[bee_rider]

Apple does have the advantage of being able to project their 2D apps if they want, right? A $5k device seems like a dead end, and a $2k one seems pretty rough still (unless it totally replaces your laptop, which might make it worth considering).

They clearly haven’t executed it correctly yet. But at least they do have some hope of beating the bootstrapping problem that everybody else seems to have—they could try and get users first, and then I bet developers would quickly follow.

[jayd16]

Unless the experience is good, it doesn't beat the bootstrapping problem and I haven't seen much clamouring for iPad apps on the AVP. It's a nice to have, sure. It will keep people in the headset longer, sure. But it's not a feature that will get someone to buy it over an iPad.

[bee_rider]

I sort of agree. But I think it is part of the puzzle.

The Apple headset thing is $5000 and much bigger than a pair of sunglasses. I just don’t think the tech is here yet to make something that most people actually want. So nobody has the problem that Apple can solve yet: good enough hardware in search of useful apps.

No VR device has even gotten close to having to answer a question like “how is this useful” because the current janky hardware is only appealing to those of us who are happy to just play games, haha.

[kridsdale3]

Porn. Porn is how it is useful. It is 10x better than on a monitior/tv, and 100x better than on a mobile device. Some well heeled dirtbags are willing to pay for that.

[troupo]

> being able to project their 2D apps if they want, right

That's how they want to kickstart the app ecosystem by not doing anything.

Any non-ported app with any non-trivial functionality is likely to break in both obvious and subtle ways especially around UX. Who's gonna support the app on the platform and deal with customer complaints? Apple? You? Or the dev who might not even have the device to debug it on?

[kridsdale3]

This comment identifies why Netflix and Youtube and other Google apps (I presume) are pulled from VisionOS.

[ladyanita22]

Meta's Horizon OS is Android, so they could basically just do the same. Of course, they don't have a proper app store for that, but the compatibility should be there.

The main roadblock would be the OS support, and Meta's already has that. They are of course lacking another big roadblock, which is the store.

[jsheard]

> Meta's Horizon OS is Android, so they could basically just do the same.

They just announced they're doing that: https://developers.meta.com/horizon/blog/building-2d-apps-on...

AFAICT there won't be Play Store support though, so devs will have to publish their 2D Android apps specifically to the Quest store.

[cubefox]

Presumably Google wants VR headsets to run Google's own version of Android, perhaps called Android VR (or the like), though I haven't heard of a VR version of Android developed by Google. Previously they developed Android TV and Android for smartwatches. Even a version for cars I believe.

[david_allison]

Thank you for the link!

I maintain an Android app which doesn't require Play Services. Might as well get it on the store if Meta is encouraging it

[dagmx]

Meta just announced support for carrying standard 2D Android apps on their storefront at Connect a few weeks ago. I think the Vision Pro release has (pun intended) given them a vision to work towards (as seen by their rapid update process post launch to match features)

That said, visionOS can run iPad and iPhone apps unmodified. Meta will not bundle Google Play Services and a few other Android APIs, so APKs won’t be publishable on their store without some amount of work to use their alternate SDK.

[gryn]

you can already install android apps on the quest (since day one probably). I did that regularly over the past year, they work great.

it's just not officially supported, since they have been having a fight with google for years now. meta is claiming that google are the ones that don't want to see the play store on the platform.

[marxisttemp]

> Apple does have the advantage of being able to project their 2D apps if they want, right?

Developers have to manually check a box to enable running the iPad version of their app on visionOS so it’s entirely out of Apple’s hands. Not sure why they took this approach

[dagmx]

It’s the opposite of your claim. It’s opt out, not opt in.

> Your iPhone and iPad apps will be made available to users on Apple Vision Pro, unless you edit your apps’ availability in the App Store Connect

https://developer.apple.com/help/app-store-connect/manage-yo...

And it makes sense for some devs to not provide their app on the platform if they use unsupported APIs or if their experience is otherwise degraded for some unknowable reason. Though the side effect is Netflix and YouTube can just withhold their apps that presumably otherwise work.

[marxisttemp]

Oh thank you for the info, I’m not sure where I got my misinfo from! Presumably a podcast from the early days of the release.

[dagmx]

I think some folks confused it with the checkbox to build against the visionOS SDK.

[troupo]

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41850436

[MichaelZuo]

Likely some sort of legal or PR reason.