If AVP is for "spatial computing," then shouldn't it be treated like the Mac?

[tornadowrangler]

Who else thinks that the Vision Pro should have been treated like an actual computer, with developers able to create and sell their products directly to the users, just like on the Mac? I haven't really seen anyone talking much about this.

I just feel like treating it like the iPad is going to hold it back. I'm the biggest Apple fan I know and I just have no interest in putting a thing on my face to look at glorified floating iPad apps. Apple needs developers to go all-in on this, to really create completely new kinds of software that aren't just iPad apps, and they would be much more willing to invest if they didn't have to go through Apple.

Plus, if they really want people to see it as a spatial computer and not just a VR headset, then making it the Mac Vision Pro really would have set it apart from the competition and made the price make a little more sense.

 

[4sallypat]

Me!

I much prefer a Mac over iOS and iPadOS.

But then VisionOS seems to be a marriage of Mac OS, iPad OS, iOS, TV OS....

I'll try it out and if it's more iPad like then I might return it.
I have 2 iPads (work & personal) and NEVER use them.

My Mac Studio M1 is my primary device I use so I would like my Vision Pro to be more "Mac like".

We shall see tomorrow.

 

[mattspace]

Who else thinks that the Vision Pro should have been treated like an actual computer, with developers able to create and sell their products directly to the users, just like on the Mac? I haven't really seen anyone talking much about this.

Apple is never going to produce another device "like the mac" in terms of user-developer deployment of software without a toll paid to Apple on the way through, unless governments regulate it.

Apple would make the Mac like the iPad if they thought could figure out a way to do it.

 

[AdonisSMU]

Me!

I much prefer a Mac over iOS and iPadOS.

But then VisionOS seems to be a marriage of Mac OS, iPad OS, iOS, TV OS....

I'll try it out and if it's more iPad like then I might return it.
I have 2 iPads (work & personal) and NEVER use them.

My Mac Studio M1 is my primary device I use so I would like my Vision Pro to be more "Mac like".

We shall see tomorrow.

Macs are for software development. I guess you could use playgrounds like on ipad but playgrounds are so limited and you dont have access to the terminal even in a sandboxed way.

 

[ElCidRo]

Yeah, I am also a huge Apple fan and iOS developer is my full time job. Not to mention shareholder.

However I agree with your take. This device is not for the casual user, if we consider the price tag & also the form-factor. They might be headed that way, e.g. push the price down and make the form factor much more comfortable (slim & lightweight). But as it stands - it would have been much better if the AVP was more like a Mac.

They also soured their relationship with so many developers. And AVP's success rests on developer support. Imagine if there was a similar "gold rush" as in the early days of the iOS App Store launch. But there isn't one. I can see it in my network of iOS devs. And Apple has made it easy to develop for AVP. It's basically a checkbox. And yet, developers are not lining up to launch their apps.

I'll be selling a large part of my position in $AAPL in the coming weeks. I am sure they will surprise us eventually. My bet is on their next Vision product launch, an Apple Vision Air. And their GenAI/Siri release later this year. A light version of the AVP paired with Apple's AI assistant could be a killer combo. But I will not keep my money in their stock until I see it or something else from Apple. And it could be 2+ years until such a product is on the market for one quarter so we can see its impact.

 

[mattspace]

A real problem is that Apple has combined screens and optics whose resolution, quality, refresh rate etc would in proper VR land demand an RTX4090 at the bare minimum to keep up with them, and even then if more powerful graphics were available, you could keep adding more and just get more detail, more geometry, more textures etc...

...and they've welded that to an iPad's GPU, with no ability to plug any other GPU into it over a wire.

 

[jclardy]

I'm on the fence here. Even as a developer who would love to get full access to all the capabilities of the hardware.

The issue is - a mac takes in only the input you give to it, directly. Via the keyboard, mouse, files you store on it, etc. The Vision Pro has a metric ton of incidental input - it literally can and has to see every thing you look at, down to specifically what you are focusing on, because the cameras and eye tracking are always on. It can see your financial records out on your desk, your family members walking around the house, your children, your pets, what products you have on the shelf. It can also listen to everything you are saying. It also has a 3d model of your face and potentially the ability to recreate your voice (assuming the iPhone feature comes over.)

Every single part of that would be abused if unleashed to third party developers.

That said, at least give us a developer mode with access to a terminal. I don't have high hopes for that given the rate at which iPadOS gets developer focused features.

 

[GrindedDown]

Apple is never going to produce another device "like the mac" in terms of user-developer deployment of software without a toll paid to Apple on the way through, unless governments regulate it.

Apple would make the Mac like the iPad if they thought could figure out a way to do it.

