Did Tim Cook tell the truth about what Vision Pro can do? (video clip)

[subjonas]

There is no enforcement on these kinds of public statements. Is the statement accurate from a literal sense? Of course not. But from a practical point of view, consider the audience of Good Morning America. When Apple's marketing team wrote the script, they know the housewives watching GMA aren't going to be up in arms because it can't operate on cellular or connect an external monitor.

For a one off statement on a talk show, no, there is probably no legal consequence. When I say “need to be true”, I mean that in a more basic social sense. In order for people to continue believing marketing, there has to be a level of integrity that must be maintained underneath the hype. In my recollection, Apple marketing hype has always reserved a reasonable “out”, a way that one could reasonably interpret the marketing to not cross over into falsehood (eg. if he had said “almost anything” then it would have been fine because that leaves it just vague enough). I don’t see that here. It seems to be flat out inaccurate.
Yes, for some (maybe many) of the viewers the statement might be true enough, but also definitely for some (maybe many) viewers this statement will simply not be true. For them, this statement will erode trust and respect. And it’s not true objectively.
I only expect two things from every company—don't break the law, and don’t speak blatantly falsely.

 

[tubuliferous]

Hmm...interesting.

Can it even do everything an iPhone can do? Can it make phone calls?

Edit: We've already seen FaceTime demonstrated on the Vision, of course. I was thinking of cellular service.

 

[imnotthewalrus]

Steve Jobs on the iPhone 2007: "iPhone runs OSX"...
Just saying. Hyperbole has always existed, and continues to exist.

 

[-BigMac-]

Wondering what your opinion is on his statement?

Tim said: "It can do anything your Mac or iPhone can do and more"

Now, of course he's not talking about some hypothetical future product that they may produce years from now.
He's talking on TV about what their new product, Vision Pro can do.

Again: "It can do anything your Mac or iPhone can do and more"

So he is publicly stating it can (not it will or it might, or it has the potential to) But it can do everything a MAC can do.
Not can do what an iPad running a limited OS can do, but what a Mac Computer can do.

So he is telling us all, that perhaps by the middle of next year, I won't need to buy an iPhone, I won't need to buy a Mac
I just need to buy a Vision Pro and it will be able to do ANYTHING those product can do....

My personal view:
Could, in theory devs create Vision Pro versions of their iPhone, iPad apps? Sure as I understand it's running a type of iOS Operating System.
Could all Mac developers create Vision Pro versions of their Mac Apps running MacOS ? Perhaps, I'm not sure?

Will the Vision pro do anything a Mac can? I must say a strong NO as I strongly suggest it's only could to be able to run apps which Apple wants it to be able to run, which is not like a Mac computer.

Personally I don't think the CEO of Apple should really have said that as to me I'm expecting that statement is not accurate and will not be true, at least not for this current/forthcoming product.

You make an important distinction between WILL and CAN. They are saying CAN.

So CAN it run a full fledged version of Adobe Suite? Processing huge files with its 64gb storage? Nope

Can the storage be upgraded to 2Tb? 4 Tb? Nope.
CAN I use it for 2+ hours on battery like any of the portable Macs? Nope

CAN someone else see what I am looking at without using other hardware like on a Mac screen? Nope

CAN I use my existing prescription glasses to use it? Nope

List goes on😅

 

[antiprotest]

It is, of course, an exaggeration, if for no other reason than that it has a specific and restrictive form factor.

Sure you can type documents on it, browse the web, and watch movies...

...but can it provide turn by turn navigation WHILE you are driving -- while you are wearing it on your face? No.

...can it FaceTime with someone with a whole group of friends BEHIND you, so that the other end can see the 20 people in your living room? No.

...can it easily display a presentation or movie that you can watch together with two or three people like you can on a Mac? No.

...can it allow you to work on a document at a cafe for 5 hours without access to an outlet? No.

...can it allow you to check the weather in under 5 seconds? No.

...can it allow you to see notifications coming in while it sits on your table, like the AOD on your iPhone? No.

And there are innumerable scenarios like these. But I don't think he has these in mind when he made that statement. He is talking about capabilities, not usage scenarios.

