> The visionOS platform doesn't have OpenGL support, as it's not supported by visionOS.
Hell would freeze over before Apple conformed and contributed to an existing open standard. They even failed to follow the Godot contribution guide for the PR itself.
> Hell would freeze over before Apple conformed and contributed to an existing open standard.
Better get some blankets because Apple has made significant contributions to many open standards - for example, USB-C. And, back in the day, OpenGL.
Its a mistake to think of a large company like apple as if it were a person, with their own goals and ideas. Apple is just too big for that. I mean, they have 164,000 staff. Thats big enough that "small" business units will still have thousands of people. So each area will end up creating its own culture, and have its own way of doing things.
The graphics division - these days - seems very intent on doing their own thing. But that doesn't tell us much about the rest of apple. 164 000 people is a lot of people. That's an awful lot of different opinions about open standards.
OpenGL is quite dated for VR/AR. In the Apple ecosystem they supported OpenGL 4.1 for quite some time before moving to Metal, which was announced 2 years before Vulkan.
If you spent the time developing an in house graphics API since open standards weren’t moving forward, why would you rewrite everything a second time just a few years later? Shouldn’t you expect to get a decade or two out of your existing API and only do the massive rewrite when the benefits become more substantial?
Vulkan & OpenGL applications can translate to Metal with MoltenGL and MoltenVK, respectively.
> I would insist Apple conforms to the industry standard
Insisting Apple conforms to anything is useless, unless you're in control of government regulations.
You can stick to Apple's ridiculous custom APIs, or you can release your software without Apple support. Luckily, VisionOS seems to have gone the way of the Apple Pippin, so I don't think many people will care much about Apple's headsets not being supported by VR games. Apple certainly doesn't.
If Godot wants VisionOS support, this is probably the way to do it. The question then becomes: is an alteration this heavy worth the maintenance cost, especially for hardware that expensive and uncommon? You don't want to end up in a situation where the one guy with such a headset falls ill and suddenly you can't test your engine anymore without spending a couple thousand on new hardware.
It's a pretty well self regulating issue, isn't it? If there is no maintainer available, there's no market either, so it could be dropped. If there's enough people to develop for this expensive uncommon system, then surely there's enough money going round to pay someone.
Right now it looks like they have enough first party support and third party dyi efforts to at least give it a go.
If Godot does nothing and insists that it's on Apple to to support OpenXR, then VR developers who want to support the Vision Pro will have to use Unity or Unreal or some other non-Godot engine. It achieves nothing other than to reduce Godot's relevance. Godot isn't big enough to pressure Apple.
This indicates to me that the Apple Vision and visionOS product line and OS are not canceled internally and that Apple is still committed to its future.
While the Apple Vision Pro itself is not a good or successful product, progress in display technology will enable Apple to build a more attractive consumer product, in the form of light, comfortable and unobtrusive AR glasses.
In this line of thinking — not just focusing on the flopped AVP but looking at the product line on the long term - I think it makes sense for this OS to be added to Godot.
I do think the concern for who will carry the maintenance burden is valid. In my experience, Apple hasn’t been the most responsive company when it comes to obscure bugs or issues with their API (e.g. with Cocoa). I would be wary of depending on continued support from a large tech company that can change its goals at any time.
> While the Apple Vision Pro itself is not a good ... product
I must admit I'm baffled by this reaction to the first model:
* It's clearly far more impressive technologically than any competitor.
* The price point clearly indicates it wasn't aimed at the general consumer, which is normal for such a massive technological leap compared to their other recent consumer stuff (e.g. the apple watch).
* They got loads of feedback
* Nobody who is this critical seems to articulate what success would have looked like.
> in the form of light, comfortable and unobtrusive AR glasses.
This just seems like a fantasy. I don't understand why people expect this is possible. Battery alone precludes this. Even just streaming video back and forth is going to be too power-hungry for serious use with lightweight glasses.
The Vision Pro could easily have been successful if they'd invested an additional 10% of it's R&D budget into software development, and released a suite of tools that actually leveraged what the platform was capable of.
It's incredibly impressive tech but just not worth it if all there is to do is to have ipad apps floating in the air around me.
Same reaction. The vision pro is clearly a great headset. The biggest thing restraining it has been the ability to program for it. If Apple will not let 3rd party devs access the primitives needed to create game engine support then Apple needs to lend that support. Here they are
> Battery alone precludes this. Even just streaming video back and forth is going to be too power-hungry for serious use with lightweight glasses.
I know this is obvious, but the battery doesn't have to go in the glasses. When the glasses are just a wireless monitor, it opens up all sorts of possibilities for belttop computers. Obviously, the glasses still need some power, but the battery can be very small, comparatively. Put the weight and heat into something with a mobile phone form factor.
Apple Watch -> $250
iPhone 16 Pro Max -> $1200
iVirt -> $2400
iVirt LTE -> $3200
iGlass -> $600
Now you can charge $3000 for you VR kit, but claim it only costs $2400. Plus people shell out $600 for the glasses even though they don't have the CPU. They just want to look like they do. Or they buy multiple pairs for different locations or as backups or whatever. The profit on the glasses could be huge. Especially if they could replace the Apple Watch for some people.
It is a technological tour de force and an amazing demo of what's possible and what is soon to come. But if we define a "good product" to mean a commercially successful one, then it isn't very successful. Still, I'm hoping it won't be killed and that it will continue to evolve and become successful eventually.
