, if there was an advantage to building an app for Netflix, et al then they will. I suspect that the success of the device (or failure) will determine if/when these large companies start thinking more seriously about native apps.

Many companies jumped on to the Apple Watch bandwagon only to find its limited nature hindered app development too much. Apple pitched the use case for the Watch in 3 areas, turns out it thrived on notifications and fitness tracking.

Talk to me after the Vision Pro launches and users start providing feedback on needs, etc and what the actual use case is.

[signatoremo]

> This is just latching on to some large companies (Netflix, etc) who already stated they won't be building custom apps for it.

Incorrect. They could have allowed their iPad apps to run on Vision Pro, but they specifically chose not to.

Developers who offer software for the iPad automatically see their apps pop up on the Vision Pro App Store. That is, unless they opt out — as Netflix, Spotify and YouTube are planning to do.

[andsoitis]

Both are true.

Netflix, Spotify, and YouTube are neither building custom apps nor enabling their iPad apps for use on Vision Pro.

It is not only NOT in their interest to do so (and users can use the web anyway; the download use case is a vanishingly small market segment), but it is ALSO a way for them to speak truth to Apple's power w.r.t. their draconian in-app purchases policy. Game on.

[bradknowles]

That just pushes more people to using AppleTV.

Media companies are really going to regret their choices to intentionally give up the entire market to Apple, because that only helps Apple build their walled garden just that much higher.

[andsoitis]

> That just pushes more people to using AppleTV.

Do you mean Apple TV (the device), Apple TV (the app), or do you mean Apple TV+ (their streaming service)?

I don’t see Apple outsmart Netflix or Amazon when it comes to creating and distributing shows and movies.

[bradknowles]

Well, Apple TV+ the service doesn't work without the Apple TV app. The Apple TV device is not a strict requirement for this scenario.

I do wish Apple had more distinctive naming, instead of overloading the same name for multiple things. Blech.

But you are correct that I meant the service.

[dragon-hn]

That still requires resources to support. For a platform with an uncertain number of users.

[wilsonnb3]

> especially if the built in Safari can do everything a native App could or would.

No downloads without a native app, which could affect the whole "using it on a plane" thing people keep mentioning.

[frompom]

More and more flights (maybe 25% of my flights lately) have internet that is fast enough for and allows streaming video. This trend will continue I'm sure. Obviously downloads are still really beneficial but it's becoming less and less of an issue on flights.

[veidr]

Annoying, but if you're a first-gen user paying $3500 for the device, you probably either have Apple's TV/movies offering or don't care much about paying for it for your flight.