Need a floating calculator on your living room wall? There’s an app for that. Well, actually there are now several apps for that on Vision Pro, as the company confirmed its first mixed reality headset is now packing over a thousand visionOS-native apps.

Apple’s SVP of Marketing Greg Joswiak posted on X (formerly Twitter) recently that the App Store now has 1,000+ apps designed for Vision Pro, a fair sight more than the 600 apps reported by the company right before the headset’s February 2nd launch.

Of course, over a million iOS apps are also compatible with Vision Pro, which was a direct result of developers being offered to opt out rather than opt in to having their apps support the company’s spatial computer by default. Notably, there are some apps that have opted out entirely, including Facebook (via Meta), Spotify, Google (via YouTube), and Netflix. Granted, those services are accessible via Safari, although it’s hard to imagine it’s not a clear snub at Apple.

Apple Will Host in-Store Vision Pro Demos on Release Weekend

Those 1,000+ native apps aren’t just a bunch of spatial computer-ified calculators and weather widgets though, as useful as they are. Some third-party developers are looking to capitalize on the lack of mobile computing essentials like Spotify and YouTube by offering paid apps that do more of less what you’d expect, with examples such as Vision Tunes App for Spotify and Juno for YouTube now floating around on the App Store and getting around the lack of their free, official counterparts.

Oh, and in case you were wondering, taking the award for most expensive Vision Pro app on the App Store right now is Lively Elements, which lets you interact with the periodic table of elements for just an easy one-time payment of $98.

This information was cross referenced with a list provided by Appfigures, the mobile analytics and intelligence platform.

Newsletter graphic

This article may contain affiliate links. If you click an affiliate link and buy a product we may receive a small commission which helps support the publication. More information.

Well before the first modern XR products hit the market, Scott recognized the potential of the technology and set out to understand and document its growth. He has been professionally reporting on the space for nearly a decade as Editor at Road to VR, authoring more than 3,500 articles on the topic. Scott brings that seasoned insight to his reporting from major industry events across the globe.
  • Dragon Marble

    “A floating calculator on your living room wall”? I paid for a spatial computer, got a spatial calculator.

    The App Store is currently nonexistent for me. Just give me more 3D/immersive content please, Apple.

    • Dude, it is an example.

    • Badison

      Have you used the Vision Pro? I’m a bit shocked from your comment history that you think Quest 3 has better tracking. I use both, so am genuinely curious.

      • Dragon Marble

        I have a Vision Pro, and have been using it everyday. Let me guess, you haven’t played any full hand tracking games on VP? Clicking and scrolling the UI is easy, and isn’t exactly a testimony of the hand tracking quality.

        But you don’t have to take my word for it. Listen to Mark Zuckerberg himself … OK, you may not believe him either. How about Golf+ developer, Youtuber BMF, and David Heaney from UploadVR?

        It came to me as a surprise as well. But when I think about it, is it really that shocking? We are comparing a 1st gen product from Apple with something Meta has perfected over the years.

        You know what, one point Zuckerberg made in his video is so true: people just assume something is the best if it comes from Apple.

    • Badison

      Also, Quest 3 is great at its pricing point, but Vision Pro is going to have way better apps considering it is a desktop class chipset and OS. Quest 3 is a ton of fun for games.

      • xyzs

        visionOS is a modified iPadOS, so it’s not a desktop class OS at all…
        And what defines desktop class os, the kernel, the user space, the user interface ? Because Android (what meta uses) is basically a modified Linux kernel with Java crap on top of it instead of gnu… and both rely on a limiting end user only VR user interface.
        Both of these OSes have the guts of a full-blown OS, but both of them are just toys because of the limitations purposely added on top…

  • Octogod

    It’s a bit wild that Meta’s approach is the most walled garden. They require approval, weeks of QA testing, and more to even launch on the main store.

    On mobile I can agree that minimal review and polish is enough. But I think this approach brought to “spatial computing” (cough *VR* cough) is bound to cause issues.

    Another challenge is discovery. What happens in finding the best apps? Well, most of the Apple blogs I read have chosen 5-20 apps, often ones that mimic their desktop or mobile patterns. It seems that unless one is selected by Apple or an Apple adjacent voicer, then you really have a challenging discovery problem. This will get worse in six months when there are 5,000 apps that are a unique spin on ‘Hello World’.

    • Anonymous

      And when all apps need to be vetted to even be released in Apple’s store, and most of these have nothing to do with VR?

      Another Apple Good, Meta Bad dumb comment.

      • Octogod

        No, my comment is in support of Meta.

        All apps have to be reviewed in both stores. Only Meta requires advance approval to be published in store and weeks of QA.

        Meta is the higher walled garden, and more successful for it.

  • ApocalypseShadow

    And like I said before, the clear difference in a company having built an ecosystem of useful apps across their PC, mobile phone, tablet and now AR/VR headset. And one company that has spent billions trying to build a virtual world no one wants to be in because it’s not realistic enough to entice consumers to be interested. The gaming part is fine. Even I’m impressed with what the Quest 3 can do excluding battery life.

    Facebook should have decided long ago if they were going to push AR and increase useful app output. Instead of using the gaming community to build a base of fans to really wanting to beat Apple and Google to the next paradigm buy not having the ecosystem of apps. Should have invested there if that’s what they truly wanted. John Carmack saw the future that they weren’t trying to be a gaming giant and decided to leave. Lack of focus he called it. That was telling.

    The interesting thing is that Apple will have an increased output of game releases on top of their cellphone like app ecosystem. Even Vision Pro is like a cellphone. Make calls, use apps, watch video, take pictures, play games, etc. That’s the path others should have taken to compete and or exceed the cellphone. The one thing the masses have and use on a daily basis. Make the next Vision Pro cheaper, and it will definitely get there faster with all these compatible apps.

    • Arno van Wingerde

      Well, I enjoy the Quest for games only. I do think that is >90% of the use, so Carmack could have tacked along a few years longer.
      In order to use the Quest3 for non-gaming, pass through needs to improve by a lot, again a step as large as between Q2 and Q3.

      But… I am not sure yet of the AVnonP’s success… a phone is a handy small device where you can quickly check the weather forecast, set an alarm etc. A VR set, whether Quest or AVP is the opposite: heavy, clumsy to put on. Are you going to do that for a small task, such as the weather check? VR glasses still pose a major hurdle that way, which is OK to play a full blown game, perhaps less so for 15 minutes mobile style games.

    • simon cox

      But I don’t see the point in this device, based on the apps they have on offer. I’d rather access them on a phone or PC, instead of putting something clunky on to check my emails.

      I think there may be uses for it further in the future, like with Adobe suite, 3D programs and music production software that have genuinely intuitive UI/UX/controls that are beneficial (not gimmicky) over their PC counterparts.

      When you’re selling this towards productivity case-uses, it’s going to be a hard sell. There has to be a genuine advantage over the standard user experience…and the creative industries are resistant to new ways of working, unless the benefits are very clear. I could see some limited AR adoption in 10+ years

      • david vincent

        “I don’t see the point in this device”
        Well since it’s a pretty heavy object, you can place it on top of papers to keep them from blowing away in a breeze.

        • simon cox


  • ViRGiN

    Oh wow

    • Arno van Wingerde

      Oh Virgin! You are always so negative! Image how grand it is to see the result of “2+3” floating in your living room. Well worth the price you pay. in two years time nobody will even consider doing anything else – unless it is on their Apple Watch, that is OK too.
      The use case of the AVP seems to be a lot of 2D screens in your room…

      Seriously though, I hope will see 3D/VR apps in a couple of months as well…

  • gothicvillas

    Quest 4 next year will do most of it too