I assume the GP means "successful in the market" by "successful product". They're distinguishing between something that might be successful otherwise and something that is successful as a product.
>* It's clearly far more impressive technologically than any competitor.
Technology hardly makes a product.
>The price point clearly indicates it wasn't aimed at the general consumer,
You don't put your CEO on the cover of Vanity Fair and devote half your retail space and staff to it if it's not for the general consumer.
>* They got loads of feedback
Not as much as they hoped. They hoped to have 500K units in the wild in the first year and ramp up for the second year to a meaningful production run but that never happened because demand fell off a cliff once the fanboys got theirs and so the feedback is very, very limited and mostly negative or untrustworthy.
>* Nobody who is this critical seems to articulate what success would have looked like.
Apple scale scales. Meet or break Watch's first 2 year sales maybe? Watch, derided as a failure in the first year actually sold about ~20M units across both year 1 and year 2. Vision Pro will sell fewer than 500K units across year 1 and 2. 500K units!! One doesn't need to define success when failure is so easily defined here.
>Even just streaming video back and forth is going to be too power-hungry for serious use with lightweight glasses.
Spectacles will be entirely different technology stacks. See the Meta Orion prototype for example. You are correct, battery is an issue. Even bigger though is heat. Can't let things get smartphone hot on your face or it's game over. Anyway, expect low-res, narrow field of view, 2D overlays, more like your car's HUD than the immersive experience of goggles. But at least spectacles have a chance where goggles clearly do not, as demonstrated at both the high end and low end by Apple and Meta.
I believe there's going to be a lot more investment if no other reason than Tim Cook seems to care deeply about it (and beating Zuckerberg).
Strategically it make sense. The only real threat to the iPhone which Apple makes all their money from, is a new form factor that replaces phones. Maybe glasses/goggles will never replace phones, but spending billions a year to make sure that you win the glasses market just in case they do is very cheap insurance.
>> "Tim cares about nothing else," an insider with knowledge of the matter told Gurman. "It’s the only thing he’s really spending his time on from a product development standpoint."
>> he's looking to beat Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg — who shares an obsession with AR and VR headsets — to market.
Is Tim Cook a product person now?
Does Apple care about being first now (instead of being best)?
Before the Vision Pro release we heard similar reporting from Gurman (1) (and recall the skepticism about Gurman's reporting: 2)
Yet here we are. After a decade of promoting AR (3) Tim Apple released a headset of which "the weirder things about visionOS (and the Vision Pro itself, really) is that there’s not a lot of true AR in the mix" (4)
Cook took all of the top Vision Pro talent and put them to work on Siri. Those who didn't go are either working on the spectacles (no relationship at all to the tech in the goggles) or they're working to clear out the pipleline of goggles work that's already close to finished that they can deploy along with a new model that uses mostly the same components as the first which lets them make their supply chain whole after they ended production well short of what they promised their component makers. Rather than leave their supply chain high and dry and their developers disappointed with early cancellation, they'll make one more go of it to buy themselves the time to progress on spectacles (again, totally unrelated tech) so Cook can claim that goggles evolved into spectacles rather than admit that goggles bombed and they're retrenching around spectacles and that entirely different tech stack and approach, for which zero of the goggles investment by Apple or 3rd party developers will transfer.
The first "cancelled" reporting was Gurman saying that they'd moved on to spectacles which is true, much of the talent was reassigned to other projects including AR spectacles.
The next reports said Vision Pro was over but a Vision "lite" was on the way to give it one more go.
The next reports said the Vision Pro chip and ship minor spec bump plus a lighter cheaper version.
The next reports said Vision, unclear pro or lite, plus tethered goggles (PCVR for Mac, probably like the Beyond 2 but shiny and metal.)
The reports after that said most of the top talent from the Vision Pro teams has moved to Siri to rescue it and AI.
So, we've got most of the talent moved to spectacles and Siri, and a tethered device and an all-in-one device on the table.
Those are mostly likely last ditch attempts at rescuing the massive R&D investment and equally important, a chance to make their supply chain whole after ending production short of what Apple promised them. We'll see the next products integrate nearly all of the components of the first and that'll clear the decks for their suppliers so they're not left high and dry as well as letting their devs get one more crack at things and ship the VisionOS 3.0 stuff they've been hard at work on this last year.
Making your devs and supply chain happy is hardly a drop in the bucket cost wise compared to the investment already made so that's what they're doing.
They'll try a cheaper version of the immersive all-in-ones and a PCVR version that strips out the PC they've spent 10 years and $10B integrating to see if a display peripheral for $2K will beat an all-in-one face PC at $4K (but that won't give Cook the new platform he was hoping to own and monetize, just another accessory for SJ's creations.)
The core idea is solid. At this point it just needs to be lighter, have better battery, and a much lower price. With further refinement and increased economies of scale these issues could potentially be fixed.
Nearly all of the reviews I’ve read say that it’s a good user experience overall, but it’s not worth the price.
It doesn't need a battery at all. Just have it connect directly to a Mac to use as a virtual Mac display. It's what I use my Vision Pro for as its primary use case, to have an ultra-wide monitor in front of me without taking up any physical space. I use it for hours every day as my primary programming platform.