I agree completely. I think the absolute best case scenario would be that apple is working on a way of Mac and Vision Pro interacting with one another where Mack apps in the Mac interface would show on the Vision Pro, almost as if they were native Vision Pro applications, as opposed to simply mirroring the max screen.this way users could leverage the computing power of their Mac but leverage the spatial computing benefits of vision, pro. This could Explain why they only allow one external virtual monitor coming from Mac, because they are working on a different kind of implementation.

 

[AlastorKatriona]

Who else thinks that the Vision Pro should have been treated like an actual computer, with developers able to create and sell their products directly to the users, just like on the Mac? I haven't really seen anyone talking much about this.

I just feel like treating it like the iPad is going to hold it back. I'm the biggest Apple fan I know and I just have no interest in putting a thing on my face to look at glorified floating iPad apps. Apple needs developers to go all-in on this, to really create completely new kinds of software that aren't just iPad apps, and they would be much more willing to invest if they didn't have to go through Apple.

Plus, if they really want people to see it as a spatial computer and not just a VR headset, then making it the Mac Vision Pro really would have set it apart from the competition and made the price make a little more sense.

If it were a serious computing device then yes, it would be running Mac apps, or native apps on par with Mac apps. But it's not, so it doesn't. It runs baby iPad apps, so it's not for any serious computing. It's an expensive toy.

 

[AlastorKatriona]

Apple is never going to produce another device "like the mac" in terms of user-developer deployment of software without a toll paid to Apple on the way through, unless governments regulate it.

Apple would make the Mac like the iPad if they thought could figure out a way to do it.

I'm not sure what you think regulation has to do with it. Macs are for work...real work, like software development, and building the things that run on every other Apple device. While critically important to the world, that customer base is limited. There are only so many of us, so Apple's focus on that user base is going to be limited. The Mac is it, basically. And the Mac is better today that it has ever been, without question. But I don't see Apple targeting Mac users with a product like Vision Pro, even if they could, because it's not a very large potential market, to then capture a fraction of it with a new product category.

They prefer their new products to have as wide a potential market as possible, and it seems they've deluded themselves into thinking that the iPad market is their potential market. Somehow missing the fact that their only market are people willing to wear such an awful headset in such restricted circumstances, and pay $3,500+ for the privilege.

 

[JPack]

“What is a computer?”

Apple’s goal with Vision Pro is to replace iPhone in the long term, so the they basically chose to iPad-ify the VP.

 

[jz0309]

“What is a computer?”

Apple’s goal with Vision Pro is to replace iPhone in the long term, so the they basically chose to iPad-ify the VP.

really? where do you get that from? the 1st version doesn't even have cellular connectivity ...

 

[JPack]

really? where do you get that from? the 1st version doesn't even have cellular connectivity ...

Really. Because in all the Apple marketing collateral, the user never touches an iPhone. It's not even in the room. They'll advertise MacBook and Watch, but not iPhone. It's not like Apple forgot.

 

[jz0309]

Really. Because in all the Apple marketing collateral, the user never touches an iPhone. It's not even in the room. They'll advertise MacBook and Watch, but not iPhone. It's not like Apple forgot.

View attachment 2344510

Sure, in 50 years we won’t communicate using a slab phone anymore, but to assume that we will put something on our head (be it goggles or glasses) to communicate (there might not be phone calls anymore in 59 years) - have to repeat myself - really?
But whatever …

 

[JPack]

Sure, in 50 years we won’t communicate using a slab phone anymore, but to assume that we will put something on our head (be it goggles or glasses) to communicate (there might not be phone calls anymore in 59 years) - have to repeat myself - really?
But whatever …

Apple's vision is VP will be worn most of the time, similar to AirPods or Watch. We're obviously not there yet in terms of tech or social acceptance. But for mass market adoption of Vision Pro to happen, the OS can't be like Mac.

 

[haunt]

Their naming is humorous.

 

[AlastorKatriona]

“What is a computer?”

Apple's goal with this marketing speak to plant the idea in certain people's heads (people who really don't need a computer at all, but still to do some things) that a cheaper iPad can serve their needs.

I'm very sorry that some of you believe it means Apple has a different vision for the future of computing, but they do not. Every single Apple product is created using one of them: the Mac. That isn't changing any time in the foreseeable future. But people's who's computing needs consist of email and light word processing can absolutely get by with an iPad, and Apple has successfully pushed that idea for almost 15 years.

 

[JPack]

Apple's goal with this marketing speak to plant the idea in certain people's heads (people who really don't need a computer at all, but still to do some things) that a cheaper iPad can serve their needs.

