Meta has boldly declared its ambition to become “the Android of XR.” But there’s a twist: Android XR wants that title too.
Leaving aside the technical debates about specifications or features, one crucial aspect might determine whether Meta can stave off increasing competition from Google and Apple in the XR arena: flat apps.
Flat apps—think of household names like Spotify, TikTok, Snapchat, and Discord—may not seem like the most thrilling application for a headset. Yet, Vision Pro, which seamlessly integrates a vast library of flat iPadOS apps, has demonstrated the significant value added by mixing the familiar app experience with XR. Instead of isolating us when we wear our headsets, they keep us connected to the apps we love. Android XR is now striving for the same by making all existing Android apps on the Play Store compatible.
Meta headsets are undoubtedly strong in the gaming sector, but the scope of XR stretches well beyond just gaming.
Consider the difference in scale between a solely gaming-focused company like Nintendo and a multi-faceted platform builder like Microsoft. This difference in focus and breadth of services is part of why Microsoft’s value dwarfs Nintendo’s. Obviously, this isn’t a perfect side-by-side comparison, as Microsoft’s reach extends beyond just computing platforms, but the point should be clear.
When it comes to Meta and Google in the XR space, we’re looking at two solid contenders:
Meta’s Horizon OS boasts the most comprehensive collection of immersive apps.
Google’s Android XR flaunts the most extensive array of flat apps.
To truly dominate the XR market, both brands need what the other already has. The question is, who’s facing the steeper uphill battle?
It appears that Meta might find itself facing tougher odds.
Immersive app developers are always searching for growth opportunities. If transitioning a popular game to Android XR means a 25% increase in users, it’s a pretty straightforward decision.
Conversely, popular flat apps like Spotify and TikTok would gain much less from transitioning to Horizon OS. Any increase in their user base wouldn’t likely rise above a mere 0.25% over what they already capture on Android.
You might argue, “Isn’t Horizon OS based on Android? Shouldn’t porting apps be uncomplicated?” Technically, that’s correct—the transfer itself may be fairly straightforward. However, for major apps with vast user bases and frequent updates, the real hurdle is in ongoing support and maintenance, which requires a significant commitment.
This positioning gives Google an advantage in attracting essential immersive apps to Android XR, more so than Meta’s appeal in drawing critical flat apps to Horizon OS. Absent a significant lineup of flat apps, Meta’s headsets risk being pigeonholed as devices solely for immersive gaming, not for broader computing purposes.
And that’s exactly what Meta is eager to avoid. A decade ago, Meta ventured into XR with the goal of seizing control of what it anticipated as the “next computing platform,” before the likes of Apple or Google could.
While flat apps might not seem vital to the XR experience, there’s no denying that a platform hosting both crucial flat and immersive apps stands poised to outperform one offering only one or the other.
Even if Meta produces superior hardware—imagine consistently manufacturing headsets that are 20% quicker, lighter, and more affordable than Android XR counterparts—without the inclusion of fundamental flat apps, this advantage might not represent a substantial enough leap in the long-term.
This presents an existential challenge to Meta’s XR goals, one that lacks clear solutions.