I really have no other use case, and don't need the VR/AR features. The virtual ultra-wide display of the latest VisonOS updates, which has the area of 2 4k monitors, is just amazing for coding. It's an incredible user experience and worth every penny for the Vision Pro for that alone.
Throwing away some of the AR/VR features and using it as a virtual display only would make it lighter and smaller. I could use something that doesn't block me from taking a drink while I code, for example. I couldn't care less about video games as well.
No, it's not. The form factor cannot possibly shrink enough in size and weight or gain enough input ergonomics to make the gorgeous outputs worth it. Not gonna happen for goggles, ever. People won't smash a PC into their faces for no use cases beyond what their laptops and smartphones amply provide for. You think women who spend half a trillion dollars a year and an average of an hour a day on their hair and makeup are going to smash any kind of PC, no matter how small and light, into their faces requiring they redo their hair and makeup after every use? Really?
This is precisely what they're doing, shipping everything that was mostly already cooked, clearing out the pipleline for their own developers and for third parties, particularly the supply chain they left high and dry when they ended Vision Pro production early, but also their own OS devs and the ones working with third party software and content sponsorships.
They've already moved all the top talent and the next thing looks like a PCVR device that guts the PC from Vision Pro and maybe a chip and ship bump or even a cheaper model with sub-premium materials and lower fidelity optical stack.
What ever is going on, it's clearly not the priority it was and most people paying close attention see a steep decline in the viability of goggles at Apple. That form factor was a flop, as the ergonomics simply didn't align with the use cases for most normal people.
Unfortunately the price tag is too high for me, and since I'm based in the Netherlands, I did not manage to schedule a demo. However, what makes a good product is subjective and you're right that in many ways it is a good product.
From what I can see, the hardware and software quality are high, and the user experience is greatly simplified in contrast to something like Meta Quest, which' UX is often rough and clunky.
My main argument for saying it's not a good product, is that the form factor is not where it should be for mass consumer appeal.
Another subjective and personal pet peeve is that it's not possible to create an AR experience using custom rendering logic with Metal. One has to use RealityKit. Only a fully immersive experience (VR) can be created with Metal. (This might have changed since it came out and I'm happy to be proven wrong, then I'll definitely buy one). I understand the reasoning behind locking this down, but I would love to experiment with writing AR 3D modeling software for visionOS.
Yeah - I thought it was a good product, just a way-too-expensive-to-ever-gain-popular-support, completely useless one since no developer wants to support a new Apple platform knowing how brutally Apple treats developers with their in-app-purchase nonsense, and Apple itself sure isn't doing anything to put any wood behind the arrow.
If Apple cared, they'd drop the money to get, say, immersive courtside experience at every NBA and NFL game for a subscription fee. New long-form immersive content, not these silly 5-10 minute videos they drop every month or two.
It's a great product. But Apple's not serious enough about it. Someone who can deliver at least one of "normal people can buy it" or "a ton of incredibly compelling content exists" will own this market, eventually. It probably won't be Apple.
I had the HTC Vive quite a few years ago, using it a lot and constantly buying new games and experiences to try it out. It was a little annoying paying full whack for little 5-10min tech demos but was still encapsulated by it. Eventually got the wireless extension to avoid having to detangle the rope of a cable you were tethered to, but the base stations in the corner of the room were still annoying me cause you constantly had to re-calibrate it everytime someone nudged or moved them.
Left it for quite a few years and after seeing the reviews about the Quest 3, I bought that and was amazed by how simple it was to pickup and use and the fact that you didn't need a monster computer running it. You literally pick it up and get going. The Meta app store is filled with lots of VR Titles which aren't just tech demos and you can STILL hook it up to your computer and play a host of Steam games. The Quest 3 was like €500 and basically a full platform.
The Vision Pro got announced with a few improvements like higher resolution but it was an insane €3500... ok I was curious how much better it would be, since I was quite impressed by my Quest 3.
My friend had bought one, one of those people who loves to wear expensive watches and be seen in public having a lot of money. As with a lot of Apple products it's sometimes about being seen to have the latest thing and the Vision Pro was great for sitting in public, catching attention and showing people that you can afford a €3500 device.
He brings it on holiday and is passing it around the room, showing people the dinosaur tech demo and everyone is amazed at how brilliant it is. For all of those in amazement (including my friend) it was their very first experience getting into VR and I also went through the same feeling when I first got the HTC Vive.
He gives it to me and shows me the dinosaur tech demo and all I could really think was... how does this thing cost €3000 more than the Quest 3? I asked him: Where are the games? there are none. Can you hook it up to Steam? No... When the battery dies, can you swap it with another? No.
Unless I had bought my Quest 3 to compare them side-by-side I honestly could not feel that it was much better visually... the finger tracking to go through menus wasn't bad, but that was it.
I think the fact that Apple devices are generally in the thousands already: MBP can be like £3000, iPhone can be like £1k... it makes sense that they were able to sell them for the price of what they did, but for me it's just insanity.
Do they have a library of games yet? Do they have any VR Games yet? Someone said it wasn't priced for consumers and I guess that's fine, but again... why wouldn't you just buy a Quest 3 (unless you hate Facebook)?
>progress in display technology will enable Apple to build a more attractive consumer product, in the form of light, comfortable and unobtrusive AR glasses.
