•

Netflix says Vision Pro is too 'subscale' for it to care about

Netflix says Vision Pro is too 'subscale' for it to care about - 9to5Mac

https://9to5mac.com/2024/01/25/netflix-vision-pro-app/

As revealed last week, the Netflix app won’t be available on Vision Pro when it launches next week, nor will...

Netflix says Vision Pro is too 'subscale' for it to care about - 9to5Mac

Netflix says Vision Pro is too 'subscale' for it to care about::As revealed last week, the Netflix app won’t be available on Vision Pro when it launches next week, nor will...

23 comments

Petter1

•

If they would not care, they would not actively prevent you from installing the iPad app on the vision. They definitely care.

Transporter_Room_3

•

It's like the people who hang around in comment sections yelling at everyone how much they don't care about down votes and don't care how many people dislike them in the comments.

You keep saying you don't care, but you've been constantly replying to people for two hours, all about how you don't care. If you really didn't care, you would do nothing. It's the default. You have to expend energy to do something (like blocking access from certain things)

eek2121

•

In other words, if they actually didn’t care they would not have bothered to make a statement at all.

Keep in mind that Apple is a **competitor ** to netflix.

StereoTrespasser

•

assassinatedbyCIA

•

They’re probably hoping that if it does catch on they can charge you more for the ‘full experience’.

tigerjerusalem

•

I don't think so, they could have done it to not spend support time and resources with it.

Petter1

•

They don’t have to do anything on the iPad app, in order for it to work on vision. They have to do something in order to prevent the iPad app from being installed on the vision. They had more work like this.

carl_dungeon

•

I stopped caring about Netflix a few years ago.

mmcintyre

•

I stopped caring about Apple a few decades ago.

mojofrododojo

•

it's ridiculous that this is even a question - it's a hype-expensive devkit that will have a microscopic install base. Watching seething fanboys raging about it is hilarious.

There's thousands of dollars in other fees (gotta have apple silicon to develop for the thing so you really can't cheap out on entry level storage and ram, that's gonna hurt 1500-3000 easy), $100-250 in dev registration, apple care to reduce the inevitable broken shit (trust me on this devs, we broke vr prototypes all the time - and this thing is made of glass!) - that's another $499 for two years.

Also, you got the resources for that device and the above costs, HOLY FUCK ARE YOU GONNA WATCH NETFLIX ON THE DAMNED THING?

no you're gonna develop something to hopefully pay for all those fucking costs. get ready for a shit ton of fruit ninjas.

EmergMemeHologram

•

They already don’t even give a shit about their AppleTV app… why would they care about this.

Poor Netflix, it’s not like they’re worth a quarter trillion dollars or anything.

dbilitated

•

surely you can open it as a webpage and have basically the full experience?

GenderNeutralBro

•

Likely limited to 1080p, like in Safari on iPad. Netflix artificially limits resolution and bitrate in most browsers, for no technical reason. See https://help.netflix.com/en/node/30081

lud

•

It's drm reasons. At least it's 1080p most streaming services limit it to 720p.

If I recall correctly the iPad isn't 4k and 4k doesn't seem to be supported on any devices that aren't actually 4k. Really stupid but very common.

GenderNeutralBro

•

You say DRM, I say artificial limits for no technical reason. Tomayto, tomahto. :)

But actually, it's not just DRM. Netflix limits Firefox to 720p, despite it being fully capable of playing Netflix's 1080 streams. Same with all browsers on Linux. You can trick it into playing 1080p in these "unsupported" browsers with plugins or user-agent spoofing.

Or at least you could last year; it's a cat-and-mouse game and it became easier to just pirate stuff than try to un-break Netflix, so I haven't tried recently.

NickwithaC

•

This is the same as when Nintendo announced that the Wii would not have dvd playback and no one cared because we all had 17 devices with dvd playback already. Everyone has Netflix on everything already including the TV itself.

Plus nobody is going to spend $3,500 on a VR headset just to sit and watch netflix on it.

b3an

•

Apple showed how the Vision Pro will let you open a virtual screen within your field of view that can be as small or as big as you want — virtually speaking. At its largest size, Apple claims the screen can occupy a relative width of 100 feet. Source

Ngl, I wouldn't mind watching it like that

mojofrododojo

•

Yeah conceptually it sounds great!

here's the deal: even at the higher resolution they tout, watching shows in vr always comes with something sitting on your face, generating heat, with not insignificant weight, and a limited FOV. you can turn your head to look at that gigantic screen sure, but the actual device FOV is 110 degrees - your unobstructed FOV is 110 per eye, but the overlap differential could mean 20+ degrees combines. Anyway, even with a very wide FOV for this device, there's very little gained from a giant virtual screen 10' away as you'll always be degrading the watching experience in bitrate (gotta go over wifi baby, then transformed into texel space, then tracked, then rendered, then drawn to each display hopefully with low enough latency) - this business isn't free, it costs computational time and heat.

So while I use virtual desktop with my index and quest 3, and it does have some great features, it hasn't displaced my displays.

Maybe in a few more generations.

Gamoc

•

Yeah I messed with this before and everything you say is true, plus enjoy hitting the headset with your glass or whatever every time you want a drink, can't really eat anything either. The only option is to sit still and watch, very disappointing.

realitista

•

For me the only use case for this has been when I'm really tired and want to watch while lying flat on my back. Unfortunately most of the apps don't even support this. But Netflix actually did.

skarlow181

•

and a limited FOV.

Not for movies. Modern VR headsets have around 100°, comfortable movie viewing distances only needs 30-60° (+ a couple degree for head movement). The resolution is a far bigger problems, with VisionPro being the first one that can do about 1080p at 50° FOV. Most other headsets are stuck with 720p or below when they emulate 2D display.

Also VR can effortlessly do 3D movies and Apple is the first to actually offer them out of the box, finding those for other headsets has always been a huge struggle (i.e. piracy or ripping them yourself).

One thing I haven't yet seen on VisionPro is if it has any form of multiplayer. Watching movies together with other people (VRChat, BigScreen), was one of the more interesting things VR can do, so far VisionPro looks like a single-player device. Outside of video calls, I have seen no indication that it has full avatars or how it behaves when multiple people in the same room wear a VisionPro.

TrickDacy

•

Same, Netflix, same. We finally agree on something.

maynarkh

•

Of all the buzzwords ever, "scale" irks me the most.

sounddrill

•

Irks don't scale well! /s ofc lul