Vision D’oh: The "Fun" Problem Facing Apple’s VR Ambitions
Gloss is fine, but people want deep sandboxes and vast shiny playgrounds.
Inevitability is a feeling often reserved for the end of a year, something that can only arrive with enough passing time and proper context to feel confident about any diagnosis. That’s why it’s such a treat to look at something a few days into a new year and proclaim “ah, well that was inevitable” without fear of looking foolish in 359 days. This year that gift came in the form of an October story from The Information, which reported that Apple will drastically slow down production on its $4,000 Vision Pro VR headset by the end of 2024 because of low demand.
Shocking, the internet shouted as a billion pairs of digital eyeballs rolled in the distance.
Before I get ahead of myself, a little bit of leveling out the sarcastic hyperbole. Apple often ends production on low-performing devices, such as the iPhone 12 mini, as MacRumors pointed out in a recent article. Apple also isn’t seemingly stepping back from VR devices totally. Bloomberg reports that an upgrade to the Vision Pro is still in development, with Mark Gurman adding that Apple may release tiny updates as it works on the next product line. A headset going away, therefore, isn’t a definitive statement on a failed product so much as a sign that something didn’t work.
All of which brings us back to my original sarcastic hyperbole: shocking.
The end of 2024 gives us a new peg, however, to look at Apple’s latest hardware bet. Apple’s less than stellar entrance into the market had nothing to do with the technology itself. I was able to try it out (in a super tightly controlled demo from the company) and found it magnificently advanced. I use the Meta Quest fairly frequently, and there’s no question that the Vision Pro is better. The problem with Apple’s headset — outside of the $4,000 price tag that ultimately can only serve a very specific consumer base — isn’t that its potential for usefulness is unapparent, but that its obvious uselessness is at the bottom of an insurmountable hill. Much like how the iPhone didn’t find its place in the world until the App Store, the VisionPro is only as good as what people can do with it, not what it itself is capable of doing.
This is hardly deep analysis, but it acts as a stark reminder that new technologies rely on traditional incentives to get people on board and we’ve lost sight of those incentives. We took for granted the ability for perfectly formatted apps like TikTok and Instagram giving people reasons to use their phone for more than just pre-existing notions of communication, much in the way that we have taken for granted (because it became an inextricable part of our lives) the internet being more than just email and giving us a reason to turnover our entire working world order. Apple’s VisionPro has plenty of apps, but nothing that defines its value as anything more than a half-baked extension to our other personal tech. More I gotcha than I got ya.
Therefore, it’s not what can the Apple VisionPro do, but what can’t my iPhone or Mac or iPad do?
That silence? There’s your problem. It’s not a chicken and egg scenario where the tech arrived before people knew what to do with it. That’s the story of all technology. Once the chicken produced an egg, however, we figured out what to do with it. We understood how both the egg and the chicken could serve multiple purposes to achieve any number of things. As we race toward advancing VR, AR, mixed reality, AI, and whatever other acronyms I’ve missed over the last few months, we should ask the ignored question: what are people going to want to do in the future? How can we use the chicken and what can we do with the egg?
Sandboxes and Playgrounds
An expression that I’ve started using to describe this moment of digital frontier exploration is “digging through bottomless sandboxes and running around shiny vast playgrounds.” Digging through sandboxes refers to giving people a space to build their own experiences and their own worlds, providing the indispensable hardware and software needed to craft the time sink they’ll want to participate in. Running around playgrounds reiterates that users need to be able to connect with their friends and the world-at-large, while shiny reinforces that this new technology and software combo needs to build upon what already exists, and do it better.
Why use this piece of hardware instead of my phone? Why watch something in VR when my TV is already doing that job extraordinarily well? We can actually see that philosophy in action when looking at the top apps on Meta Quest and VisionPro. The top five apps for the Quest allow for enjoyed wasted time in apps that take advantage of specific technology; the Vision Pro doesn’t — with two apps that aren’t even designed for porting to the Vision Pro.