Except the Vision Pro displays have zero to do with the technology they'll use in spectacles. Spectacles are an entirely different tech stack. See the Orion demo for an example and you'll see that 100% of the R&D spent on goggles is tossed on the bonfire when considering spectacles.
I was so excited about the Vision and desperate to get one.
Finally my company has bought one for testing and I’m honestly not sure what to even use it for.
Maybe a big screen Mac? Is that it?
I think Apple has fallen into the same dead end they did with Apple TV: no controller = no games.
Both Apple TV and Vision Pro could have been filled with games from indie devs. But it’s impossible to play most games with a pinch or the worst TV control ever created.
I wonder how much of it can be blamed on the Vision Pro being nothing more than a big wobbly iPod Touch, instead of a real computer.
For me, a Vision Pro would have been fantastically useful if it was a little bit more like MacOS (or Android), and shipped with a native, real terminal that I could run things on. $3500 is suddenly a lot easier to swallow if I could think about it like 20 monitors to run terminals on.
> I was so excited about the Vision and desperate to get one. Finally my company has bought one for testing and I’m honestly not sure what to even use it for.
I'm not really sure why anyone would want to use an Apple TV for games, instead of a dedicated console. AFAICT the killer app for Apple TV is airplay. I haven't seen a co-working space conference room TV without an Apple TV attached for years.
I mean, I guess privacy is the other feature. I use an AppleTV at home to bypass all the smart TV nonsense. I know Apple can't be trusted, but I trust it more than a TV manufacturer who tries to shove ads down my throat the moment I connect their TV to the internet.
It’s nice to see this addition. I’m not sure if Godot would be better off bridging OpenXR to apple’s ar compositer or do as these PRs implement.
It isn’t much work to bridge from a metal renderer to the ar compositor. There are nice, if under documented c apis for Compositor Services in visionOS. I don’t think this will end up being a heavy maintenance burden, but they should donate some headsets as the second vertex amplification doesn’t run in the simulator. The max threads per thread group also differ. So real hardware is needed to measure performance.
profiting 180 billion USD per year should put them in a position to also provide grants for hiring workforce for the necessary amount of years that will take to popularize their current and new AR/VR technology (if it'll ever be popular)
even if Godot starts also being the backend for non-gaming applications (which i don't know how the discussion about this went/is going), which AVP could also benefit, i doubt the investement of time to maintain this PR will pay itself, i.e. the few developers releasing software for Apple VR will make enough money and will donate enough for covering maintainer(s) to keep up with a (so far niche) new OS in Godot!
“We already established above that the next paradigm is wearables. Wearables today, however, are very much in the pre-iPhone era. On one hand you have standalone platforms like Oculus, with its own operating system, app store, etc.; the best analogy is a video game console, which is technically a computer, but is not commonly thought of as such given its singular purpose. On the other hand, you have devices like smart watches, AirPods, and smart glasses, which are extensions of the phone; the analogy here is the iPod, which provided great functionality but was not a general computing device.
Now Apple might dispute this characterization in terms of the Vision Pro specifically, which not only has a PC-class M2 chip, along with its own visionOS operating system and apps, but can also run iPad apps. In truth, though, this makes the Vision Pro akin to Microsoft Mobile: yes, it is a capable device, but it is stuck in the wrong paradigm, i.e. the previous one that Apple dominated. Or, to put it another way, I don’t view “apps” as the bridge between mobile and wearables; apps are just the way we access the Internet on mobile, and the Internet was the old bridge, not the new one.”
There's more to development than just code. I'm sure the Godot developers value the contribution and will try to make the most of it, but they got zero input into how to implement it and this PR contains a lot of issues (e.g. it does some API breaking changes that can't just be done as-is.) On top of that, they have no idea (from the outset, I mean: obviously they are communicating now) if Apple intends to continue maintaining this code in the long run or if they just want to put the minimum amount of effort into shipping it and then consider that box checked, shifting the maintenance burden to volunteers. I don't think there needs to be intentional malice, even very nice gestures can work out poorly; we almost lost the Linux NTFS3 driver because Paragon initially stopped maintaining it and nobody else stepped up.
I think Apple can do good here but they should definitely communicate better. For open source, early and often is a good idea. (Though also good to follow through... I have been guilty of many licked cookies purely by accident and poor focus.)
The people making the latter comments are ignoring the contents of this PR however, and showing a lack of understanding of the engine itself in the process.
You cannot build this as an extension. It’s a different OS and Godot needs it to be done this way, as many people in the PR have commented as well. An extension would not cover it, and people suggesting that are probably used to the PC VR development model where VR is an extension of an existing supported platform, not a platform in and off itself.
Beyond that, even if Apple supported OpenXR, you’d still need this PR first because it’s covering build support first. It doesn’t cover any of the XR/Spatial rendering elements.
> 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.
AFAIK Apple does not allow applications to render traditionally nor gives them access to the camera or other interesting effects.
You are instead given a DOM (really imagine idiosyncratic SVG for 3D) API and you must facade it to your engine object model.
Apple has forced library developers into a situation even worse than Metal: a single, idiosyncratic scene graph like API. None of the performance benefits of using the technology natively. None of the DX benefits of single code, run anywhere, since everything has to be aware of the spatial rendering limitations. It’s like Negative React Native: they had you a weird React that’s non native, and you must wrap it.
