Maybe you are right. It ultimately boils down to software, and iOS isn't there yet. For example, check out the open-source app called PhotoScape X if you’re considering AI... Photos can't match it. Gemini, on the other hand, represents true intelligence, artificial or not!
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.
Some Apple Employees Have 'Concerns' About iOS 26.4's Revamped Siri
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
But it really was not a direct comparison.
“Today marks the beginning of a new era for computing,” said Tim Cook, Apple’s CEO. “Just as the Mac introduced us to personal computing, and iPhone introduced us to mobile computing, Apple Vision Pro introduces us to spatial computing. Built upon decades of Apple innovation, Vision Pro is years ahead and unlike anything created before — with a revolutionary new input system and thousands of groundbreaking innovations. ..."
Introducing Apple Vision Pro: Apple’s first spatial computer
Apple today unveiled Apple Vision Pro, a revolutionary spatial computer that seamlessly blends digital content with the physical world.
www.apple.com
First, this extremely likely isn't really a Tim Cook statement. It is probably a script that Apple Marketing/Sales wrote for him to read. In this case he is more an actor reading what the writers wrote than as a CEO projecting a concept he solely come up with himself.
Second, the primary comparison here is about eras not products. So the products are not being directly compared.
Look carefully at these products and era relationships. The Mac was the intro to personal computer. Really? The Apple I and II were what then (all introduced far before 1984) ? The IBM PC introduced in 1981. the PC in its name is personal computer ... and yet it was not a personal computer??? The Lisa ( 1983 ) ? The Xeox Alto (1973); first GUI computer ?
Likewise the iPhone was intro to mobile computing (2007) . Like the laptops of the 1990's and 2000-06 were immobile? The Blackberry smartphone (2002 ) was immobile? Tablet computers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_tablet_computers. ( Gridpad , Newton , Palm Pilot , etc. all. immobile. )
In terms of general historical accuracy, the whole statement is full of exaggerating salesman poo-poo. There is nothing particular additional that the Vision Pro part of that statement brings in the Mac and iPhone don't also foul up. Jobs 'reality distortion field' was famous and this is largely just same general stuff , different day.
At its core this statement boils down to we have been successful in the past and so therefore this product, in the long term, this era (more so than the initial specific product) will be successful also.
Note: Apple sold about 250,000 units of Mac in 1984. September 1985 Apple had sold approximately 500,000 units. Jobs in part got tossed from Apple in part because the Mac numbers were no where near the Apple I/II/III type numbers (there were millions of the previous product line out there. )
the Vision Pro is the first Apple product meant to be strapped to the front of a person's head. In that sense, yeah it is a different product category.
the Mac over first two years didn't sell an any better numbers than the Vision Pro has. It is unclear what Apple was actually hoping for. The press release and sales pitches are all full of hyperbole ( on not just the Vision Pro , but the Mac and iPhone also. See post above. ). The follow up the the Mac 128 was the Mac 512. ... there was no major changes in the first follow up.
The notion that the Vision Pro has to instantly produce as much money as the Mac or iPhone is what at large companies. Microsoft had that problem for a long while with Windows. ( trying to cram Windows mostly 'as -is' into a phone as early as they did was a problem. ). Microsoft somewhat just stumbled across Azure as an diversification play ( in part just copying Amazon. )
The macrumors forums around the Apple Watch had several folks yelling 'flop' for several years. The Vision Pro has generated about. $1B in revenue and likely at the normal Apple profit margins. It hasn't bent the curve of the overall corporate profit/revenue projections upward, but it also hasn't blow a big hole in the grown with net losses either. ( e.g., "Metaverse" spending by Meta with a bunch of devices sold below costs. )
Vision Pro had been in the 'secret' development labs for a relatively really long time. It was likely very much was time for it to go out and get some real customer feedback. Spending far too much time in a super secret lab often tends to drift into 'group think' over a long time. Recouping that extra long lab time immediately isn't all that necessary for Apple to do in 1-2 years. If spent 5-10 years in a lab then recouping that part of investment in 4-5 years is pretty reasonable.
Last edited:
But it really was not a direct comparison.
“Today marks the beginning of a new era for computing,” said Tim Cook, Apple’s CEO. “Just as the Mac introduced us to personal computing, and iPhone introduced us to mobile computing, Apple Vision Pro introduces us to spatial computing. Built upon decades of Apple innovation, Vision Pro is years ahead and unlike anything created before — with a revolutionary new input system and thousands of groundbreaking innovations. ..."
Introducing Apple Vision Pro: Apple’s first spatial computer
Apple today unveiled Apple Vision Pro, a revolutionary spatial computer that seamlessly blends digital content with the physical world.www.apple.com
First, this extremely likely isn't really a Tim Cook statement. It is probably a script that Apple Marketing/Sales wrote for him to read. In this case he is more an actor reading what the writers wrote than as a CEO projecting a concept he solely come up with himself.