MetaQuest Top Five Apps:
Gorilla Tag — Game
Meta Horizon Worlds — Social
YouTube — Entertainment
Roblox — Game
Beat Saber — Game
Vision Pro Top Five Apps:
Disney+ — Entertainment
Amazon Prime Video — Entertainment, but designed for iPad
Theater: Cinema and Events — Entertainment
Max — Entertainment
ChatGPT — Productivity, designed for iPad
These results aren’t too surprising when you look at corresponding survey data about what, exactly, people think they want out of VR headsets. Roughly 15% of Americans owned VR headsets in January 2024, with another 16% considering purchasing one by January 2025, according to a YouGov survey from last year. The largest percentage of people with VR headsets or looking to purchase one listed gaming as their top reason (48%), with seeing destinations before traveling (32%) and watching movies (30%) as the next two on the list. At the bottom of the list were attending meetings for work (10%) and accessing work documents (5%). Socializing was somewhere in the middle, but keep in mind that social-first games like VRChat would count as gaming. This data suggests that people want to experience advancements in gaming and find new ways to experience entertainment (theoretically replacing consoles and TV sets) rather than be productive (theoretically replacing laptops and tablets), and yet the reality is that very few people are willing to give up what already works for something that isn’t yet a must-have.
It’s ironic that Apple, a company that should have learned from its own precedent about what made the iPhone as revolutionary as it wound up being, didn’t have a plan for more developer interest in the Vision Pro. If someone is going to spend $4,000 on a device — albeit, a beautiful device — you need to give people something to do with it. The iPhone very quickly had Twitter, Facebook, Angry Birds, and Instagram. The VisionPro has Disney+, which is a great partnership, but as Metaverse author and analyst, Matthew Ball, points out, people don’t really need Disney+ on their VisionPro when the average cost of an excellent TV and soundbar is less than $1,500 today. Not to mention that YouTube and Netflix, the former of which is the third most popular app on Meta Quest, aren’t available on the Vision Pro at all. As Ball wrote back in August:
“For the Vision Pro to thrive, it needs apps made for the Vision. After six months, Apple says there are 2,500 “spatial” apps for the Vision Pro, with 250 premiering each month. In contrast, there are more than 2,000,000 iOS apps (i.e. only 0.12% have been natively adapted for Vision Pro). Many of these “spatial” apps are also rudimentary (Disney+ only qualifies as a spatial app because you can watch its content in a half dozen virtual Disney theaters, rather than Apple’s stock environment) and more importantly, a breakout app is nowhere.”
Consider this point of view from the Vision Pro subreddit, which has about 84,000 members as of January 2025: “I just got my Vision Pro, and while the tech is mind-blowing, it feels kinda lonely in this virtual space. I'm looking for apps that are not just engaging but also get more people involved — like multiplayer experiences or anything where you can interact with others.”
Now contrast that to this point about the Meta Quest found within the Oculus Quest subreddit (560,000 members): “While Apple Vision Pro is a magnificent device, you can’t really do anything with it…lets be honest, what are the odds that people actually replace their common devices with VR headsets? For me it’s something additional, something I can only experience inside a VR headset. I have absolutely no interest in replacing my TV with it which my entire family can use together at the same time. Or replace my work setup which is highly effective as it is right now.
“But all I see the Vision pro being used for is doing things in the headset you could already do in real life.”
A few Reddit comments don’t really mean anything, but it’s good to have data that backs up anecdotal evidence. Meta makes up 34% of total market share when it comes to developers working on game projects in 2024 compared to Apple’s 13%, according to Statista. This puts Apple more inline with HTC (another luxury but far less popular VR headset), compared to Meta, which is more aligned with the largest gaming platform Steam (26%). While Apple’s 13% for its first year is remarkable considering it’s a new product, consider that within the first six months of the iPhone existing, there were more than 15,000 apps. There were roughly 3.5x as many by the iPhone’s first year and, as Ball points out, iPhone apps were easier to develop, there was no app ecosystem let alone an economy that incentivized developers.
