Native Apple Vision Pro apps few and far between at launch

Posted:
in Apple Vision Pro

New owners of the Apple Vision Pro may be disappointed by the selection of native apps at launch, with claims that roughly 150 have been developed with experiences made for the headset.

Apple's visionOS menu system
Apple's visionOS menu system



Apple opened up a version of the App Store for the Apple Vision Pro on January 16, giving developers the opportunity to add their apps ahead of the headset's February 2 release date. However, it seems that very few developers will be actually offering apps to users that actually take advantage of the headset's capabilities at the start.

On the weekend, research by AppFigures reported by TechCrunch indicates that there may be little more than 150 apps that have been updated to include Vision Pro-specific functionality, namely some form of virtual reality or mixed reality component. It's still possible that more will be added by the time the Apple Vision Pro is in users' hands, but it's still a very small start for a major new platform.

Users will still have a massive variety of apps to use that will be compatible with the headset from the start, though, with Apple automatically porting over iPadOS apps with minimal input needed from developers, unless they opt out. The difference is that, rather than being a fully-fledged 3D environment, for example, these apps will operate within visionOS as a flat 2D app within a window.

The small number of apps that offer spatial computing elements could be explained by a number of factors, including that developers may not be willing to put resources towards a platform that will have relatively few users, at least at the start of its life.

There have also been limited amounts of hardware shared with developers to help perfect apps for the headset.

Key standout apps that won't be on Apple Vision Pro at launch will be Netflix, YouTube, and Spotify, which are not enabling iPad apps on the platform. By contrast, the Disney+ app is a major launch partner for Apple, and has incorporated full 3D environments that users can sit in while they watch content.

So far, it is believed Apple sold between 160,000 and 180,000 units in the first weekend of pre-orders.



Read on AppleInsider

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 17
    Serious question; what's with Apple Insider's negative headlines about Vision Pro? Apple sold half its sales target for 2024 in the first few hours of pre-orders and your headline takeaway the other day was that they were "struggling" to market it. Now you headline the 150 native apps available as "few and far between." As you acknowledge several paragraphs down, VP hardware for developers has been in limited supply, and even for those who've received it, how much time have they actually had to develop for a new computing platform that's unlike anything we've seen before? Do you actually think it's news to first year buyers of Vision Pro that current availability of native apps isn't robust? I'm thinking that anyone spending $3500 to buy v1.0 of Vision Pro now knows exactly what they're buying into. 

    People have such short memories. They recall Apple's hit products as being birthed as hits, conveniently forgetting in the comparisons to Vision Pro that these hits, in fact, were often derided by the tech press at launch and/or seriously underwhelming in the performance dept. (See iPod, Macbook Air, iPad and Apple Watch.) Here's a thought: stop with the coverage of sales numbers and marketing for this year--Apple will hit its target, end of story--and start focusing on what native apps available for the platform can do, as well as interviewing developers about what they see as possibilities in the near term future... like a year or two out. THAT would actually be interesting. 
    edited January 23 40domistevedownundertermsofusewilliamlondondeckert63wardlawcbyronlblastdoorpulseimageswatto_cobra
  • Reply 2 of 17
    40domi40domi Posts: 138member
    150 native apps is a lot for a brand new platform, how many do you want?
    I agree with another post on here, it's all negative from the tech press and not very informative....it's actually pathetic 😡
     will sell as many as they can produce!

    stevedownundertermsofusewilliamlondondeckert63wardlawcbyronlmattinozwatto_cobra
  • Reply 3 of 17
    I agrees with the other 2 posters so far.
    I would prefer reviews on the apps on VP than the negativity.

    We remember the iPhone initially only had Apple Apps.
    The iPad was going to be a niche product.
    The Apple Watch wouldn't appeal.

    Let's have some serious reviews of the hardware, the experience and the current apps and new ones as they arrive.
    termsofusewilliamlondondeckert63wardlawcbyronlwatto_cobra
  • Reply 4 of 17
    jSnivelyjSnively Posts: 431administrator
    charlesn said:
    Serious question; what's with Apple Insider's negative headlines about Vision Pro? Apple sold half its sales target for 2024 in the first few hours of pre-orders and your headline takeaway the other day was that they were "struggling" to market it. Now you headline the 150 native apps available as "few and far between." As you acknowledge several paragraphs down, VP hardware for developers has been in limited supply, and even for those who've received it, how much time have they actually had to develop for a new computing platform that's unlike anything we've seen before? Do you actually think it's news to first year buyers of Vision Pro that current availability of native apps isn't robust? I'm thinking that anyone spending $3500 to buy v1.0 of Vision Pro now knows exactly what they're buying into. 

