OpenXR is an open standard made to improve compatibility between XR software and XR headsets. Google—one of the biggest tech companies in the world—is adopting the standard right out of the gate, joining other major firms like Meta and Microsoft. Other players (like ByteDance recently) also support the standard, cementing it as not just an open standard, but an industry standard. And while the vast majority of major XR companies now support OpenXR, a major holdout remains.

Initially announced in 2017, OpenXR is an open standard that makes it easier for developers to build XR applications that can run on a wide range of XR headsets with little to no modifications. While major players in the space like Meta, Microsoft, Valve, HTC, and plenty more all support OpenXR, the industry’s big holdout is—can you guess? Apple.

Apple is somewhat notorious for rejecting industry standards and forging its own path; sometimes the company sticks to its own proprietary formats and other times ends up adopting the industry standard in the end.

Vision Pro not only doesn’t support OpenXR, but it doesn’t have built-in support for motion-tracked controllers (which most existing XR content requires). If Vision Pro supported OpenXR, it would be significantly less work for developers to bring their XR apps to the headset (though the lack of controllers still poses a major hurdle).

As ever, Apple is the odd one out.

Meanwhile, Google wasted no time confirming its newly announced Android XR platform will support OpenXR, making it easier for developers to port content that was built XR apps for headsets like Quest.

Google says Android XR is already compatible with OpenXR 1.1, and the company has built out some of its own ‘vendor extensions’ which are new capabilities that extend what OpenXR can do on specific devices. Vendor extensions sometimes go on to become part of future versions of OpenXR.

SEE ALSO
Co-op Shooter 'Starship Troopers: Continuum' is Coming to Quest and PSVR 2 Soon, Trailer Here

Last month Pico (ByteDance’s XR division) also announced that its runtime is now compliant with the OpenXR 1.1 standard on Pico 4 Ultra, with plans to bring support to Pico 4 and Neo 3 by mid-2025.

Pico also has its own ideas about where the standard should go in the future. The company recently presented a framework for standardizing the way that XR applications can run simultaneously so users can run multiple XR applications in a shared space. Pico says it’s advocating for this approach to the OpenXR working group, and industry body which guides the evolution of the standard.

With the addition of support from both Google and Pico, OpenXR has truly achieved industry standard status, even if the odds of Apple ever adopting it remain slim.

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.

Ben is the world's most senior professional analyst solely dedicated to the XR industry, having founded Road to VR in 2011—a year before the Oculus Kickstarter sparked a resurgence that led to the modern XR landscape. He has authored more than 3,000 articles chronicling the evolution of the XR industry over more than a decade. With that unique perspective, Ben has been consistently recognized as one of the most influential voices in XR, giving keynotes and joining panel and podcast discussions at key industry events. He is a self-described "journalist and analyst, not evangelist."
  • saji8k

    Apple will never support OpenXR, its just not the way they operate their business. Thankfully game engines like Unreal and Unity create their own compatibility layers to allow OpenXR software to be recompiled to work on visionOS. I expect Godot to add such a layer in the future.

    It should be noted that these recompiled apps won't run in the shared space alongside other apps in visionOS, they will only work in the fully immersive space. But that is the price you'll have to pay for cross-platform software.

    If you want to make a shared space app for visionOS you really should be writing it using Apple's RealityKit engine directly. Unity's PolySpatial system is really just an extra layer over that, which adds extra overhead, doesn't let you use all of Unity's engine capabilities and costs $2040 a year. RealityKit is free. Unreal Engine is also free up to $1M in annual revenue.

    • Arno van Wingerde

      Right… yes it will result in applications that run smoother and are conform with Apple's system, which in turn makes all apps behave the same: if the OS makes all windows "square without round edges", all apps will directly do that. The price to pay is of course a massive amount of extra work for developers.
      For iPhone/iPad with a massive user base, that is prepared to pay extra for apps: definitely worthwhile! For AV: not yet. For that we need AVnonPro sets to conquer the market, which they won't as long as there are not enough true VR/AR apps. However, if Apple manages to gain marketshare through its existing apps this might work out.

      • Christian Schildwaechter

        Don't think of AVP and iPhones as being completely separate products. Just like iPads got keyboards and multitasking while Mac can now run iOS apps, with everything supporting iMessage, FaceTime and starting to write an email on one device and then seamlessly continuing on another, the AVP will become integrated into their ecosystem.

        iPhones will get more XR features, with them recording spatial video only a first step. AVP isn't based on OpenXR, instead extends the ARKit, also found on any iPhone running at least iOS 11, with HMD specific new functionality. AVP is only one part of Apple's XR strategy, with iPhones for still a long time being the more important part, slowly moving both platforms towards each other, until one day you can almost seamlessly switch between them.

        Apple apparently intents to bring group chat and XR features to the iPhone version of iMessage, and integrate AR into a lot more of their iPhone apps. With literally millions of iOS developers, the most lucrative mobile app store, tools for both extending iOS apps for AVP and integrating AR into iPhone apps, their approach and conditions for success are very different from Meta trying to build a completely new platform barely connected to their huge Facebook/Instagram user bases.

  • xyzs

    Apple are really a pedantic pain in the ass company.

    Let them be the only one outside OpenXR, with the 5 headsets they sold in total, I am sure that’s going to help them having many immersive apps for their empty platform…..