Incentive. An idea. There was an idea of a product that could be a meaningful form of revenue for a new generation of tinkerers. They just needed access to people with iPhones and the freedom to let their imaginations run wild. The app economy now employs tens of millions of people and is a trillion-dollar industry…one dominated by Apple. Now, however, it’s Meta that’s choosing to create funds for VR developers, trying to recreate the happy accident that Apple walked into in 2008 with the App Store. There’s arguably no better time for a company with means to create those incentives, to power those ideas, and to bet on creativity, as Meta pointed out in a blog post announcing its Oculus Publishing Ignition prototyping fund.
“We understand the recent challenges faced by the game development industry and the sweeping impact it has had on platforms, publishers, studios, teams, and individuals. In light of this, we created Oculus Publishing Ignition, a lightweight and rapid prototyping fund to support newly formed studios banding together through these challenges,” the blog post reads. “We’re here to support teams as they design and build their next hit games. We expect to fund up to 20 Ignition teams before the end of the year.
If the next wave of the internet is going to be built by young, bushytail and bright eyed developers who see the promise in a device even more so than those who designed the original product, then there needs to be ample, free opportunity to let that happen. Apple of 2006 is not the Apple of 2024; a company that has come to expect that people will purchase its products because of that little grey fruit symbol on the box. Innovation rarely comes from a place of monopoly. Hence Meta’s advantage in this specific space. Still, Apple isn’t down for the count.
Here’s the argument for Apple leaning into being anti-Apple.
What Does Apple Do Next?
Accurate foresight is a talent rarely possessed by experts. It’s why experts often get predictions in their own field wrong compared to people who have less expertise but more general knowledge in a wider variety of areas, according to Atlantic writer Tom Nichols. Take, for example, Steve Jobs circa 2007. The legendary Apple C.E.O. didn’t think about an app store for his new phone because he assumed that developers would build for the web. By that sentiment, the phone itself didn’t represent a new internet age but rather an extension of something already built. It didn’t take long for Apple to realize that it could be something different, that it could build a new internet by letting developers imagine what that future looked like instead of simply helping to extend one that already exists. As a former Morgan Stanley analyst told the New York Times in 2009, “The game that Apple is playing is to become the Microsoft of the smartphone market.”
What were the three unforeseen actions that made Apple move from trying to be the IBM of phone devices to the Microsoft of the smartphone market? In my opinion, these included:
A centralized service for entertainment and social apps specifically designed for the iPhone’s dimensions and Apple’s user base
Incentive for developers to prioritize getting their apps onto the App Store to generate potentially significant profits
Apps that in turn helped incentivize consumers to continue buying new iPhones (Instagram Reels and TikTok demanded better cameras, editing software designed for iPhones to create better posts, and productivity apps that turned new powerful iPhones (think the OpenAI integration) into worthy upgrades because of their value to someone’s day-to-day life
This eventually impacted the upgrade cycle for iPhones. As Kyle Chayka observed in a column for the New Yorker, “The main reason to upgrade your phone on Apple’s annual schedule is typically the camera” but, as Chayka noted, “The fact that I do not need an iPhone 16 is a testament not so much to the iPhone’s failure as to its resounding success…the iPhone has become so good that it’s hard to imagine anything but incremental improvements. Apple’s teleological phone-design strategy may have simply reached its end point, the same way evolution in nature has repeatedly resulted in an optimized species of crab.” If Apple isn’t a hardware company anymore, as the Microsoft comparison would allude to, then the main incentive for Apple is to find more ways to monetize time spent on apps within its devices rather than relying on a constant upgrade cycle of devices for a finite consumer base.
And that means Apple can’t just point to the success of its App Store on the iPhones and iPads as a reason that developers should build with Apple in the next internet age (the VR/AR/MR/whatever acronym you want) as their go-to partner. This is especially true when you also ask developers to give up 30% of all subscription revenue. That monopolistic attitude only works when you operate a monopoly, something that Apple undeniably does in the mobile space but certainly doesn’t in VR.