One thing we can be sure is that Vision Pro cannot truly and completely replace other devices. It's an additional and optional device, that in SOME situations, some might make it the preferred device.

 

[Tyler O'Bannon]

I’d love for it to be able to completely replace MBP and external display. My entire desk setup.

That would be quite a fundamental change though. I love the idea of it. But would be a whole different thing when doing anything that I do on my computer now would mean wearing the headset.

I would still need an iPhone though because there’s just no way.

Even if it could do everything my iPhone can do, im still not wearing out in public 24/7.

I would continue to use my iPhone normally, and aim to replace Mac and entire desk setup.

 

[subjonas]

Steve Jobs on the iPhone 2007: "iPhone runs OSX"...
Just saying. Hyperbole has always existed, and continues to exist.

There has to be a line between hyperbole and a false statement though.
Was there any reasonable way to interpret Jobs’ statement as true? Also who did he say that to?

 

[bkkcanuck8]

Now we are arguing about 'can' -- this is insane... there is no limit to 'can' when it comes to future tense (it itself can be used for future tense of 'can') -- and that includes Vision Pro as a family of devices...

With the iPhone or Mac -- it does not mean that additional optional devices/accessories will not be needed. I can take my iPhone call on the Mac. It is only limited by what people/developers... who write for it.

 

[subjonas]

It is, of course, an exaggeration, if for no other reason than that it has a specific and restrictive form factor.

Sure you can type documents on it, browse the web, and watch movies...

...but can it provide turn by turn navigation WHILE you are driving -- while you are wearing it on your face? No.

...can it FaceTime with someone with a whole group of friends BEHIND you, so that the other end can see the 20 people in your living room? No.

...can it easily display a presentation or movie that you can watch together with two or three people like you can on a Mac? No.

...can it allow you to work on a document at a cafe for 5 hours without access to an outlet? No.

...can it allow you to check the weather in under 5 seconds? No.

...can it allow you to see notifications coming in while it sits on your table, like the AOD on your iPhone? No.

And there are innumerable scenarios like these. But I don't think he has these in mind when he made that statement. He is talking about capabilities, not usage scenarios.

One thing we can be sure is that Vision Pro cannot truly and completely replace other devices. It's an additional and optional device, that in SOME situations, some might make it the preferred device.

These examples are true but I don’t think anyone would expect a headset to do a lot of these things. I think you’re more listing things that no headset can possibly do, no matter the software. So there is no issue with misleading there. The main issue here is the list of features Cook’s comment misleadingly implies the VP can do but in actuality can’t because of software.

 

[subjonas]

Now we are arguing about 'can' -- this is insane... there is no limit to 'can' when it comes to future tense (it itself can be used for future tense of 'can') -- and that includes Vision Pro as a family of devices...

With the iPhone or Mac -- it does not mean that additional optional devices/accessories will not be needed. I can take my iPhone call on the Mac. It is only limited by what people/developers... who write for it.

Context. What’s the use of the word “can” in this context if it includes all possibilities in an endless future? The only way “can” is useful in the context of his statement is if it was used in the present tense (or by release, which by all indications we know not to be not true). To purposely use it in the future hypothetical tense in this context is dishonest.

“I want to go 200 mph. Should I buy this car?”
“Yes, buy it, it can go 200 mph” (unspoken: but only theoretically)

How could this not be considered dishonest if said purposely?
And if not said on purpose, then it’s errant and embarrassing.

 

[ouruniverse06131986]

Wondering what your opinion is on his statement?

Tim said: "It can do anything your Mac or iPhone can do and more"

Now, of course he's not talking about some hypothetical future product that they may produce years from now.
He's talking on TV about what their new product, Vision Pro can do.

Again: "It can do anything your Mac or iPhone can do and more"

So he is publicly stating it can (not it will or it might, or it has the potential to) But it can do everything a MAC can do.
Not can do what an iPad running a limited OS can do, but what a Mac Computer can do.

So he is telling us all, that perhaps by the middle of next year, I won't need to buy an iPhone, I won't need to buy a Mac
I just need to buy a Vision Pro and it will be able to do ANYTHING those product can do....