    Serious answer: This is information of value to the public. We have a lot of different opinions here on staff when it comes to AVP, and we let the editors say the things they think are worth saying. Obviously we ensure what we write is factually correct, but as a rule we try not to edit perspective or voice. Saying "look how many they sold!" and then in the same breath saying "obviously everybody knows what they're getting" rings hollow to me. You think 180K developers bought the headset? Apple certainly doesn't agree, because that's not how they've selling it. So, the answer is yes. Absolutely. I suspect lots of people bought this thing on an questionable promise.

    Our job is not to cover Apple only in a positive light. There's a lot of exciting stuff about the Vision Pro, and those articles exist on this website as well.
    williamlondoncanukstormmuthuk_vanalingamgatorguybyronlgrandact73watto_cobra
  • Reply 5 of 17
    jSnively said:
    charlesn said:
    Serious question; what's with Apple Insider's negative headlines about Vision Pro? Apple sold half its sales target for 2024 in the first few hours of pre-orders and your headline takeaway the other day was that they were "struggling" to market it. Now you headline the 150 native apps available as "few and far between." As you acknowledge several paragraphs down, VP hardware for developers has been in limited supply, and even for those who've received it, how much time have they actually had to develop for a new computing platform that's unlike anything we've seen before? Do you actually think it's news to first year buyers of Vision Pro that current availability of native apps isn't robust? I'm thinking that anyone spending $3500 to buy v1.0 of Vision Pro now knows exactly what they're buying into. 

    Serious answer: This is information of value to the public. We have a lot of different opinions here on staff when it comes to AVP, and we let the editors say the things they think are worth saying. Obviously we ensure what we write is factually correct, but as a rule we try not to edit perspective or voice. Saying "look how many they sold!" and then in the same breath saying "obviously everybody knows what they're getting" rings hollow to me. You think 180K developers bought the headset? Apple certainly doesn't agree, because that's not how they've selling it. So, the answer is yes. Absolutely. I suspect lots of people bought this thing on an questionable promise.

    Our job is not to cover Apple only in a positive light. There's a lot of exciting stuff about the Vision Pro, and those articles exist on this website as well.
    Point well taken. However, I’ve seen publications (perhaps, unwittingly) fall into the trap of skewing toward negative headlines in an attempt to be balanced. The result, invariably, has been the alienation of the people who once paid their bills. The first law of business still applies:  Listen to voice of the customer or lose him/her.
    williamlondonmattinozwatto_cobra
  • Reply 6 of 17
    jSnively said:

    Serious answer: This is information of value to the public. We have a lot of different opinions here on staff when it comes to AVP, and we let the editors say the things they think are worth saying. Obviously we ensure what we write is factually correct, but as a rule we try not to edit perspective or voice. Saying "look how many they sold!" and then in the same breath saying "obviously everybody knows what they're getting" rings hollow to me. You think 180K developers bought the headset? Apple certainly doesn't agree, because that's not how they've selling it. So, the answer is yes. Absolutely. I suspect lots of people bought this thing on an questionable promise.

    Our job is not to cover Apple only in a positive light. There's a lot of exciting stuff about the Vision Pro, and those articles exist on this website as well.
    It's not a case of covering Apple only in a positive light. But when you devote a headline and seven paragraphs to bemoan that "only" 150 native apps are available at launch--while providing zero information about what those apps are and what they do--you may want to consider that you've chosen doomsaying over actually informing your readers. 
    edited January 23 wardlawcbyronlwatto_cobra
  • Reply 7 of 17
    jSnivelyjSnively Posts: 431administrator
    charlesn said:
    jSnively said:

    [...]
    It's not a case of covering Apple only in a positive light. But when you devote a headline and seven paragraphs to bemoan that "only" 150 native apps are available at launch--while providing zero information about what those apps are and what they do--you may want to consider that you've chosen doomsaying over actually informing your readers. 

    Context is important, and I will have to sit down and re-read the article to make sure we addressed it properly. I think the negative version of this article is "Look at all these top 100 apps visionOS won't support" kinda thing. Don't forget Apple told us VisionOS would be able to leverage the iPadOS ecosystem, and yet you have core applications like YouTube, Netflix, and Spotify disallowing that. Not all that is on Apple, and they don't have a Carmack. So I think quoting the number of working apps is more generous than it may appear at first blush.

    We hear the feedback, but I think we may have to agree to disagree on this one.

    charlesn said:
    jSnively said:

    [...]
    It's not a case of covering Apple only in a positive light. But when you devote a headline and seven paragraphs to bemoan that "only" 150 native apps are available at launch--while providing zero information about what those apps are and what they do--you may want to consider that you've chosen doomsaying over actually informing your readers. 

