[nindalf]

Short answer - usually individual app developers, even of Google’s size, need the platform (iOS) more than the platform needs them. This means Apple has historically driven hard bargains with even the most popular apps. Now Apple is launching a new platform (visionOS) the 3 most popular in their categories - YouTube, Netflix and Spotify decided that visionOS needs them more than they need visionOS. For now.

It’s possible they might use this leverage to negotiate better terms on iOS. For example, Netflix would like to offer in app subscriptions and to keep more the revenue without sharing with Apple.

If Apple sells millions of visionOS devices then that gives Apple more leverage and these 3 might come crawling back.

Long answer - The Apple Vision Pro’s Missing Apps by Stratechery (https://stratechery.com/2024/the-apple-vision-pros-missing-a...)

[HHaan]

Tons of respect for Ben Thompson, but reason for not shipping visionOS apps (or allowing your iPad app to work on them) for these big co's is literally a matter of "Bang for your buck":

> Building a new app from scratch makes zero sense for the size of the install base. Only reason to ever do that would be to get some love back from Apple in the form of features and attention (which, for YouTube / Netflix / Spotify are hardly necessary) > Allowing YOUR iPad app to function on visionOS means that your customers will hold YOU responsible for its functioning. At the size of customer base of these companies, that's a bunch of risk for no reward > When your users use a browser that promises 'regular access to all websites' (built by Apple) to access your service, the responsibility for that experience lies with the browser builder, not you

There's 100% no negotiation over fees happening with individual developers, regardless of how big they are, regardless of what type of support for a platform they promise Apple, as that's exactly what has gotten Apple and Google in hot water with regulators worldwide.

Ben worded it well in the article:

"It’s certainly possible that I’m reading too much into these absences" < Yes

[turquoisevar]

> For example, Netflix would like to offer in app subscriptions and to keep more the revenue without sharing with Apple.

Netflix already has that option[0] at a 15% commission rate, but they snubbed their nose. Allegedly because they didn’t want to play nice with the TV app, like other streamers do.

Personally I think it’s that (and the potential loss of data) + them just wanting to pay $0.

0: https://developer.apple.com/programs/video-partner/

[yard2010]

That's just apple being apple though, shipping half baked stuff 3 years before they're ready