Truly, and I have no hesitation here because I will never want to work for Apple and they’re going downhill: this PR has its head so far up its butt.
Maybe this employee should have spent all this time convincing Apple to give developers access to the GPU.
This is surprising. From everything I've been hearing in the media, I got the impression Apple had mostly given up on their XR products and will keep them on life-support until the technology is ready for mass consumption.
The media loves to spin Apple things as failures right up until the point when they’re a success. See coverage of iPhone, Apple Pay, iPad, etc. Even “Apple faithful” media like MacRumors.com will be measured but pessimistic about Apple’s new efforts because negativity drives clicks more than positivity across the board.
I don't think this is an Apple-exclusive phenomenon. Even if it was, the media would be pretty well-justified in reporting on a lifestyle product with diminished demand. I remember similar news coverage for the PS3, Shamwow, Google Glass, Juicero, Zune, Fire Phone, and so much more.
It feels more like Apple users aren't used to acknowledging Apple's own failures. Because Apple refuses to admit certain products don't succeed (see: iPhone Mini, 12" Macbook, Butterfly Keyboard), their users come to believe that Apple is beyond reproach. If Vision Pro was good enough for the public, it's genuinely hard to imagine how much worse the Apple Car and Airpower could be.
Apple sold ~17M iPhones in its first 2 years, ~20M Apple Watches in the same timeframe, and ~370K Vision Pros in its first year from a production run of ~500K. No further Vision Pro v1 production is planned, with remaining units allocated for second-year (2025) demand.
Vision Pro is an absolute flop compared to even the "everyone said it would fail the first year" products that went on to success. 500K units across 2 years when the presumed Watch sold 20M in the same timeframe and fanboys are still telling us "you're saying the same thing about AVP as you did iPhone and Watch when they first came out." Maybe so, but Vision Pro is orders of magnitude worse off out of the gate than those other products and Apple's already moved the top AVP talent to Siri, spectacles, and other projects so it's pretty clear Apple agrees it's not going to be a success.
They've mostly given up on the goggles form factor, though the winding down will probably be over the next couple of years. That technology will never be ready so they're moving on to entirely new technologies for far less capable spectacles that will be more like Apple Watch for your eyes, a heads up display much like your car's.
Those who know can't say, and those who say don't know. This isn't universally true, but accurate info from Apple is hard to come by, and it gets harder the farther out you're looking. People outside Apple, and most people inside Apple, don't know where things stand with the Vision product line.
Readit News
OpenXR is the Khronos-maintained industry standard for VR/AR devices—supported by SteamVR, Oculus, Vive, Pico, Windows Mixed Reality, Quest.
Notably absent is visionOS / Vision Pro.
I would insist Apple conforms to the industry standard. More scalable, open.
Hell would freeze over before Apple conformed and contributed to an existing open standard. They even failed to follow the Godot contribution guide for the PR itself.
Better get some blankets because Apple has made significant contributions to many open standards - for example, USB-C. And, back in the day, OpenGL.
Its a mistake to think of a large company like apple as if it were a person, with their own goals and ideas. Apple is just too big for that. I mean, they have 164,000 staff. Thats big enough that "small" business units will still have thousands of people. So each area will end up creating its own culture, and have its own way of doing things.
The graphics division - these days - seems very intent on doing their own thing. But that doesn't tell us much about the rest of apple. 164 000 people is a lot of people. That's an awful lot of different opinions about open standards.
If you spent the time developing an in house graphics API since open standards weren’t moving forward, why would you rewrite everything a second time just a few years later? Shouldn’t you expect to get a decade or two out of your existing API and only do the massive rewrite when the benefits become more substantial?
Vulkan & OpenGL applications can translate to Metal with MoltenGL and MoltenVK, respectively.
Why the vitriol?
Apple did in fact initiate and co-create the WebGPU standard [1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebGPU
Edit to include quote of parent comment.
When open source types complain about this, I always enjoy the irony that macOS is POSIX compliant while Linux is not.
Counterpoint: WebKit and Swift.
Insisting Apple conforms to anything is useless, unless you're in control of government regulations.
You can stick to Apple's ridiculous custom APIs, or you can release your software without Apple support. Luckily, VisionOS seems to have gone the way of the Apple Pippin, so I don't think many people will care much about Apple's headsets not being supported by VR games. Apple certainly doesn't.
If Godot wants VisionOS support, this is probably the way to do it. The question then becomes: is an alteration this heavy worth the maintenance cost, especially for hardware that expensive and uncommon? You don't want to end up in a situation where the one guy with such a headset falls ill and suddenly you can't test your engine anymore without spending a couple thousand on new hardware.
Right now it looks like they have enough first party support and third party dyi efforts to at least give it a go.
There are rumours indicating that they working on multiple new models including one designed for tethering to the Mac:
https://www.macrumors.com/2025/04/13/vision-pro-2-two-rumore...
https://github.com/jamuus/OpenVision/tree/main
Which was used by a community effort to bring VisionOS support to Godot:
https://github.com/jamuus/godot-vision
The PR from Apple also adds support for "flat" Godot games/apps running on Vision Pro.
Even if Godot insisted on needing OpenXR support , you’d still need to land this PR to get the engine itself to work first.
Amongst other signals, the PR comment says: “To support creating Immersive experiences by using a new Godot's visionOS VR Plugin.”