    • Christian Schildwaechter

      Well, selling even less than the 450K AVP they/Sony were able to produce in 2024 won't help them to win XR in the short run.

      But the first AVP, targeting mostly developers and first movers according to Tim Cook, being based on the same ARKit that by now shipped with more than a billion iPhones, and APIs for extending existing iOS apps gradually with XR features, could help a lot in the future.

      Apple's registerd iOS developer base at 2.8mn being about 1/4th the size of the whole Meta Quest active user base might also impact the number of immersive apps created for future, cheaper Apple headsets.

  • Jeff

    It's my opinion that VR / tech journalists are not nearly hard enough on Apple for their backwards approach to XR, especially with their initial release of the Vision Pro.

    The complete rejection of everything established, anti-VR, no support for any standards or even controllers (which they appear to now be passively admitting they were dead wrong about since they're collaborating with Sony for PSVR2 controller support now).

    I say this as an Apple user partly in the ecosystem. But they should have never entered the XR space at this time if they didn't want to play ball, and we should be shouting down their stances that hurt the industry.

    • Arno van Wingerde

      @tonyvtskarredghost:disqus said: it is just Apple being Apple. I quite often hate that, for instance when still charging my iphone via lightning, while all other gadgets are USB-C.

      But as @saji8k:disqus points out, this also helps apps running well within the OS, a major reason why people like Apple. On the Quest, many functions, like calling friends into a game, are not available, leaving every developer to figure out its own system, duplicating developer effort and confusing the user. For Apple, i would expect Apple's OS to take care of that in a uniform way.

  • Just Apple being Apple

    • Christian Schildwaechter

      Yes, but …

      Apple supports and participates in a lot of standards, but sometimes very stubbornly refuses one for sometimes shitty, sometimes valid reasons. They rejected (slow, buggy and unsafe) Flash on iPhone, pushing web design to HTML5 and CSS. They supported WebGL 1, but rejected WebGL 2 still relying on ancient OpenGL, instead pushed for creating WebGPU fitting for modern GPU architectures, which is much more powerful.

      People also forget about the timing. Apple is blamed for sticking to Metal while Linux and Windows support Vulkan. But Metal was introduced 2014 and is more developer friendly than Vulkan, first introduced in 2016. AVP is based on ARKit, part of iOS since 2017 and shipped with millions of iPhones, while Open XR provisional/1.0 released only in 2019. Both times Apple's API shipped on iPhones two years before the open standards were even published. Adopting powerful standards if they exist, but also being willing to go their own way if they don't, is Apple being Apple.

      And overlap allows for easy translations. Vulkan apps run on Metal with MoltenVK, DX8-11/12 apps on Vulkan with DXVK/VKD3D. Safari on AVP supports WebXR (very similar to OpenXR) on top of ARKit, and Unity XR abstracts most differences between XR platforms. The practical impact for most developers is smaller than expected.

      • Shad Daffucup

        If only those Cupertino cheapskates would pay you loyal shills for all your hard work!

  • Albert Hartman

    Walled gardens have worked well in the past for situations where you are leveraging a prior base of customers & products already in that ecosystem. You can argue you're improving the integration, safety, & experience for customers. But when there isn't anything already there as is the case with VR, a walled-garden is just you putting your own selfish interests above everyone else's.

    • Christian Schildwaechter

      You are aware that Apple never mentioned VR even once during the AVP introduction, instead mostly focused on how easy it is for existing iOS users to run their apps also inside AVP, and how easy it is for developers to add XR functionality to their apps instead of creating completely new ones?

      And that instead of creating their own version of Meta's Horizon World with never more than six figure user numbers and only later adding a phone client, they integrated AVP with Apple's iMessage and FaceTime services that already have 2bn monthly active users.

      VR may haven''t had anything already there yet, but Apple's walled garden ecosystem most certainly allows for leveraging both existing users and apps, of which there are many, for AVP.

  • lnpilot

    The Vision Pro is a defunct product. Apple stopped making them, so it probably doesn't matter that much at this point.

  • brandon9271

    Just one more reason I hate Apple.

  • flynnstigator

    My guess is they’re trying to avoid shovelware, i.e. lazy ports from other platforms. It’s what killed the Atari Jaguar way back in the day, which had a Motorola 68k chip for minor tasks, a similar chip as in the Sega Genesis and many older micro-PC’s. Developers already knew how to program for that chip, so they ignored the new advanced chips and released a bunch of sloppy, lazy ”16-bit“ games that ruined the reputation of an otherwise-capable system.

    Now, is Apple right or is it a mistake? Hard to say. I’d call Apple’s refusal to integrate Vulkan a mistake, even with the compatibility layers. The M1 and newer Macs are perfectly capable machines for casual gaming, and a lot of people would use them for 1080p gaming if the library wasn’t so tiny. Now, it’s true that iOS games make Apple a lot more money than Mac ever would and most of the Mac gaming revenue would go to Valve anyway, but that’s still no reason to go out of their way to cripple an important function on Mac with no upside to Apple, its products, or its users.

    I suspect that eschewing OpenXR will be another mistake, but only time will tell.

  • Shad Daffucup

    Apple died with Jobs. The banana bender in charge hasn't created a single innovation and it's inexplicable how he got to be the replacement.