Second, the primary comparison here is about eras not products. So the products are not being directly compared.
Look carefully at these products and era relationships. The Mac was the intro to personal computer. Really? The Apple I and II were what then (all introduced far before 1984) ? The IBM PC introduced in 1981. the PC in its name is personal computer ... and yet it was not a personal computer??? The Lisa ( 1983 ) ? The Xeox Alto (1973); first GUI computer ?
Likewise the iPhone was intro to mobile computing (2007) . Like the laptops of the 1990's and 2000-06 were immobile? The Blackberry smartphone (2002 ) was immobile? Tablet computers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_tablet_computers. ( Gridpad , Newton , Palm Pilot , etc. all. immobile. )
In terms of general historical accuracy, the whole statement is full of exaggerating salesman poo-poo. There is nothing particular additional that the Vision Pro part of that statement brings in the Mac and iPhone don't also foul up. Jobs 'reality distortion field' was famous and this is largely just same general stuff , different day.
At its core this statement boils down to we have been successful in the past and so therefore this product, in the long term, this era (more so than the initial specific product) will be successful also.
Note: Apple sold about 250,000 units of Mac in 1984. September 1985 Apple had sold approximately 500,000 units. Jobs in part got tossed from Apple in part because the Mac numbers were no where near the Apple I/II/III type numbers (there were millions of the previous product line out there. )
the Vision Pro is the first Apple product meant to be strapped to the front of a person's head. In that sense, yeah it is a different product category.
How is it not a "Tim Cook statement"? He's the top person at Apple that signed off on the press release. He agreed to be quoted that way. Whether he came up with the statement or had it drafted isn't relevant. He is 100% aligned with that statement unless you think there was a gun to his head.
The point here is Cook evoked the greatest hits of Apple. Mac, iPhone, now Vision Pro.
Cook literally went around Good Morning America describing the Apple Vision Pro as a spatial computer that can perform "anything your Mac or iPhone can do and more."
The statement that @Iconoclysm made was simply ridiculous. Tim Cook went around literally evoking iPhone but now, Vision Pro is not supposed to be an "iPhone moment"? Come on.
I have a similiar situation at work, so I talk from my experience, like I said, you can’t have an opinion like it was mentioned in the article. So ask yourself the question before you quote
Last edited:
I bought a new phone 3 years ago. AirPods a few years ago as well. What’s that? A pin dropped.
Agree. I always thought it was telling it was branded “Vision Pro” and not “Vision” - that implies two things 1) they intended there would be a range of Vision products ( Apple have, since switching Macs to Intel have never had a “pro” product if there wasn’t a product range with at least one other a “non pro” version ) and 2) there isn’t a viable market for a “non pro” vision yet, but at some point in the future, the intention is there will be.
That they marketsed the hellout of the Vision Pro just means that they didn’t expect to sell a “ consumer” amount of units, but what the hell, if we do, it’s a bonus, but why not try. That didn’t happen, but they might as well stick their neck out.
All the doom about Apple abandoning the Vision Pro in flavour of Glasses misses the point - glasses will be part of the Vision range, as will lighter, cheaper googles.
People on forums like this have very selective memories - just as your case about the first Macs (and maybe it might be better to think of the Vision Pro as the Lisa, not as the first Macs), - the original iPhone had no App Store, it only had the functionality the preinstalled software gave it. The early iPhones did not support file downloading (without jailbreaking). Today’s forum pundits would brand that as a flop or failure.
the vision range, currently only with the Vision Pro, is in a similiar place - it’s a line with a lot of potential, but without the critical mass of apps and extra functionality from third party developers as well as from Apple, to give enough use-cases for the mainstream.
It also telling that both Watches and AirPods are integrating physical hand and head gestures as input controls, and that’s obviously coming out of the Vision Pro R&D. I’d be fairly confident that the Vision R&D will continue to spill over into other Apple devices over the next few years, Apple TV and HomePods being the most likely recipients.
Apple doesn’t waste R&D - The 12” Mcbbok has serious flash, but it became the starting point for all m-chip based macbooks. The Apple Studio is the 2013 trashcan, but done properly, etc.
Maybe Vision as a product line will fail, maybe it will be highly successful, it’s too early to say. But it’s silly to think of Vision Pro as a single product, when clearly the intention from Apple is to create a range of products, not a single product.
Last edited:
Siri has deservedly had such a bad reputation for so long that in the spring if in fact, Siri has a major reboot, Apple ought to have a special event focused solely on Apple Intelligence and Siri and show what all new features Siri can do. Show with a demonstration. As I am constantly saying, Siri is the main feature that is on all Apple devices and needs to be hyped in the best way possible. It has the potential to be the most useful thing on all devices instead of one of the most useless ones. Even if it’s just a taped event, marketing and publicity need to get together and give it the new accolades it should deserve.