Deleted Comment
While the Apple Vision Pro itself is not a good or successful product, progress in display technology will enable Apple to build a more attractive consumer product, in the form of light, comfortable and unobtrusive AR glasses.
In this line of thinking — not just focusing on the flopped AVP but looking at the product line on the long term - I think it makes sense for this OS to be added to Godot.
I do think the concern for who will carry the maintenance burden is valid. In my experience, Apple hasn’t been the most responsive company when it comes to obscure bugs or issues with their API (e.g. with Cocoa). I would be wary of depending on continued support from a large tech company that can change its goals at any time.
All that being said, this is exciting!
I must admit I'm baffled by this reaction to the first model:
* It's clearly far more impressive technologically than any competitor.
* The price point clearly indicates it wasn't aimed at the general consumer, which is normal for such a massive technological leap compared to their other recent consumer stuff (e.g. the apple watch).
* They got loads of feedback
* Nobody who is this critical seems to articulate what success would have looked like.
> in the form of light, comfortable and unobtrusive AR glasses.
This just seems like a fantasy. I don't understand why people expect this is possible. Battery alone precludes this. Even just streaming video back and forth is going to be too power-hungry for serious use with lightweight glasses.
It's incredibly impressive tech but just not worth it if all there is to do is to have ipad apps floating in the air around me.
I know this is obvious, but the battery doesn't have to go in the glasses. When the glasses are just a wireless monitor, it opens up all sorts of possibilities for belttop computers. Obviously, the glasses still need some power, but the battery can be very small, comparatively. Put the weight and heat into something with a mobile phone form factor.
Apple Watch -> $250
iPhone 16 Pro Max -> $1200
iVirt -> $2400
iVirt LTE -> $3200
iGlass -> $600
Now you can charge $3000 for you VR kit, but claim it only costs $2400. Plus people shell out $600 for the glasses even though they don't have the CPU. They just want to look like they do. Or they buy multiple pairs for different locations or as backups or whatever. The profit on the glasses could be huge. Especially if they could replace the Apple Watch for some people.
Technology hardly makes a product.
>The price point clearly indicates it wasn't aimed at the general consumer,
You don't put your CEO on the cover of Vanity Fair and devote half your retail space and staff to it if it's not for the general consumer.
>* They got loads of feedback
Not as much as they hoped. They hoped to have 500K units in the wild in the first year and ramp up for the second year to a meaningful production run but that never happened because demand fell off a cliff once the fanboys got theirs and so the feedback is very, very limited and mostly negative or untrustworthy.
>* Nobody who is this critical seems to articulate what success would have looked like.
Apple scale scales. Meet or break Watch's first 2 year sales maybe? Watch, derided as a failure in the first year actually sold about ~20M units across both year 1 and year 2. Vision Pro will sell fewer than 500K units across year 1 and 2. 500K units!! One doesn't need to define success when failure is so easily defined here.
>Even just streaming video back and forth is going to be too power-hungry for serious use with lightweight glasses.
Spectacles will be entirely different technology stacks. See the Meta Orion prototype for example. You are correct, battery is an issue. Even bigger though is heat. Can't let things get smartphone hot on your face or it's game over. Anyway, expect low-res, narrow field of view, 2D overlays, more like your car's HUD than the immersive experience of goggles. But at least spectacles have a chance where goggles clearly do not, as demonstrated at both the high end and low end by Apple and Meta.
Strategically it make sense. The only real threat to the iPhone which Apple makes all their money from, is a new form factor that replaces phones. Maybe glasses/goggles will never replace phones, but spending billions a year to make sure that you win the glasses market just in case they do is very cheap insurance.
https://futurism.com/tim-cook-obsession-ar-glasses
Red Flags!
>> "Tim cares about nothing else," an insider with knowledge of the matter told Gurman. "It’s the only thing he’s really spending his time on from a product development standpoint."
>> he's looking to beat Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg — who shares an obsession with AR and VR headsets — to market.
Is Tim Cook a product person now?
Does Apple care about being first now (instead of being best)?
Before the Vision Pro release we heard similar reporting from Gurman (1) (and recall the skepticism about Gurman's reporting: 2)
Yet here we are. After a decade of promoting AR (3) Tim Apple released a headset of which "the weirder things about visionOS (and the Vision Pro itself, really) is that there’s not a lot of true AR in the mix" (4)
Red Flags!
1. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2023-05-18/apple-s-m...
2. https://daringfireball.net/linked/2023/05/18/gurman-headset-...
3. https://www.theverge.com/21077484/apple-tim-cook-ar-augmente...
4. https://www.theverge.com/24054862/apple-vision-pro-review-vr...
The first "cancelled" reporting was Gurman saying that they'd moved on to spectacles which is true, much of the talent was reassigned to other projects including AR spectacles.
The next reports said Vision Pro was over but a Vision "lite" was on the way to give it one more go.
The next reports said the Vision Pro chip and ship minor spec bump plus a lighter cheaper version.
The next reports said Vision, unclear pro or lite, plus tethered goggles (PCVR for Mac, probably like the Beyond 2 but shiny and metal.)
The reports after that said most of the top talent from the Vision Pro teams has moved to Siri to rescue it and AI.
So, we've got most of the talent moved to spectacles and Siri, and a tethered device and an all-in-one device on the table.
