Unusually, I'm really not sure who's right in this case, because the two visions of the product are essentially entirely different products.
If it's genuinely intended to be a true AR headset, then Ive and Cook are right--having some sort of "reduced capability mode" when not near the base goes against the entire concept of a wearable, especially an AR wearable. It would have made it a bit like early Apple Watches that didn't do much if your phone wasn't nearby, except full functionality would be attached to your house.
Of note in this vision, whatever drives the thing will get better over time, so even if it's not "blows everything out of the water on day 1", it will get progressively more impressive over time.
If, however, this is a gaming VR-first headset with secondary AR capabilities, or intended for business/design AR in a studio/conference room then Rockwell was absolutely right and Ive and Cook made a mistake. In that vision, the "primary" use is that you're playing a game or working on something in your home/office, and you get the bonus of being able to go outside with it if you want.
Not knowing what the actual use-case of the OS associated with this will be, I have no idea which of those two things is closer to what it is or should be. I can say that the former is much more "Apple-like" in concept--a product that is intended to integrate with whatever you're already doing and enhances it rather than taking over as a primary activity.
I think the form factor is also really relevant. If for example it looks like the big ol' VR headset thing in the patent drawing, then Rockwell was right--nobody is going to walk down the street wearing that monstrosity anyway, so you might as well give it extra features when tethered and make it the best gaming/office VR/AR headset ever. If on the other hand it's more like a pair of glasses that you might actually walk out of the house in without feeling like a character in an '80s Cyberpunk movie, then Ive and Cook's vision makes more sense.
If it's genuinely intended to be a true AR headset, then Ive and Cook are right--having some sort of "reduced capability mode" when not near the base goes against the entire concept of a wearable, especially an AR wearable. It would have made it a bit like early Apple Watches that didn't do much if your phone wasn't nearby, except full functionality would be attached to your house.
Of note in this vision, whatever drives the thing will get better over time, so even if it's not "blows everything out of the water on day 1", it will get progressively more impressive over time.
If, however, this is a gaming VR-first headset with secondary AR capabilities, or intended for business/design AR in a studio/conference room then Rockwell was absolutely right and Ive and Cook made a mistake. In that vision, the "primary" use is that you're playing a game or working on something in your home/office, and you get the bonus of being able to go outside with it if you want.
Not knowing what the actual use-case of the OS associated with this will be, I have no idea which of those two things is closer to what it is or should be. I can say that the former is much more "Apple-like" in concept--a product that is intended to integrate with whatever you're already doing and enhances it rather than taking over as a primary activity.
I think the form factor is also really relevant. If for example it looks like the big ol' VR headset thing in the patent drawing, then Rockwell was right--nobody is going to walk down the street wearing that monstrosity anyway, so you might as well give it extra features when tethered and make it the best gaming/office VR/AR headset ever. If on the other hand it's more like a pair of glasses that you might actually walk out of the house in without feeling like a character in an '80s Cyberpunk movie, then Ive and Cook's vision makes more sense.
