This isn't a problem unique to the Apple Vision Pro. There's still relatively little to do with an Oculus, PSVR2, and many other headsets.
Honestly, my favorite part about my PSVR2 is the ability to cut off most everything other than what I'm doing just then.But it's kind of a lot of work for that feature.
My household grabbed an Oculus Quest 2 in late 2020. We used it for maybe 6 months tops and since then it has gathered dust. The games are either too expensive for a short experience or exhaustively immersive to the point they require too much activation and sustained energy. The library at the time was also very small so I would be curious to charge up the headset and see what has changed.
I think our headset was around $500 USD... Fortunately the Quest 2 experience taught us that $3500 USD for the Vision Pro was _absolutely_ not going to be worth the cost.
I demoed it to a lot of my friends and everyone was very impressed but no one ever asked to go back. When I realized this knew there was a problem and that when I started doubting the adoption of VR.
Once Meta/Facebook bought occulus, I full checked out and never bought another VR head set ever again.
I still managed to make a VR version of one of my games before fully quitting. I don’t know what it would take for me to care about VR again.
Then when Facebook took them over they finally had the chance to buy first class custom made components instead of going for scraps from the mobile industry. I don't like Facebook/meta either but their cash was desperately needed.
I also really appreciated the gift of the Rift consumer version, they were under no obligation to do that.
Apple considers developers so far below them nobody is willing to touch it with a pole.
To Apple’s credit, nearly every iPad app works on it unless the developer specifically opts out.
I don’t think the issue is how Apple treats developers, it’s simply a matter of market share. Making apps for Vision Pro won’t be profitable until there are a lot more users.
There are some adjacent niche uses, as well. High-res fractal viewing, for example.
But as to productivity... I tried using various virtual desktop software, but the image quality is just not good enough to match what I'm used to with my 4K displays. Even 4K per eye is not good enough for that, since any usable virtual display won't fill the entire visible space.
If visionOS is to succeed, that's how it will do it. visionOS and iOS/iPadOS will continue to be developed in parallel, with new UX conventions slowly making their way to the traditional devices. Over time, apps built using Apple's platform will "just work" in visionOS as well.
In fact, while I hadn't thought about it until now, that's probably exactly why they're doing a visual refresh of iOS 19. Reporting seems to emphasize the "visionOS style" widgets, and it's apparent to me at least that that's going to lead to deeper and more complete integration between the platforms.
I don't think Apple is done with Spatial Computing. I wish the Vision Pro had done a bit better, especially its native software ecosystem, but I don't think it has been a failure at all. There were likely lots of reasons they launched it: to test the market's readiness for the product, to introduce new UX conventions, to get direct user feedback, to allow developers onto the platform, etc. They didn't have to make money on the Vision Pro (though, I think they did).
People here are always saying how hard it is to build a hardware startup; how just _shipping the product_ is a milestone that most of them never reach. Hardware is hard. I see the Vision Pro as Apple applying Agile to hardware. They shipped an MVP. It's not a "VR headset", it's a "Spatial Computing device". That lets them see how people actually use it, refine, and iterate.
The only reason you don't see this approach more often is that most companies have neither the capital nor the risk tolerance to do it. Apple spent $30B on R&D in FY2023.
Reminds me of the VR storyline in HBO's Silicon Valley.