    It's something we keep an eye on. It was much easier in the 90s, and early aughts when Apple was a rebel-yell, and it's a lot harder today when they've effectively "won." I think part of what makes AVP exciting is that it has some of that old spirit, but because they're such a behemoth the expectations are much higher than before, and the audience is different too. 
    edited January 23 byronlgrandact73watto_cobra
  • Reply 8 of 17
    Per Mark German the count is now up to 250. The problem with this article is it o my captures a moment in time was developers are finishing and uploading apps. 

    Also, some context. When Mac OS X came out oh so long ago it had fewer apps than Vision Pro. It also completely lacked large developer support. Microsoft didn’t release a native version of office out of the gate. At that point there were millions of active Mac users in the world. And other than Apple Works, iMovie  and Internet Explorer we didn’t have much in the way of  major developers doing native app initially. Similarly with the iPad, we had a bunch or warmed over iPhone apps but how long did it take to get something like office on the iPad? By comparison VP is coming out with a ton of Apps and far more robust support from larger developers. Office will be there for day one.  It’s a stark contrast to the past. 

    So I’m left questioning, is this article clickbait or is the author so incompetent that he failed to do due diligence and look at what has happened history so he could provide relevant context? 



    edited January 24 byronlthtwatto_cobra
  • Reply 9 of 17
    blastdoorblastdoor Posts: 3,378member
    I bet it’s a year or two before we see the “killer apps” for AVP. 

    I also suspect those killer apps will have a strong AGI component to them. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 10 of 17
    danoxdanox Posts: 3,051member
    I expect nothing from TechCrunch but I do expect long range perspective from Appleinsider.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 11 of 17
    jSnivelyjSnively Posts: 431administrator
    Per Mark German the count is now up to 250. The problem with this article is it o my captures a moment in time was developers are finishing and uploading apps. 

    Also, some context. When Mac OS X came out oh so long ago it had fewer apps than Vision Pro. It also completely lacked large developer support. Microsoft didn’t release a native version of office out of the gate. At that point there were millions of active Mac users in the world. And other than Apple Works, iMovie  and Internet Explorer we didn’t have much in the way of  major developers doing native app initially. Similarly with the iPad, we had a bunch or warmed over iPhone apps but how long did it take to get something like office on the iPad? By comparison VP is coming out with a ton of Apps and far more robust support from larger developers. Office will be there for day one.  It’s a stark contrast to the past. 

    So I’m left questioning, is this article clickbait or is the author so incompetent that he failed to do due diligence and look at what has happened history so he could provide relevant context? 


    Again, context. I would suggest you re-read the replies I put above. Have y'all even actually seen the list of software? Everybody understands that 90% of the stuff on the App store is shovelware, and 99.8% of the list is as well. You're free to look over it yourself. As I said before, even saying 150 (which is now 201 according to the list) is generous. We will report the news as it is relevant and it comes in. This isn't an editorial or opinion piece.

    We have run multiple pieces of varying enthusiasm and from different editorial perspectives. We featured Dan's positive editorial in our top featured slot all day yesterday, for example. Mike has a piece now, which is less enthusiastic, but looks towards a brighter future for the device. These are the opinions of the writers. You're welcome to agree or disagree, but none of them are are even approaching incompetent just because you disagree with something that is reported.

    That said, I understand some of you feel context was lacking in this and we'll discuss it internally.
    edited January 24 muthuk_vanalingamwatto_cobra
  • Reply 12 of 17
    blastdoor said:
    I bet it’s a year or two before we see the “killer apps” for AVP. 

    I also suspect those killer apps will have a strong AGI component to them. 
    AGI in a year?!
    Keep dreaming
  • Reply 13 of 17
    charlesn said:
    Serious question; what's with Apple Insider's negative headlines about Vision Pro? Apple sold half its sales target for 2024 in the first few hours of pre-orders and your headline takeaway the other day was that they were "struggling" to market it. Now you headline the 150 native apps available as "few and far between." As you acknowledge several paragraphs down, VP hardware for developers has been in limited supply, and even for those who've received it, how much time have they actually had to develop for a new computing platform that's unlike anything we've seen before? Do you actually think it's news to first year buyers of Vision Pro that current availability of native apps isn't robust? I'm thinking that anyone spending $3500 to buy v1.0 of Vision Pro now knows exactly what they're buying into. 