My personal view:
Could, in theory devs create Vision Pro versions of their iPhone, iPad apps? Sure as I understand it's running a type of iOS Operating System.
Could all Mac developers create Vision Pro versions of their Mac Apps running MacOS ? Perhaps, I'm not sure?

Will the Vision pro do anything a Mac can? I must say a strong NO as I strongly suggest it's only could to be able to run apps which Apple wants it to be able to run, which is not like a Mac computer.

Personally I don't think the CEO of Apple should really have said that as to me I'm expecting that statement is not accurate and will not be true, at least not for this current/forthcoming product.

You actually DO need a mac to use it.

 

[iStorm]

It's definitely up for interpretation, and people will have different ones since it's not all black and white. Considering you can display your Mac's screen inside the headset, you can do everything the Mac can do. Will you be able to do it without a Mac? Probably not. So I mean, he's not wrong...just depends on how you view it.

Same goes for iPhone. We can already run iOS/iPadOS apps on the Mac (if the developer allows it). I'm guessing it'll be similar with visionOS, like how iPadOS can run iOS apps. We can also make calls on our iPads or Mac that relay through our iPhone. I wouldn't be surprised if the Vision Pro will allow this too. Will we be able to make cellular calls without an iPhone? Probably not. It doesn't have a cellular chip as far as we know.

Even if the Vision Pro could do everything on its own, it doesn't necessarily mean it can be (or meant to be) a replacement for everything else. My Mac can pretty much do everything my iPad or iPhone can do, but I still have all three devices. I could absolutely use my iPhone or iPad to join my MS Teams meetings for work and do emails if I really wanted to, but it's easier done on the Mac. I could take my cellular iPad with me everywhere I go instead of my iPhone, but it's easier and more convenient to carry my iPhone, it fits in my pocket. It's all about using the right tool for the job. The Vision Pro will be no different. There will probably be things that just make sense to use the headset instead of something else; and in other instances, to use something else instead of the headset.

 

[bkkcanuck8]

Context. What’s the use of the word “can” in this context if it includes all possibilities in an endless future? The only way “can” is useful in the context of his statement is if it was used in the present tense (or by release, which by all indications we know not to be not true). To purposely use it in the future hypothetical tense in this context is dishonest.

“I want to go 200 mph. Should I buy this car?”
“Yes, buy it, it can go 200 mph” (unspoken: but only theoretically)

How could this not be considered dishonest if said purposely?
And if not said on purpose, then it’s errant and embarrassing.

Not really, your in an interrogatory conversation about the future since the device is not available in the present. If you are curious a bit, and you ask more questions (I always do when I am hearing marketting speak about 'the best', 'it will do everything', etc.)... Best at what, how do you do this, obvious question when the phone comes up is .. how? (Oh, it has the ability to take calls from your iPhone and receive them on the device as long as you are within range of the iPhone). This is a 'journalist' after all.

 

[goonie4life9]

Steve Jobs on the iPhone 2007: "iPhone runs OSX"...
Just saying. Hyperbole has always existed, and continues to exist.

Except that wasn’t hyperbole. iPhones and iPads ran OS X. It was Darwinc which is UNIX, had Cocoa.

That said, most users don’t see or understand those things, as they attend to the user interaction level, which Steve clearly stated was different. Tim specifically said the user interaction with VL is the same as either an iPhone or Mac, which looks to be, ahem, not quite accurate.

 

[bkkcanuck8]

Except that wasn’t hyperbole. iPhones and iPads ran OS X. It was Darwinc which is UNIX, had Cocoa.

That said, most users don’t see or understand those things, as they attend to the user interaction level, which Steve clearly stated was different. Tim specifically said the user interaction with VL is the same as either an iPhone or Mac, which looks to be, ahem, not quite accurate.

No OS X is not Darwin, I can run Darwin on a computer (open source to that) - but that does not make it OS X. Same way Linux is not Chrome... If it was OS X it would be able to run the apps that were built for OS X. It is marketing speak... and we don't crusify those who use it ... even if it would be fun.

