Netflix is missing a big opportunity by not supporting all 200 Vision Pro users.
The Vision Pro REEKS of Post-Jobs. It’s too tech savvy to be a consumer Apple product.
Part of the magic of Apples brand is they’ve never really been one to jump the bandwagon. This feels more like a Microsoft product, like that table surface thing from 15 years ago.
https://www.apple.com/apple-vision-pro/ under Privacy and Security:
"Eye input is not shared with Apple, third-party apps, or websites. Only your final selections are transmitted when you tap your fingers together."
That was great I'd like more info. I'm not sure how Jobs figured web apps would've been practical given a lot of things were still using flash at the time.
We didn't have frameworks like React back then, as far as I know there was pretty much JQuery.
But considering how a lot of projects are moving to web technology these days, it sort of showed how forward thinking he was...
> I guarantee the best Vision Pro experience will be exclusive to their own apps
Apple must know they need third party apps at launch and that those apps have to be good, so I expect they’ve worked with/pampered quite a few companies in the last year, helping them build a good Vision Pro app.
Because of that, I expect to see more third-party apps than Apple ones at launch, and I expect all of them to be good or at least very impressive to demo.
> and nearly everything third party will be second class at best.
If we interpret “nearly everything” as “the overwhelming majority”: that is the case on any App Store, so that’s not surprising.
Or they might try to launch it iOS style, provide stunted 3rd party experience, only first party full apps, and try to launch a 3rd party more complete support later.
Firstly, Apple’s help may have made it fairly cheap for them to create their app.
Secondly, I guess some CEOs will fall for the status/prestige or for “if the neighbors have it, so must we” and for now, care less for the money.
Thirdly, there almost certainly will be few customers, but all buyers will be rich, even for iPhone users, and quite a few likely will be decision makers. If, say, Zoom has a good Vision experience, but MS Teams doesn’t, and that swings a CEO of a large company to switch to Zoom, that’s worth a lot of money for Zoom.
So, even if you’re completely rational and think it isn’t worth it, your fear that having a Vision app out will make some other CEO make the irrational decision that, therefore, your smartphone app is better, may be enough to make you decide to invest in a Vision app.
I must admit i don't particularly understand where this (alleged?) ignorance is coming from. The reasons are the same as they were ten years ago on the ios platform. It's for the consumer. It makes the consumer's experience better.
Pretending that consumers deserve an inferior netflix experience because you believe companies shouldn't charge each other money is insane.
I use Android (work) and iPhone (personal) phones.
My experience with Apps on iPhone is much better. The Apps are better, there is less trash, the Apps get less of my personal data.
This is valuable to me.
Maybe App developers for iPhone are just better human beings than Android developers. I think that’s not the case, and it’s due to the walled garden.
We can argue about why this is the case. But at my company many have both ecosystems in their pockets all day, and no one has a private Android phone for these reason. Sample size 100+ people, with better things to do in life than recompiling code for their phones.
I get that if you want to hack on your phone, iPhone is not the right phone for you. The user experience for hacking on your phone vs using your phone as a non SW developer are allowed to be completely different. One market is significantly larger than the other.
The whole point of the Vision Pro, to me, is to add interactivity to the broader world. Passive consumption of content made for a different form factor is a pretty hard thing to make interactive.
The way I see it, the only way to make this interactive is to make it so I can scroll on my phone while half-ignoring a netflix show.
I don't see anything about family movie nights in that article, but there is a way private viewing is good for families - it doesn't hog the TV! Only one person can use a TV at once.
> Or just having a cable car approaching slowly closer to me.
I just took a spatial video of a mountain cable car if anyone wants it. Is it emotional? I dunno, I don't have a way to watch it.
> but there is a way private viewing is good for families - it doesn't hog the TV! Only one person can use a TV at once.
Nothing prevents people from watching tv together. Back in the twentieth century, families bonded by doing that. So, I’m not sure that’s good for families.
32 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 30.6 ms ] threadThe Vision Pro REEKS of Post-Jobs. It’s too tech savvy to be a consumer Apple product.
Part of the magic of Apples brand is they’ve never really been one to jump the bandwagon. This feels more like a Microsoft product, like that table surface thing from 15 years ago.
Especially as they are moving into showing ads.
That turned out differently.
https://9to5mac.com/2011/10/21/jobs-original-vision-for-the-...
We didn't have frameworks like React back then, as far as I know there was pretty much JQuery.
But considering how a lot of projects are moving to web technology these days, it sort of showed how forward thinking he was...
From the 30% tax apple enforces, why would anyone give apple more power by building on a new platform versus a reasonable web app?
I guarantee the best Vision Pro experience will be exclusive to their own apps and nearly everything third party will be second class at best.
If they can’t make their device effortlessly seamless with existing apps, it’ll be a total failure.
Apple must know they need third party apps at launch and that those apps have to be good, so I expect they’ve worked with/pampered quite a few companies in the last year, helping them build a good Vision Pro app.
Because of that, I expect to see more third-party apps than Apple ones at launch, and I expect all of them to be good or at least very impressive to demo.
> and nearly everything third party will be second class at best.
If we interpret “nearly everything” as “the overwhelming majority”: that is the case on any App Store, so that’s not surprising.
Secondly, I guess some CEOs will fall for the status/prestige or for “if the neighbors have it, so must we” and for now, care less for the money.
Thirdly, there almost certainly will be few customers, but all buyers will be rich, even for iPhone users, and quite a few likely will be decision makers. If, say, Zoom has a good Vision experience, but MS Teams doesn’t, and that swings a CEO of a large company to switch to Zoom, that’s worth a lot of money for Zoom.
So, even if you’re completely rational and think it isn’t worth it, your fear that having a Vision app out will make some other CEO make the irrational decision that, therefore, your smartphone app is better, may be enough to make you decide to invest in a Vision app.
Pretending that consumers deserve an inferior netflix experience because you believe companies shouldn't charge each other money is insane.
We can both call other people insane. That doesn't make it true.
My experience with Apps on iPhone is much better. The Apps are better, there is less trash, the Apps get less of my personal data.
This is valuable to me.
Maybe App developers for iPhone are just better human beings than Android developers. I think that’s not the case, and it’s due to the walled garden.
We can argue about why this is the case. But at my company many have both ecosystems in their pockets all day, and no one has a private Android phone for these reason. Sample size 100+ people, with better things to do in life than recompiling code for their phones.
I get that if you want to hack on your phone, iPhone is not the right phone for you. The user experience for hacking on your phone vs using your phone as a non SW developer are allowed to be completely different. One market is significantly larger than the other.
The way I see it, the only way to make this interactive is to make it so I can scroll on my phone while half-ignoring a netflix show.
I hope it gets there in later versions, but for v1 I’m hoping for a nicer in-hotel movie experience. That’s about it.
He sees it as an existential threat to the movie theater.
How do you share popcorn on the couch all plugged in?
And that’s after your average American home with its 2.2 children lay out $14,000+ for their Apple tax.
Sorry, Om, I’m not seeing that.
> Or just having a cable car approaching slowly closer to me.
I just took a spatial video of a mountain cable car if anyone wants it. Is it emotional? I dunno, I don't have a way to watch it.
Nothing prevents people from watching tv together. Back in the twentieth century, families bonded by doing that. So, I’m not sure that’s good for families.
Did you just make that up? That article doesn't say any such thing