this post was submitted on 23 Jan 2024
96 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37742 readers
686 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
alyaza@beehaw.org
TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org
gyrfalcon@beehaw.org
rs5th@beehaw.org
Los@beehaw.org
coldredlight@beehaw.org
SemioticStandard@beehaw.org
TheRtRevKaiser@kbin.social
remington@beehaw.org
96
Only 150+ apps have been designed specifically for Apple's Vision Pro, so far | TechCrunch (techcrunch.com)
submitted 10 months ago by Moonrise2473@feddit.it to c/technology@beehaw.org
93 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I left the headline like the original, but I see this as a massive win for Apple. The device is ridiculously expensive, isn't even on sale yet and already has 150 apps specifically designed for that.

If Google did this, it wouldn't even get 150 dedicated apps even years after launch (and the guaranteed demise of it) and even if it was something super cheap like being made of fucking cardboard.

This is something that as an Android user I envy a lot from the Apple ecosystem.

Apple: this is a new feature => devs implement them in their apps the very next day even if it launches officially in 6 months.

Google: this is a new feature => devs ignore it, apps start to support it after 5-6 Android versions

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] kevincox@lemmy.ml 8 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Well it does say n >= 150. But the phrasing makes it sound like it is trying to imply that this is a small number.

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago

Exactly. The statement doesn’t validate in the sense check, making the >= 150 back into a maybe because I’m uncertain if it makes sense at all.