Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
What's the point? You either have your phone in your pocket or your headphone case in your pocket? How is loading your headphone case with music any better than loading your iPhone with music? I have 400GB of music on my iPhone. I never have to worry about streaming anything over 4G. And I don't have to pay for yet another line for a one-trick pony device. There's absolutely nothing remotely innovative or compelling about a headphone case that can play music in today's world. A basic smart watch is a much better solution.

Slight disagree if one is a runner perhaps (or someone like me who just want's hyper lightweight/minimal around the gym)

Certain fitness use cases for earbuds are interested in the absolute lightest/zero weight solution with as little to carry/deal with as possible.

It's pretty niche though, I will give you that for sure
 
  • Like
Reactions: deepspacecowboy
I'm in the Garmin ecosystem (and vastly prefer it for my fitness/health/activity/sleep tracking usages), otherwise I might.

I hope Garmin releases a new model of the style I prefer (Instinct Crossover for me, but anything Instinct would work) that has the built in Music option.

That would solve it for me
You don't have to wear the Apple Watch all the time. If it's just going to the gym, trade your Garmin for your Apple Watch while you work out so that you can have the music features you want without needing your phone?

I tried a Garmin Fenix. It has music features. I returned it because I frankly don't see any value in all of these metrics. I think they contribute more to mental illness and anxiety around one's health than anything else. I like the simplicity of the Apple Watch at the gym. I can log my workouts in the Strong app, keep an eye on my heart rate, and control my music. When I'm done with my workout, I remove the Watch.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gusmula
Slight disagree if one is a runner perhaps (or someone like me who just want's hyper lightweight/minimal around the gym)

Certain fitness use cases for earbuds are interested in the absolute lightest/zero weight solution with as little to carry/deal with as possible.

It's pretty niche though, I will give you that for sure
Very niche. Plus if you're having to carry a case while you're out for a run, isn't a Watch --- something you wear --- a better option? Plus it has cell service in case you need to make an emergency call, etc. I just don't see how a headphone case is a better option than a watch.
 
  • Like
Reactions: turbineseaplane
You don't have to wear the Apple Watch all the time. If it's just going to the gym, trade your Garmin for your Apple Watch while you work out so that you can have the music features you want without needing your phone?

Garmin solution is all in one and it's key to wear it all the time, and over time, to keep the metrics doing their thing. I don't want to wear two watches. I LOVE IT -- Don't have any interest in Apple ecosystem for this stuff.

In terms of the "on watch" experience for music, maybe I'm not articulating how I use it.

I literally have a playlist and hit "play" and it shuffles through all my exercise songs. I need no controls beyond volume.

I'm there to workout and focus on that and any "tech interactions" are a huge PITA for me in that context.
 
Very niche. Plus if you're having to carry a case while you're out for a run, isn't a Watch --- something you wear --- a better option? Plus it has cell service in case you need to make an emergency call, etc. I just don't see how a headphone case is a better option than a watch.

It's only better in that it's smaller and lighter -- you are correct.
It's only a half step in the right direction
 
Garmin solution is all in one and it's key to wear it all the time, and over time, to keep the metrics doing their thing. I don't want to wear two watches. I LOVE IT -- Don't have any interest in Apple ecosystem for this stuff.

In terms of the "on watch" experience for music, maybe I'm not articulating how I use it.

I literally have a playlist and hit "play" and it shuffles through all my exercise songs. I need no controls beyond volume.

I'm there to workout and focus on that and any "tech interactions" are a huge PITA for me in that context.
I get that and I don't see how carrying a headphone case around in order to shuffle music is better than wearing a watch. I'd much rather have something strapped to my wrist than have a headphone case in my pocket while I work out. I appreciate not wanting to leave the Garmin ecosystem, so why not get a Fenix or one of their other watches that offers a music player and solve the problem? Seems like a pretty easy fix to me.
 
  • Love
Reactions: turbineseaplane
It's only better in that it's smaller and lighter -- you are correct.
It's only a half step in the right direction
My Airpods case (without headphones) weighs 38g. My Apple Watch weighs 65g. That's all of 0.05 pounds saved! Reminds me the backpackers I meet who cut the handles off their toothbrushes to save an ounce and instead saddle themselves with a much worse dental hygiene experience on the trail.
 
  • Like
Reactions: turbineseaplane
My Airpods case (without headphones) weighs 38g. My Apple Watch weighs 65g. That's all of 0.05 pounds saved! Reminds me the backpackers I meet who cut the handles off their toothbrushes to save an ounce and instead saddle themselves with a much worse dental hygiene experience on the trail.

Totally get what you're saying, but you are assuming AW usage -- which is not the case for all, especially when you get into elite fitness folks (Garmin, Coros, Suunto -- lots of things in that space are used in preferred)
 
Yeah - I struggled with that too, but I think the killer app for iPad IS content consumption. I use mine for reading, taking notes, light games and media when traveling. The pencil was KILLER for me because I use GoodNotes and Notability for note taking, document review, signature and markup at work and nothing else comes close. Those things are uniquely iPad for me - although I can't really say that's the case for everyone.

I agree with you on content consumption, I actually have several iPads. The mini stays by my bed all the time because of the form factor. it's just easy to leave on the nightstand. The pro stays in the tv room because I tend to play games while watching you tube. I haven't gotten any use out of my Apple Pencil, perhaps I should try again.

Cost isn't the issue. I could get an AVP today (even write it off for business) but I don't know what I would do with it other than consume content. As cool as that might be, I don't see myself really wanting to do that beyond novelty. Same with productivity - it might be cool to use an AVP virtual display to do work, but I don't see how that's better than my really world dual monitor setup. My guess is that after the novelty wears off, it will just sit there and at that cost, I'd rather get something else.

After three plus weeks novelty hasn't worn off for me. And I use it in ways I just could not have predicted before getting it. It has replaced my iPad for content consumption and my MBA 15 for replying to email while watching you tube videos lol. Yes. I often have the tv on while using it. I read a lot of gripes about pass through video from people with unrealistic expectations, but for me, the tv (a 70 inch 4k oled) is good enough that sometimes I forget and try to move it with my fingers like it was just another AVP window. Yes, the APV is like a BIG iPad window (see what I did there? remember all the complaints the iPad was just a big phone), but instead of just one, its several. This is more useful than you might think. For example reading MR, will often have a link. On my iPad it changes the whole window, on the APV it just pops up another window. And I can have my mail or IM window sitting to the side. something pops up I pick up my keyboard and reply. It's a lot less bulky than an MBA 15, and somehow less obtrusive. I dont have a screen sitting in front of me, unless I want one. then I move it. anyway, bottom line is I prefer to use my AVP for many applications even if my MBA 14 and iPad Pro are sitting right there. Portability . I travel a lot and take it with me. Great for relaxing in a hotel room. etc.

I hope that AVP does find something for the masses to take interest, because that will drive investment and improvement. My wife didn't want an iPad when it came out, nor an Apple Watch, nor even an iPhone! Fast forward to today and she's attached to her phone, uses the Watch for all manner of fitness tracking, and can't fall asleep without her iPad. What I want is something that will make even someone like her NEED an AVP - whatever that might be!

I think this is going to be a slow boil thing because of the price, and I think Apple has planned for that. People don't get how very different and experience and use it is. So apple is seeding early adopters and developers for when the technology catches up to make it cheap and light enough for the masses. I did laugh at your comments about your wife... mine is so much the same it is scary. she would get on my case for why did I need the iPhone 1, then the iPad I, but she gave up before the Apple Watch came along. She would roll her eyes at me when I got them, saying she would never want one, but yes, today she too cant live without her iPhone, iPad, and Apple Watch. though she manages to maintain her dignity by not allowing me to upgrade her for years and years. Except for the phone, and I think its because of the camera, she will allow upgrades ever 2 to 3 years on that. As for the AVP, even when I debated whether to get it or not, I mean it is $3500+, she just rolled her eyes and said 'you know you will..' She does enjoy seeing my panoramas streamed to the TV, but has no interest in trying it. I do think she likes having more control over the tv remote these days. People will scoff, but 40+ years of marriage, and its enough to sit next to each other sometimes.
 
I appreciate not wanting to leave the Garmin ecosystem, so why not get a Fenix or one of their other watches that offers a music player and solve the problem? Seems like a pretty easy fix to me.

Really really love the Instinct line for its toughness and rugged aesthetic.

I'm hoping a future Instinct will offer the built in music and I'll be all set!
 
  • Like
Reactions: deepspacecowboy
Someone doesn't remember Mac IIvx/Centris 650 saga. Here's a brief history lesson.

In 1992, Apple introduced the Mac IIvx for the low, low price of $3000. It sported a 32KHz 68030 (16-bit bus), 4 MB RAM, 80 MB HD and a CD drive. What a great deal. That is until 4 months later Apple released the Centris 650, which looks exactly like the IIvx but with moar RAM, larger HD and a faster 68040 chip. The real kick in the teeth was it sold for $250 less. You've been IIvx-ed.

I think this follows the saying, 'the exception that proves the rule.' You've gone back to 1992 to suggest Apple will do the same thing 32 years later after countless numbers of new releases. I will take my chances.
 