 

[crees!]

From what I’ve seen of the VP, that is not a true statement.

It’s especially odd he said Mac and iPhone, the two devices it has the least overlap with, and not the iPad, which it has the most overlap with.

An iOS-like interface and it can run iOS/iPad apps AND you can interface with your Mac. Seems like a jack of all trades to me.

 

[cardfan]

You guys are overthinking it.

It has a M2. It has mouse support and many other new things.
It can do whatever Apple and devs put there Simple.

Except run mac programs. Got it.

 

[Night Spring]

There has to be a line between hyperbole and a false statement though.
Was there any reasonable way to interpret Jobs’ statement as true? Also who did he say that to?

Steve Jobs said this in 2007 when he was introducing the iPhone. As to how this might be interpreted as true, I think this is a good explanation:

I’ve been investigating this since shortly after the keynote, and everything I’ve learned indicates that it is entirely fair and accurate for Apple to call the iPhone operating system “OS X”: the kernel is Mach;3 the low levels are Darwin; the UI for the apps is Cocoa’s AppKit. The math looks like this:

• Start with Mac OS X as we know it.
• Subtract everything in Mac OS X that is needless or undesirable on the iPhone — drivers for hardware the iPhone doesn’t have, frameworks and libraries for features that don’t make sense on a small screen mobile device, all of the applications designed for the Mac UI.
• Add the things that the iPhone needs but that Mac OS X as we know it lacks: multi-touch screen support, on-screen “smart” keyboard, cellular phone networking, drivers for the iPhone sensors (proximity, light, accelerometer), apps written specifically for the iPhone UI.

In other words, the iPhone’s version of OS X contains everything from Mac OS X that’s applicable to a mobile phone, plus new bits specific to the phone. It’s a “full” version of OS X not because it contains everything from Mac OS X, but because it contains everything you’d actually want from Mac OS X.

Daring Fireball: OS X

daringfireball.net

And I've looked at iPhone system files in jailbroken iPhones, and they really do look like the system files in OS X/MacOS.

 

[bkkcanuck8]

Steve Jobs said this in 2007 when he was introducing the iPhone. As to how this might be interpreted as true, I think this is a good explanation:



And I've looked at iPhone system files in jailbroken iPhones, and they really do look like the system files in OS X/MacOS.

That is because the file system is part of Darwin... and both macOS and iOS are built on top of Darwin. Darwin is basically the core (Mach Kernel) with networking and file system. They built macOS on top of that -- which includes the Aqua UI etc. It is a BSD/UNIX based OS. But to get back to the point.... Darwin is not macOS, and the iPhone does not run macOS operating system. At best you can say that the iPhone is running the operating system that macOS was built on. (very different). One implies binary/app compatibility, the other does not.

 

[4087258]

Except run mac programs. Got it.

It’s a different interface, you can’t just put a mouse oriented app on that.

 

[aibloop]

I think the UI paradigms with eye-tracking they are pushing seem to be potentially very powerful.

Personally, I do not think windows/MacOS are optimal for managing files, the folders/files system isn`t really THAT good, is it? Look at the mess on your desktop... How hard is it to remember a folder you made in 2019? And what is in it? I think spatial filesystems CAN be better for organizing and remembering.

For SURE Vision Pro will be able to replace a Mac, at-least in a year or so. The M3 version should be the sweetspot.

I am very curious as to how a spatial OS will evolve going forward. Also, I wouldn`t assume that Vision OS is a iOS derivate. It really is a 3d OS built for that from scratch.

 

[bkkcanuck8]

I think the UI paradigms with eye-tracking they are pushing seem to be potentially very powerful.

Personally, I do not think windows/MacOS are optimal for managing files, the folders/files system isn`t really THAT good, is it? Look at the mess on your desktop... How hard is it to remember a folder you made in 2019? And what is in it? I think spatial filesystems CAN be better for organizing and remembering.

For SURE Vision Pro will be able to replace a Mac, at-least in a year or so. The M3 version should be the sweetspot.

I am very curious as to how a spatial OS will evolve going forward. Also, I wouldn`t assume that Vision OS is a iOS derivate. It really is a 3d OS built for that from scratch.

So, now you can place a file near your keys - which you cannot find anyway. I have NO mess on the desktop - zilch...

I store all my markdown files, PDF documents, notes, etc. in 'DEVONThink Pro' - and I can find anything quickly (all stored on my 'Document' volume). I have a 'Code' volume for my projects. An 'Archive' volume for some misc. archives that I don't currently use, an 'ApplicationData' volume for Application Data for a few applications, a 'Multimedia' volume for for Videos I am going to watch in the next little while (on an external hard drive for Videos that I have had for a long time), and a 'Temp' volume which is what Carbon Copy backs my Volumes to before I move it to the external hard drive. Basically, organization does not take that much effort... since APFS I started creating purpose Volumes since it is zero cost for the most part and you don't have to reserve the space like you did in partitions... (I use to keep folders off of root '/' before that became read only).

If your Desktop is full of junk, you are going to be buried in junk in spacial computing environments.

 

[SoldOnApple]

It only has a vanilla M2 in it and presumably base storage and ram. So we may need to wait a few generations for a M4 Max with 2TB and 64GB to run all your Adobe apps at once. Mac linkage being limited to a single 4K window is very worrying for those hoping to be terribly productive with gen 1 Vision.

 

[Kuckuckstein]

Wondering what your opinion is on his statement?

Tim said: "It can do anything your Mac or iPhone can do and more"

Now, of course he's not talking about some hypothetical future product that they may produce years from now.
He's talking on TV about what their new product, Vision Pro can do.

Again: "It can do anything your Mac or iPhone can do and more"

So he is publicly stating it can (not it will or it might, or it has the potential to) But it can do everything a MAC can do.
Not can do what an iPad running a limited OS can do, but what a Mac Computer can do.

So he is telling us all, that perhaps by the middle of next year, I won't need to buy an iPhone, I won't need to buy a Mac
I just need to buy a Vision Pro and it will be able to do ANYTHING those product can do....

My personal view:
Could, in theory devs create Vision Pro versions of their iPhone, iPad apps? Sure as I understand it's running a type of iOS Operating System.
Could all Mac developers create Vision Pro versions of their Mac Apps running MacOS ? Perhaps, I'm not sure?

Will the Vision pro do anything a Mac can? I must say a strong NO as I strongly suggest it's only could to be able to run apps which Apple wants it to be able to run, which is not like a Mac computer.

Personally I don't think the CEO of Apple should really have said that as to me I'm expecting that statement is not accurate and will not be true, at least not for this current/forthcoming product.

From what I have seen, this does seem to be the vision for this device.

Maybe not everything is ported yet, but forgetting VR for a moment, it seems to be simply a computer with an infinitely large screen (virtually switching between the UI of apps depending on where you look at). And if it gets a SIM card or electronic SIM, it will also be your phone.

It will not have the power and memory of the strongest Macs but could easily be your laptop replacement, if you choose to live all day with this device on your head. Not a future I personally would like to live in. But that seems to be the goal.

 

[bkkcanuck8]

It only has a vanilla M2 in it and presumably base storage and ram. So we may need to wait a few generations for a M4 Max with 2TB and 64GB to run all your Adobe apps at once. Mac linkage being limited to a single 4K window is very worrying for those hoping to be terribly productive with gen 1 Vision.

That for me would not be a limitation for me (assumptions made)... I have 3 monitors right now, the right one is usually used for documentation, the left one for research or YouTube or something... and usually I have my messenger apps or other communications on one or the other... So if I am macOS can be my server (for big builds or other demanding work), and if coding on macOS one display blended in with the built in apps on Vision Pro (YouTube, Browser, Preview/PDF, messenging, email, etc.)... effectively I have more space. Not confident, but hopefully they will allow terminal sometime going forward... and development environments on the Vision Pro would be great. Really, the reason why I felt the need to go with M1 Max at the time was multi-display support and 32GB of memory (24GB probably ok, it is not like I am running any VMs these days).

The 4K is a limitation because of bandwidth available - especially wirelessly...