Those are mostly likely last ditch attempts at rescuing the massive R&D investment and equally important, a chance to make their supply chain whole after ending production short of what Apple promised them. We'll see the next products integrate nearly all of the components of the first and that'll clear the decks for their suppliers so they're not left high and dry as well as letting their devs get one more crack at things and ship the VisionOS 3.0 stuff they've been hard at work on this last year.
Making your devs and supply chain happy is hardly a drop in the bucket cost wise compared to the investment already made so that's what they're doing.
They'll try a cheaper version of the immersive all-in-ones and a PCVR version that strips out the PC they've spent 10 years and $10B integrating to see if a display peripheral for $2K will beat an all-in-one face PC at $4K (but that won't give Cook the new platform he was hoping to own and monetize, just another accessory for SJ's creations.)
Nearly all of the reviews I’ve read say that it’s a good user experience overall, but it’s not worth the price.
I really have no other use case, and don't need the VR/AR features. The virtual ultra-wide display of the latest VisonOS updates, which has the area of 2 4k monitors, is just amazing for coding. It's an incredible user experience and worth every penny for the Vision Pro for that alone.
Throwing away some of the AR/VR features and using it as a virtual display only would make it lighter and smaller. I could use something that doesn't block me from taking a drink while I code, for example. I couldn't care less about video games as well.
What is the core idea?
It seems equally possible that they're beginning to wind things down and they're just releasing what they've got to the public now.
They've already moved all the top talent and the next thing looks like a PCVR device that guts the PC from Vision Pro and maybe a chip and ship bump or even a cheaper model with sub-premium materials and lower fidelity optical stack.
What ever is going on, it's clearly not the priority it was and most people paying close attention see a steep decline in the viability of goggles at Apple. That form factor was a flop, as the ergonomics simply didn't align with the use cases for most normal people.
Do you own one, or have used one extensively, to dismiss it so confidently?
I own one, and it's a great product. The experience watching movies/shows is unparalleled.
From what I can see, the hardware and software quality are high, and the user experience is greatly simplified in contrast to something like Meta Quest, which' UX is often rough and clunky.
My main argument for saying it's not a good product, is that the form factor is not where it should be for mass consumer appeal.
Another subjective and personal pet peeve is that it's not possible to create an AR experience using custom rendering logic with Metal. One has to use RealityKit. Only a fully immersive experience (VR) can be created with Metal. (This might have changed since it came out and I'm happy to be proven wrong, then I'll definitely buy one). I understand the reasoning behind locking this down, but I would love to experiment with writing AR 3D modeling software for visionOS.
If Apple cared, they'd drop the money to get, say, immersive courtside experience at every NBA and NFL game for a subscription fee. New long-form immersive content, not these silly 5-10 minute videos they drop every month or two.
It's a great product. But Apple's not serious enough about it. Someone who can deliver at least one of "normal people can buy it" or "a ton of incredibly compelling content exists" will own this market, eventually. It probably won't be Apple.
Left it for quite a few years and after seeing the reviews about the Quest 3, I bought that and was amazed by how simple it was to pickup and use and the fact that you didn't need a monster computer running it. You literally pick it up and get going. The Meta app store is filled with lots of VR Titles which aren't just tech demos and you can STILL hook it up to your computer and play a host of Steam games. The Quest 3 was like €500 and basically a full platform.
The Vision Pro got announced with a few improvements like higher resolution but it was an insane €3500... ok I was curious how much better it would be, since I was quite impressed by my Quest 3.
My friend had bought one, one of those people who loves to wear expensive watches and be seen in public having a lot of money. As with a lot of Apple products it's sometimes about being seen to have the latest thing and the Vision Pro was great for sitting in public, catching attention and showing people that you can afford a €3500 device.
He brings it on holiday and is passing it around the room, showing people the dinosaur tech demo and everyone is amazed at how brilliant it is. For all of those in amazement (including my friend) it was their very first experience getting into VR and I also went through the same feeling when I first got the HTC Vive.
He gives it to me and shows me the dinosaur tech demo and all I could really think was... how does this thing cost €3000 more than the Quest 3? I asked him: Where are the games? there are none. Can you hook it up to Steam? No... When the battery dies, can you swap it with another? No.
Unless I had bought my Quest 3 to compare them side-by-side I honestly could not feel that it was much better visually... the finger tracking to go through menus wasn't bad, but that was it.
I think the fact that Apple devices are generally in the thousands already: MBP can be like £3000, iPhone can be like £1k... it makes sense that they were able to sell them for the price of what they did, but for me it's just insanity.
Do they have a library of games yet? Do they have any VR Games yet? Someone said it wasn't priced for consumers and I guess that's fine, but again... why wouldn't you just buy a Quest 3 (unless you hate Facebook)?
Except the Vision Pro displays have zero to do with the technology they'll use in spectacles. Spectacles are an entirely different tech stack. See the Orion demo for an example and you'll see that 100% of the R&D spent on goggles is tossed on the bonfire when considering spectacles.
Deleted Comment
I was so excited about the Vision and desperate to get one.
Finally my company has bought one for testing and I’m honestly not sure what to even use it for.
Maybe a big screen Mac? Is that it?
I think Apple has fallen into the same dead end they did with Apple TV: no controller = no games.
Both Apple TV and Vision Pro could have been filled with games from indie devs. But it’s impossible to play most games with a pinch or the worst TV control ever created.
For me, a Vision Pro would have been fantastically useful if it was a little bit more like MacOS (or Android), and shipped with a native, real terminal that I could run things on. $3500 is suddenly a lot easier to swallow if I could think about it like 20 monitors to run terminals on.
This is the VR experience, yup :)
I mean, I guess privacy is the other feature. I use an AppleTV at home to bypass all the smart TV nonsense. I know Apple can't be trusted, but I trust it more than a TV manufacturer who tries to shove ads down my throat the moment I connect their TV to the internet.
Panic, with its minuscule staff, has a more active store than either tvOS or visionOS with the Playdate. It's ridiculous.
- big screen mac
- 3d movie viewing (the experience is actually mind-blowing)
Bundling a controller would increase the cost for everyone to satisfy a minority of gamers.
So instead they support all PS5, Xbox, BT etc controllers.
It isn’t much work to bridge from a metal renderer to the ar compositor. There are nice, if under documented c apis for Compositor Services in visionOS. I don’t think this will end up being a heavy maintenance burden, but they should donate some headsets as the second vertex amplification doesn’t run in the simulator. The max threads per thread group also differ. So real hardware is needed to measure performance.
https://developer.apple.com/documentation/compositorservices...
profiting 180 billion USD per year should put them in a position to also provide grants for hiring workforce for the necessary amount of years that will take to popularize their current and new AR/VR technology (if it'll ever be popular)
even if Godot starts also being the backend for non-gaming applications (which i don't know how the discussion about this went/is going), which AVP could also benefit, i doubt the investement of time to maintain this PR will pay itself, i.e. the few developers releasing software for Apple VR will make enough money and will donate enough for covering maintainer(s) to keep up with a (so far niche) new OS in Godot!
https://stratechery.com/2025/apple-and-the-ghosts-of-compani...
“We already established above that the next paradigm is wearables. Wearables today, however, are very much in the pre-iPhone era. On one hand you have standalone platforms like Oculus, with its own operating system, app store, etc.; the best analogy is a video game console, which is technically a computer, but is not commonly thought of as such given its singular purpose. On the other hand, you have devices like smart watches, AirPods, and smart glasses, which are extensions of the phone; the analogy here is the iPod, which provided great functionality but was not a general computing device.
Now Apple might dispute this characterization in terms of the Vision Pro specifically, which not only has a PC-class M2 chip, along with its own visionOS operating system and apps, but can also run iPad apps. In truth, though, this makes the Vision Pro akin to Microsoft Mobile: yes, it is a capable device, but it is stuck in the wrong paradigm, i.e. the previous one that Apple dominated. Or, to put it another way, I don’t view “apps” as the bridge between mobile and wearables; apps are just the way we access the Internet on mobile, and the Internet was the old bridge, not the new one.”
Didn't even put up an issue first haha.
Laughably, it looks like the PR didn't even compile...[1]
> When you try and bundle, it will fail. The library paths are incorrect.
[1]: https://github.com/godotengine/godot/pull/105628#pullrequest...
I think Apple can do good here but they should definitely communicate better. For open source, early and often is a good idea. (Though also good to follow through... I have been guilty of many licked cookies purely by accident and poor focus.)
1. Give Godot some money.
2. Implement visionOS support via an extension not directly into core OR conform to industry standard OpenXR.
You cannot build this as an extension. It’s a different OS and Godot needs it to be done this way, as many people in the PR have commented as well. An extension would not cover it, and people suggesting that are probably used to the PC VR development model where VR is an extension of an existing supported platform, not a platform in and off itself.
Beyond that, even if Apple supported OpenXR, you’d still need this PR first because it’s covering build support first. It doesn’t cover any of the XR/Spatial rendering elements.
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.
You are instead given a DOM (really imagine idiosyncratic SVG for 3D) API and you must facade it to your engine object model.
Apple has forced library developers into a situation even worse than Metal: a single, idiosyncratic scene graph like API. None of the performance benefits of using the technology natively. None of the DX benefits of single code, run anywhere, since everything has to be aware of the spatial rendering limitations. It’s like Negative React Native: they had you a weird React that’s non native, and you must wrap it.
Truly, and I have no hesitation here because I will never want to work for Apple and they’re going downhill: this PR has its head so far up its butt.
Maybe this employee should have spent all this time convincing Apple to give developers access to the GPU.
How does support for platforms like the nintendo switch work?
It feels more like Apple users aren't used to acknowledging Apple's own failures. Because Apple refuses to admit certain products don't succeed (see: iPhone Mini, 12" Macbook, Butterfly Keyboard), their users come to believe that Apple is beyond reproach. If Vision Pro was good enough for the public, it's genuinely hard to imagine how much worse the Apple Car and Airpower could be.
Vision Pro is an absolute flop compared to even the "everyone said it would fail the first year" products that went on to success. 500K units across 2 years when the presumed Watch sold 20M in the same timeframe and fanboys are still telling us "you're saying the same thing about AVP as you did iPhone and Watch when they first came out." Maybe so, but Vision Pro is orders of magnitude worse off out of the gate than those other products and Apple's already moved the top AVP talent to Siri, spectacles, and other projects so it's pretty clear Apple agrees it's not going to be a success.
Dead Comment
https://www.macrumors.com/2025/04/13/vision-pro-2-two-rumore...