  • Like
Reactions: josselinco
Totally get what you're saying, but you are assuming AW usage -- which is not the case for all, especially when you get into elite fitness folks (Garmin, Coros, Suunto -- lots of things in that space are used in preferred)
I'm not assuming it. There are many watches today that offer support for playing music. Garmin makes quite a few. It's sort of a basic feature at this point. Any of them is a better solution than having to carry a headphone case around the gym in order to play music.
 
  • Love
Reactions: turbineseaplane
Garmin solution is all in one and it's key to wear it all the time, and over time, to keep the metrics doing their thing. I don't want to wear two watches. I LOVE IT -- Don't have any interest in Apple ecosystem for this stuff.

In terms of the "on watch" experience for music, maybe I'm not articulating how I use it.

I literally have a playlist and hit "play" and it shuffles through all my exercise songs. I need no controls beyond volume.

I'm there to workout and focus on that and any "tech interactions" are a huge PITA for me in that context.
Aren't there any clip-on MP3 players like the iPod Shuffle you can use?
 
  • Love
Reactions: deepspacecowboy
If internal stories are too be believed, it was "force released" by the executives, against strong opposition from many inside Apple who didn't think it was a bun that should come out of the oven yet.

How the launch has gone is proving those folks mostly correct.
source(s)?
 
We had much more accurate speculation around the VisionPro product prior to it's launch than we did the iPhone.

But you're talking about features. With iPhone, people were expecting a different product entirely.

Also, because of competition it's gotten harder and harder for Apple to conceal its products with creative filings. Speculation arose because Apple couldn't really couch the patents for AVP in a way that obfuscated the device these were all pointing to... which brings us back to how they obscured iPhone.

iPhone had three very clearly defined use cases:

  1. A music player plays music.
  2. A phone makes phonecalls.
  3. A smartphone makes phonecalls, sends/receives emails and SMS messages.
VR has been around for at least a decade... I think the problem is that the VR industry is still trying to figure out what VR is supposed to do.

"But until apps are developed..."

No, you can't tackle a project that way. Imagine if every time my manager asked me "How long will this project take?" I said, "Well, I don't know yet because I need..." You have to define the playing field and set the expectation.

The real conversation goes like this: "We have to build X in six months and it has to do these things," and you say, "Yes," and you go figure out how to deliver X in six months. There's your well-defined target. You don't really get to say "We think we should build something and it looks sort of like an X and it will take between 2 to 10 years depending on how many third party developers we attract." Life doesn't work that way.

They haven't even really picked a strong, well-defined, attainable target beyond "You can watch Godzilla."

That's a problem... if you don't believe in a compelling use case for your product, no one else will.
 
Last edited:
If internal stories are too be believed, it was "force released" by the executives, against strong opposition from many inside Apple who didn't think it was a bun that should come out of the oven yet.

How the launch has gone is proving those folks mostly correct.
What are you talking about, the launch has gone really well. I'm not saying the VP is perfect, it can and will improve substantially over time.
 
The AVP is going to wither on the vine, like AirPods Max and HomePods have largely done.
I suspect AVP gets killed at some point before 2027 depending upon what happens (or not) with 3rd party devs.

It's a platform. That needs developers.

Developers are going to have a hard time justifying developing for a platform with a tiny install base.

As usual, Apple's arrogance here is part of the problem. They should have seeded the Dev community FAR and WIDE with AVP dev kits a long long time ago. Where AVP is right now is solely their own fault.
This was a gambit by Tim Cook, fueled by his confidence (or arrogance) in the things he's convinced users to pay for over the last few years. Raising prices every time a new feature is added (instead of the constant value-add that was done under Steve Jobs) has somehow worked out for him every single time, instead of putting off customers. The legacy that Jobs left was with solid products that people are so completely sold on (myself included), they continue to buy them despite what Tim Cook has done.

He shot for the moon with a $3,500 iPad for your face and actually thought people would be sheeple enough to buy it.
 
  • Love
Reactions: turbineseaplane
It would be wonderful news to every single Apple customer, and sad news to every single Apple investor.
Really? You're just assuming that the next CEO will do a better job. Look at Apple's history. Spindler replaced Sculley and was a worse CEO. Amelio replaced Spindler and couldn't right the ship either. Thankfully he bought NeXT.

Cook is arguably the best CEO Apple has ever had. He turned Apple into a multi-trillion dollar juggernaut. He's made sure that Apple can weather any economic storm. Under his leadership Apple has introduced multiple new product categories (Watch, Vision Pro) and built a massive services business.

What has Cook done that is so terrible? What other tech CEOs are blowing you away with their visions for the future - and delivering upon those visions?
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: AlastorKatriona
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.