Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> VR development model where VR is an extension of an existing supported platform, not a platform in and off itself

This is the crux of the issue, both for Apple and for Godot.

In Apple’s case, they’re finding that their vision does not resonate with consumers or developers. So they’re searching for ways to expand chances of success but not entering with an equal partnership mentality. Thats their prerogative but I would argue the arrogance blinds them to reality.

From Godot’s perspective, the question is whether all this distraction is worth it for a platform that has for all intents and purposes failed to prove itself. There’s an opportunity cost and likely constraints that would flow from supporting Apple’s divergent and unproven vision.

In my books it seems clear that it would be a mistake for Godot to invest energy in supporting a niche, heretofore unsuccessful product that is not aligned with Godot’s technical and product roadmap.




I still don’t understand why I see people saying Vision is an unsuccessful and failed platform.

Vision Pro is very clearly an early adopter version of a platform that has yet to truly get started. Obviously, a huge $3500 headset on your head is not the actual intended final form of this platform. The actual intended final form is glasses.

And until those glasses are out you can’t say it failed, because it hasn’t even started yet.


Because the rumor mill loves to churn things up, and people forget the past.

The original iPod was an incredibly niche product. It required a Mac at a time when Macs were way less common than they are now. When Windows support was added, it required FireWire, which was quite uncommon.

The original iPhone did OK but didn't sell super well. It was very expensive, had only 2G connectivity when 3G had already arrived, only worked on the #3 cellular carrier, and didn't support any third-party apps.

The original Apple Watch was bulky and severely underpowered.

Apple continued to iterate on all of these and they ended up being quite successful.

That's not to say Vision Pro will see the same treatment. There are plenty of failed products you can point to as well. Just that an iffy initial release doesn't mean anything about the long-term outlook for the product.


The iPod did have demand, though. It was huge, clunky, somewhat fragile, but people wanted to use one and carry it with them everywhere. Same goes for the iPhone, to some extent. They succeeded as lifestyle products because they were desirable and made life better.

But the Vision Pro? If you sold them at a flat-rate price of $1,000, I don't think I know people that would want to use one regularly. I don't even know anyone who would regularly use one if they got it for free. It's not going to replace the time they spend on their phone or Xbox, and it's probably not going to carve out any new routines so you can watch immersive video. It's competing against your phone and TV for YouTube privileges, and it's going to lose most of the time.

If Vision Pro was desirable to the average person, I might have hope for the product line as a whole. People don't want this from Apple though, it might as well be the spiritual successor to the Pippin.


Anybody I’ve ever demoed this product to has the opposite impression: it would replace their iPad and their TV easily if they could afford it and it was a bit lighter. I play Xbox and PS5 in it all the time ; it isn’t a rival to those products. It’s a preview of the future of all computing.




Consider applying for YC's Summer 2025 batch! Applications are open till May 13

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: