Love your avatar. Been there once. Can't wait to take our son there in the next year or so.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Did Tim Cook tell the truth about what Vision Pro can do? (video clip)
- Thread starter Piggie
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I would be ok with “it can replace your Mac” because that is subjective and up to the user. Ie. it can replace it if it can replace it, for you the individual. And I’m sure it can for many, just like the iPad can.
Even if he said, “it can do anything you do on your Mac”, that also leaves some subjective leeway, because again it depends on the user.
But instead, he made an objective absolute statement about the device itself, not the user— “it can do anything your Mac can do”. That is objectively false.
It would be the same as if he had said, “iPad can do anything your Mac can do”, which I’m sure everyone in MR would object to.
But I’m not as ok with “Vision Pro can replace your iPhone”. Even though it’s subjective to the user, I know hardly anyone who only does wifi calling. Not to mention the impractical form factor, but that is subjective and obviously up to the user to decide (unless it becomes illegal to use in more situations than for a phone).
Unless of course it will be released with actual cellular call making functionality. I guess we’ll see.
Yes, a journalists job is to ask the questions we cannot. The failure to even ask the simplest of questions in regards to marketing speak is a failure... If you are doing a puff piece which you cannot even ask simple questions then it should be marked and designated an advertising section - because now you are becoming a propogandist. Some of the YouTubers asked more questions (from the contents) during their demo than this supposed journalist.
Ok sure I agree, a journalist should find out truth. But I’m still trying to understand what you mean in this context. So you’re saying because a journalist is present, a marketer is justified in making any false/inaccurate statement since it’s the journalists job to expose the truth?
If so, I disagree, they are not justified. I believe marketing can be anything, except objectively false. And maybe this is just where I differ from people.
Load a 100+ track Logic Pro project with many third-party VSTs, interface with a mixing desk and Avid sound cards, send/receive MIDI, RAID storage and connect to a network via Ethernet? 😉
In the context of Tim Cook on the show... First, what does a CEO do generally speaking... Among reporting to the board, most CEOs also act as basically chief marketter and putting the best story forward. What was he doing on the TV, he was acting as marketing for a product that the company sees as important going forward. As such marketting people often talk in generalities and drawing big pictures and often a lot of that gets hyperbolic in nature especially when talking about generalities. What is a Mac - a general computing device, what is the smart phone these days, a general computing device... basically it can be programmed to do 'anything' (though just as in the marketting speak that is also a bit hyperbolic). What is the job of the reporter, basically to ask questions and not allow people go get away with such hyperbole... ok, you say it can do everything that an iPhone can do - or a Mac can do... simply by asking one or two questions - you begin to flesh it out... As a society we don't consider this dishonest or lying as such... we call that putting on the hat of being a marketter. Personally, I am more of just give he the facts - and if you want... draw a picture of a few examples of how it would be used... and I would throw all marketting types in prison for life... I don't see CEOs or marketting persons (or for that matter Steve Jobs) held to this insane of a standard...
That is the type of answer I was looking for. It is a new platform, new hardware and new operating system, just the beginning of whole new experiences. I am sure it was designed to be as flexible as possible and not an iPhone, iPad and Mac replacement. Each platform has it's limitations, we pick the tools to do the job intended. The Vision Pro is going to open up many new avenues and services for Apple. As a stock holder I am blown away, not worried about what Tim Cook is trying to say, he is the CEO and has lead Apple to a nearly 3 Trillion dollar market cap (2.950 this morning), I think he is allow to be excited.
It was a modified version of OS X. Doesn’t mean it can run ANYTHING that was ever built for OS X. Will you say OS X 10.12 is not OS X because it cannot run apps that were built for OS X 10.2?
I worked at a company and we wrote a system which is a brokerage system. We then took that system to create something that handled Term/Fixed Deposits but none of the account management of a brokerage system for buying/selling shares etc. Taking one piece of software and using some functionality, stripping out some functionaity does not make the two the same. When you say it runs OS X and it cannot run any OS X apps - it is no longer macOS (or macOS). Someone like Steve Jobs would know that, but then he was acting as a marketter and being a bit hyperbolic is par for the course... The same standard should apply to Tim Cook.
As far as something written for 10.2 of OS X, it would need to be recompiled and a new binary created for Intel. But most apps that were written for 10.2 would run fine on more recent versions of macOS but there might have to be some fixes made for some deprecations that were made over the years. That scenario is not what happened...
Last edited:
Nope, Darwin is most certainly the core OS of OS X. Apple released Darwin as open source, so that is why you can run it on non-Apple machines. You analogy with Chrome and Linux doesn’t make sense. Chrome is is application, Linux is an OS.
As for running programs, that has no bearing on whether a device runs an operating system. For example, different versions of Windows can run different software. That doesn’t change the fact that they are all running the same base OS.
Chrome (short for ChromeOS) used on Chromebooks. "ChromeOS is the speedy, simple and secure operating system that powers every Chromebook.". "ChromeOS, sometimes styled as chromeOS and formerly styled as Chrome OS, is a Linux-based operating system developed and designed by Google.". I can't believe you didn't know what I was talking about... maybe you did and were just using that as a sort of strawman to argue against.
OS X is called an OS, Darwin is called an OS. OS X is a superset of Darwin, but it is not Darwin. Chrome(OS) is called an OS, Linux is called an OS.... Chrome(OS) is a superset of Linux. Chrome(OS) is a superset of Linux, but it is not Linux.