I'm very sorry that some of you believe it means Apple has a different vision for the future of computing, but they do not. Every single Apple product is created using one of them: the Mac. That isn't changing any time in the foreseeable future. But people's who's computing needs consist of email and light word processing can absolutely get by with an iPad, and Apple has successfully pushed that idea for almost 15 years.

No. The iPad Pro shown in "What's a computer?" was hardly cheaper. The girl was using an iPad Pro 10.5-inch with cellular, Pencil, and Smart Keyboard. In other words, it's over $1,000 or price of MacBook Air.

Of course Apple has a different vision for computing. The Vision Pro running a Mac SoC already tells you that.

 

[tornadowrangler]

I'm not sure what you think regulation has to do with it. Macs are for work...real work, like software development, and building the things that run on every other Apple device. While critically important to the world, that customer base is limited. There are only so many of us, so Apple's focus on that user base is going to be limited. The Mac is it, basically. And the Mac is better today that it has ever been, without question. But I don't see Apple targeting Mac users with a product like Vision Pro, even if they could, because it's not a very large potential market, to then capture a fraction of it with a new product category.

They prefer their new products to have as wide a potential market as possible, and it seems they've deluded themselves into thinking that the iPad market is their potential market. Somehow missing the fact that their only market are people willing to wear such an awful headset in such restricted circumstances, and pay $3,500+ for the privilege.

You see, but if they would have called it the Mac Vision Pro, it wouldn't have been a new product category. It would have been the evolution of the Mac, and by extension, the evolution of the computer. Where the Mac goes, so goes the industry. Remember when the iMac came out?? Bundle a keyboard and some sort of haptic feed-back glove (wouldn't have to be a full glove, just something to put on a single finger), to interact with the UI in a more efficient and precise way than maintaining eye-contact with buttons and controls.

It just blows my mind that native apps in this environment are even in windows. Seems like such a wasted opportunity to do something new and different. It's like if movies were just filmed stage-plays.

 

[JPack]

For people still wondering if VP is intended to replace Mac and iPhone, the answer is yes.

Tim Cook already told us 6 months ago. If you're still trying to argue this point, you haven't been paying attention. Is it going to happen today? Obviously not. But it's clearly Apple's goal.

"It'll do anything that your Mac or iPhone can do... and more."

 

[AlastorKatriona]

You see, but if they would have called it the Mac Vision Pro, it wouldn't have been a new product category. It would have been the evolution of the Mac, and by extension, the evolution of the computer. Where the Mac goes, so goes the industry. Remember when the iMac came out?? Bundle a keyboard and some sort of haptic feed-back glove (wouldn't have to be a full glove, just something to put on a single finger), to interact with the UI in a more efficient and precise way than maintaining eye-contact with buttons and controls.

It just blows my mind that native apps in this environment are even in windows. Seems like such a wasted opportunity to do something new and different. It's like if movies were just filmed stage-plays.

I'm with you there in concept, but I think the truth is that even with the most expensive state of the art technology available, it's still just not that good. It's a very limiting, uncomfortable experience. They couldn't sell developers on this as the future of the Mac when most people would use it for 30 minutes and say, "its cool, but I stick with my monitor that doesn't make nauseous."

 

[AlastorKatriona]

For people still wondering if VP is intended to replace Mac and iPhone, the answer is yes.

Tim Cook already told us 6 months ago. If you're still trying to argue this point, you haven't been paying attention. Is it going to happen today? Obviously not. But it's clearly Apple's goal.

"It'll do anything that your Mac or iPhone can do... and more."

Please tell how a product that runs baby apps is supposed to replace a Mac.

iPad has been doing this for FOURTEEN years and has not replaced the Mac.

 

[JPack]

Please tell how a product that runs baby apps is supposed to replace a Mac.

iPad has been doing this for FOURTEEN years and has not replaced the Mac.

Jobs never launched iPad to replace the Mac. He was clear it wouldn't.

Every signal that Cook has sent, says this is their long term vision with VP.

Some of you are asking really myopic questions, like as if someone back in 2007 had asked, this iPhone doesn't have an App Store or a front camera.

 

[AlastorKatriona]

Jobs never launched iPad to replace the Mac. He was clear it wouldn't.

Every signal that Cook has sent, says this is their long term vision with VP.

Some of you are asking really myopic questions, like as if someone back in 2007 had asked, this iPhone doesn't have an App Store or a front camera.

You're just making things up here. And you still haven't explained HOW a product that runs baby apps replaces a Mac. It doesn't magically start running something else one day. That's now things work.

 

[JPack]

You're just making things up here. And you still haven't explained HOW a product that runs baby apps replaces a Mac. It doesn't magically start running something else one day. That's now things work.

You really don't think visionOS will evolve?

iPhone OS 1 in 2007 is the same as iOS 17 today?