Meta has openly expressed its ambition to become the "Android of XR" in the virtual reality world. Interestingly, there’s already a player looking to claim that title – Android XR itself.
Beyond discussing specs and features, there’s one crucial element that might determine Meta’s ability to keep up with the mounting competition from tech giants like Google and Apple in the XR arena: flat apps.
While not the most thrilling reason to don a headset, flat apps such as Spotify, TikTok, Snapchat, and Discord, add immense value by integrating familiar apps into the XR experience. Case in point: Vision Pro has demonstrated the appeal of blending the immersive XR world with well-loved flat iPadOS apps rather than making a strict separation. Now, Android XR is taking a similar route by enabling support for all existing Android apps available on the Play Store.
Although Meta’s headsets shine in the gaming sector, it’s apparent that the XR’s prospects stretch well beyond just gaming.
A company focusing exclusively on gaming, like Nintendo, will struggle to reach the vast scope of a company like Microsoft that is creating a comprehensive computing ecosystem. That difference in breadth is why Microsoft boasts a market value 43 times that of Nintendo. While not an exact comparison given Microsoft’s diverse endeavors, the analogy is intended to highlight the scale of their platforms.
Looking at both Meta and Google, there are two XR contenders:
Meta’s Horizon OS stands out with its impressive lineup of immersive apps.
Google’s Android XR leads with an extensive collection of flat apps.
For either to lead the XR revolution, they need what the other excels in. So, who might face the steeper climb?
It seems Meta is at the disadvantage.
Developers of immersive applications are drawn to opportunities for expansion. If moving their game to Android XR could increase their user base by 25%, it’s a no-brainer decision.
On the flip side, prominent flat apps like Spotify, TikTok, Snapchat, and Discord have little to gain by transitioning to Horizon OS. Even after porting, they might see a mere 0.25% user increase compared to their current Android audience.
You might reason, “But isn’t Horizon OS built on Android, making app porting easy?” Technically, yes. However, for large apps with millions of users and frequent updates, the real hurdle is in the continued support and maintenance, which demands significant resources.
Consequently, Google has a stronger advantage in enticing vital immersive apps to Android XR compared to Meta drawing crucial flat apps to Horizon OS. Lacking a solid array of flat apps, Meta’s headsets risk being limited to immersive gaming, overshadowed as general computing platforms.
This is hardly the position Meta desires. After all, they ventured into XR a decade ago to stake their claim on the "next computing platform" ahead of Apple or Google.
You might not see flat apps as crucial to XR, but a platform combining both key flat and immersive apps will undoubtedly outshine one that doesn’t.
Even if Meta crafts superior hardware – let’s say headsets that are consistently 20% faster, more lightweight, and affordable than their Android XR counterparts – it won’t outweigh the absence of core flat apps in the long term.
This represents a fundamental challenge to Meta’s XR aspirations and one for which there isn’t an easy fix.