He did not say Darwin was the OS running on the iPhone, he said OS X. And Steve Jobs has been in the computer/software business long enough to know what he was saying was not honestly what it was running. He was saying it for marketting purposes to say... look how powerful it is... but it was not what it was running.
Last edited:
Ohhhh yeahhhhh! Could just put my $ in a solid PC instead, & RD over to whatever mac or ios ui that AppleVision picks up. I actually forgot entirely about that option. Nvidia here we come…
Who cares what Tim Cook says? Seriously you are either one of three people regarding any technology purchase:
1. Not for me;
2. Unsure on the fence; or
3. Hell ya, I am all in.
Either you can afford it or not or prefer to wait whatever you decide there is no right or wrong answer. You don’t need to justify a product to yourself or other that it’s either for you or not or find problems and limitations with it.
The question one must ask is does this product do what you want and expect it to do or do you prefer to wait and see the development that occurs.
For me I like what I see and I am option 2, on the fence. It’s not about money in this regard it’s about a new direction in immersive computing and no I am not drinking the kool-aid, if within the trial period it does not do what I want it to then back it goes, I don’t read or watch reviews from others as I have better things to do with my life. If I want to watch a movie or tv show I do I don’t wait for Rotten Tomatoes or circa S&E type reviews, I watch it as the plot is somewhat interesting to me.
I suggest you stop wasting your time internalizing this out loud 😝
Last edited:
The poster said Chrome, which is an application. Regardless, what you said about Darwin and OS X just isn’t correct. Here is the description directly from Apple: “The kernel, along with other core parts of OS X are collectively referred to as Darwin. Darwin is a complete operating system based on many of the same technologies that underlie OS X. However, Darwin does not include Apple’s proprietary graphics or applications layers, such as Quartz, QuickTime, Cocoa, Carbon, or OpenGL.” https://developer.apple.com/library...nelProgramming/Architecture/Architecture.html
Darwin is the underlying kernel for all versions of Apple’s OSes. iOS simply has different layers than other versions of OS X, such as a touch interface layer.
Come on thats just PR, he's a salesman he has to sell and pretend the product is everything
Darwin is NOT the underlying kernel... or I should clarify when I talk about Darwin (update: the name of the kernel is XNU), I am talking about the OS which contains a kernel. The kernel is a UNIX/BSD based on Mach, a hybrid style of kernel. You however do not get certified as a UNIX for 'just the kernel'. Darwin is a full fledged operating system. Apple does not release all of their proprietary drivers for Darwin to the open source kernel. "the other core parts of OS X" is technically correct but you are I think misunderstanding that... The kernel is only part of Darwin... so Darwin is a superset of Darwin's kernel and things like terminal commands such as "ls", "awk" etc. Since "OS X" is a superset of "Darwin" you can technically say other Darwin components are part of "OS X". All that put together is not "OS X". OpenGL is not Apple, it is another open-source project which Apple uses (as do some other operating systems). Quartz is a compositor, that is Apples. Not sure about QuickTime - I was pretty sure that was just an application bundled with the "OS X". Quartz, Cocoa, Carbon are all components used within Aqua the UI. "OS X" is basically Aqua + Darwin (which make include a few more things). When you tear out the UI, and replace it with something that may have some of the same components, and some new components -- and you give it a new name because it is not "OS X"... and it does not run any of the same applications compiled for it UIKit vs AppKit... it is not "OS X" period.
Last edited:
The first iteration can replace your monitor but not entirely your Mac. It has potential to replace your Mac but that won't be version 1.0 (at least from technology capability without making it bigger and heavier).
I don't think it's ugly. In fact seeing it in person, it is extremally polished and cool looking device with expensive details and curvature.
You’re welcome to take-up your argument with Apple, but Apple is pretty clear: “The kernel, along with other core parts of OS X are collectively referred to as Darwin. Darwin is a complete operating system based on many of the same technologies that underlie OS X. However, Darwin does not include Apple’s proprietary graphics or applications layers, such as Quartz, QuickTime, Cocoa, Carbon, or OpenGL.” Notice
You’re conflating Mac OS X with OS X. The kernel, Darwin, is a “core part of OS X.” Mac OS X was a version of OS X, just like iPhone OS was a version of OS X. Of course, they had different layers because the devices were different (e.g., touch input vs. keyboard and mouse input), but the core OS (OS X) was the same.
Mac OS X is OS X (Mac OS X was renamed to OS X in 2012... 4/5 years after iPhone was introduced, and it's OS was iOS which had the same Darwin heritage but a different graphical interface with a different programming toolkit - UIKit and no Windows)... It was basically taking the NeXTSTEP foundations and moving the MacOS UI with some improvements to it on top of that foundation. Mac is the only device OS X ran on. macOS is just "OS X" renamed when they changed the version number from 10.x to 11+. 'Mac' the computer system the operating system ran on... Mac OS (The operating system), and X (Roman Numeral 10) the version of the Mac OS. The version before that was ... can you guess... Mac OS 9... and before that... Mac OS 8... hmmm... there is a pattern developing there.
You developed to AppKit for Mac OS X, and UIKit for iOS. Not AppKit for Mac OS X/iOS common components, and UIKit for the additional features.
Last edited:
It definitely has the potential. If it could do all those things in the first gen, then Apple set up something special, but I feel original iPhone vibes on this product. They'll be learning a lot from the first gen adopters for the next couple of years before the real product line is launched.
And yes. Marketing teams have to get people jazzed about products. No spin, then there's no interest.