Because they smell leverage. Vision Pro adoption has to be subsidized by Apple, there’s no demand. To bootstrap demand popular apps with users need to be available. They have no risk of losing customers to a competitor by not shipping this.
So they are building negotiation ammo for a bit for the next round of conversations over platform fees, app review processes, etc.
For whatever reason the VR industry has been a particularly strange stand off ground in this universe because of a certain huge player trying to get mainstream user interest to take off to make their negotiating hand with potential suppliers much stronger, but it has not worked.
If I was any of those companies I wouldn't bother either.
Can you imagine any hard-charging SV CEO saying "actually it might be a bit buggy or muck up our analytics data, best leave it for now folks, enjoy your weekend, take it easy"
It's left up to Product Managers who very much do care about whether their analytics data is messed up given that it is often used to evaluate their performance.
My sweet summer child, the relationship between Apple and Netflix/Google is entirely determined by their respective platform Bizdev teams + executive relationships. Product happens after the business terms are hashed out.
Chrome, Edge, Firefox or Opera only.
Either Google only built it to use Widevine (which Safari doesn't support) or Safari's limitations on the amount of data that can be stored make it too unreliable to roll out to customers.
I thought people in Apple world desired the walled garden experience where the guardian is so strict to "monitor the quality and safety of apps" that you can't possibly allow for side loading.
Why allow subpart experiences onto a new platform that makers can't afford to make "safe and perfect"?
Sounds like not so much an explicit opt-out as holding out for apple to make the headset run their existing apps.
Allowing their content on Apple’s platform will create a gap in case they want to compete in the future