As Ben Thompson has said, if Spotify and YouTube and Netflix thought that the Vision Pro was going to be as revolutionary as the iPhone when it dropped or the iPad when it launched, they’d ensure their apps were visible and native on day one. But they’re not — and that’s because Apple doesn’t automatically hold the draw when it comes to the next wave of computing or internet. Meta does the former and companies like OpenAI are trying to build the latter. Apple has stagnated on its success of creating a near-perfect device that defines the present to the detriment of its ambitions to build the device of tomorrow.
A big reason this period is frustrating is because the technology needed to create the must-have app of tomorrow isn’t there yet. Despite the hundreds of billions of dollars invested in VR, AR, and mixed reality technology, nothing is so definitive in necessity that people are rushing out to spend their cash. The other frustrating part of the equation is trying to define the Vision Pro’s utility factor. We mostly use our iPhones to access our apps, but it was originally sold as a pocket computer with the ability to text and make phone calls or listen to music. You didn’t need an MP3 player and a phone, you just needed an iPhone.
It’s almost downright absurd that no one has ever suggested the Vision Pro is fun
What reason is there to need a Vision Pro? Or a Meta Quest? None. We’ve been stuck in the early adoption phase of the innovator’s cycle for so long because no one can figure out why anyone would need this thing. The move from letters to email certainly made sense. The move from calling to texting did, too. The move from being on your phone or tablet or computer to wearing a device on your head — and outside of the house — for hours on end is…?
That’s why Apple needs to find ways to create bottomless sandboxes and vast shiny playgrounds. If you can’t create a reason for people to buy something, you can start to find new ways to monetize attention for longer periods of time, bringing in consumer bases through the pure expectation of fun time spent rather than relying on the power of a new but unnecessary technology. This is the Meta strategy for its Quest line as much as it’s exactly what powered YouTube and Wattpad — individuals contributing to an ecosystem where people can waste time with a never ending sea of things to do. Eventually, as more time is spent within those worlds and with new technology, the more necessary it becomes to a day-to-day lifestyle.
It’s almost downright absurd that no one has ever suggested the Vision Pro is fun. At $4,000, what’s the fucking point then? VR is an entertainment device first and foremost. Meta and Sony understand this beyond all else. It’s what the iPhone became, and what the iPad was designed to replace. By not partnering with top time wasters like Netflix or YouTube, and by not properly incentivizing developers to produce native apps that can lead to more time spent with addictive apps, Apple’s grave just gets deeper and deeper. Don’t just accept Vision Pro developer requests or hand out cameras to filmmakers (but absolutely continue doing this) — actively help cater to the time wasters that will define the type of given attention any new app or any new device needs to find a sizable audience.
Remember, Apple didn’t release an SDK kit for developers to build on the iPhone until after Iconfactory created a version of Twitter called “Twitterific” that ran on jailbroken iPhones in 2007. What people wanted from their new phone was to be able to spend more time scrolling on their shiny device. They wanted to waste time without being tied to their computers or a website designed for computers. Apple relented. Ironically considering that everything has changed over the last 18 years, nothing has really changed since then. We have new apps that allow us to do new things. We have more powerful games. We’re more connected than ever. But what people want is to waste time in native formats that give them a reason to use a specific device over another. They want to try new technology, but it’s gotta be fun. It’s gotta be comfortable. And it’s gotta feel new enough that the incentive of not doing a similar activity on another device outweighs all.
Perhaps that’s Apple’s biggest hurdle, and it’s biggest advantage. It doesn’t know how to build fun, but it does know how to build for fun. The only thing left is to find the zaniest developers who understand what the Vision Pro can be and let them light the path ahead. Who is the Iconfactory of 2027? The only way to find out is to treat the Vision Pro like developers treated the iPhone in 2007: a toy to break, to mold, and to rebuild.