    People have such short memories. They recall Apple's hit products as being birthed as hits, conveniently forgetting in the comparisons to Vision Pro that these hits, in fact, were often derided by the tech press at launch and/or seriously underwhelming in the performance dept. (See iPod, Macbook Air, iPad and Apple Watch.) Here's a thought: stop with the coverage of sales numbers and marketing for this year--Apple will hit its target, end of story--and start focusing on what native apps available for the platform can do, as well as interviewing developers about what they see as possibilities in the near term future... like a year or two out. THAT would actually be interesting. 
    It balances out the significant amount of people on this site that defend Apple like it's their second job.
  • Reply 14 of 17
    jSnively said:
    Per Mark German the count is now up to 250. The problem with this article is it o my captures a moment in time was developers are finishing and uploading apps. 

    Also, some context. When Mac OS X came out oh so long ago it had fewer apps than Vision Pro. It also completely lacked large developer support. Microsoft didn’t release a native version of office out of the gate. At that point there were millions of active Mac users in the world. And other than Apple Works, iMovie  and Internet Explorer we didn’t have much in the way of  major developers doing native app initially. Similarly with the iPad, we had a bunch or warmed over iPhone apps but how long did it take to get something like office on the iPad? By comparison VP is coming out with a ton of Apps and far more robust support from larger developers. Office will be there for day one.  It’s a stark contrast to the past. 

    So I’m left questioning, is this article clickbait or is the author so incompetent that he failed to do due diligence and look at what has happened history so he could provide relevant context? 


    Again, context. I would suggest you re-read the replies I put above. Have y'all even actually seen the list of software? Everybody understands that 90% of the stuff on the App store is shovelware, and 99.8% of the list is as well. You're free to look over it yourself. As I said before, even saying 150 (which is now 201 according to the list) is generous. We will report the news as it is relevant and it comes in. This isn't an editorial or opinion piece.

    We have run multiple pieces of varying enthusiasm and from different editorial perspectives. We featured Dan's positive editorial in our top featured slot all day yesterday, for example. Mike has a piece now, which is less enthusiastic, but looks towards a brighter future for the device. These are the opinions of the writers. You're welcome to agree or disagree, but none of them are are even approaching incompetent just because you disagree with something that is reported.

    That said, I understand some of you feel context was lacking in this and we'll discuss it internally.
    Context is exactly what is missing, that's the point. Is 200 "few and far between" for an entirely new platform? We have historical context which was seemingly ignored. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 15 of 17
    This is borderline click bait. How about we all wait and see how it turns out instead of the ridiculous Apple is doomed spin?
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 16 of 17
    It’s honestly the first time I’ve seen Apple Insider say anything negative about an Apple product repeatedly. Always thought those opinions were taboo around here.
  • Reply 17 of 17
    mattinozmattinoz Posts: 2,370member
    jSnively said:
    charlesn said:
    jSnively said:

    [...]
    It's not a case of covering Apple only in a positive light. But when you devote a headline and seven paragraphs to bemoan that "only" 150 native apps are available at launch--while providing zero information about what those apps are and what they do--you may want to consider that you've chosen doomsaying over actually informing your readers. 

    Context is important, and I will have to sit down and re-read the article to make sure we addressed it properly. I think the negative version of this article is "Look at all these top 100 apps visionOS won't support" kinda thing. Don't forget Apple told us VisionOS would be able to leverage the iPadOS ecosystem, and yet you have core applications like YouTube, Netflix, and Spotify disallowing that. Not all that is on Apple, and they don't have a Carmack. So I think quoting the number of working apps is more generous than it may appear at first blush.

    We hear the feedback, but I think we may have to agree to disagree on this one.

    charlesn said:
    jSnively said:

    [...]
    It's not a case of covering Apple only in a positive light. But when you devote a headline and seven paragraphs to bemoan that "only" 150 native apps are available at launch--while providing zero information about what those apps are and what they do--you may want to consider that you've chosen doomsaying over actually informing your readers. 

    It's something we keep an eye on. It was much easier in the 90s, and early aughts when Apple was a rebel-yell, and it's a lot harder today when they've effectively "won." I think part of what makes AVP exciting is that it has some of that old spirit, but because they're such a behemoth the expectations are much higher than before, and the audience is different too. 
    Agree fully. 40 years ago we had our first Apple ][e in the house. As more a tinkering machine there were more than a few mags produced that focused on Basic and DIY aspects of that machine. With much rivalry between C64. Those publications treaded the Mac much the same way the traditional Mac/tech press is treating the Vision Pro. It was a different breast they didn’t get it, it was to expensive for their readers, and no use to them anyway. 

    It is strange seeing history repeat if the VP is a success and I suspect it will be I wonder if todays press will be as stubborn. 
    watto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.