> Here's the crucial question, though: are Vision Pro owners actually going to spend extra money on third-party software, or are they just going to demand that their current iPhone/iPad apps be supported by the developers for free on Vision Pro?
> Neither iPad nor Watch (or Apple TV) have been big revenue generators for most developers.
I think the answer is "it depends", but for many apps having a separate iPhone and iPad version has been something their user base has disliked. An iPhone app which is separate from an iPad app but otherwise identical is subtractive - I get less value being limited to my phone. Its not subtractive enough for them to say "lets pay double my original purchase price to get the iPad version".
Likewise, having the iPhone app work on iPad is additional value - I have selected and paid more for an app for having good ecosystem support.
Chances are your Apple TV or Apple Watch app has greatly limited functionality due to the interactivity limitations of those platforms, so you simply cannot charge much for these incrementally. Again, providing proper support (depending on your app) is instead a differentiating factor.
I don't have a first-party app that I can port to AVP. However, I would not be doing so to get some of those exclusive AVP dollars based on them buying something equivalent to a mid-tier pro laptop. Instead, I'd be there as a differentiating feature and for the potential promotional aspects of being present.
Some of this comes from personally being more subscription/services oriented in thinking; I really dislike the idea of selling someone software with dubious unpaid support, fueled by a decreasing amount of new sales as I reach saturation for my software.
> Neither iPad nor Watch (or Apple TV) have been big revenue generators for most developers.
I think the answer is "it depends", but for many apps having a separate iPhone and iPad version has been something their user base has disliked. An iPhone app which is separate from an iPad app but otherwise identical is subtractive - I get less value being limited to my phone. Its not subtractive enough for them to say "lets pay double my original purchase price to get the iPad version".
Likewise, having the iPhone app work on iPad is additional value - I have selected and paid more for an app for having good ecosystem support.
Chances are your Apple TV or Apple Watch app has greatly limited functionality due to the interactivity limitations of those platforms, so you simply cannot charge much for these incrementally. Again, providing proper support (depending on your app) is instead a differentiating factor.
I don't have a first-party app that I can port to AVP. However, I would not be doing so to get some of those exclusive AVP dollars based on them buying something equivalent to a mid-tier pro laptop. Instead, I'd be there as a differentiating feature and for the potential promotional aspects of being present.
Some of this comes from personally being more subscription/services oriented in thinking; I really dislike the idea of selling someone software with dubious unpaid support, fueled by a decreasing amount of new sales as I reach saturation for my software.