This is mostly a cheap trick to inflate vanity metrics. Giant iPad screens are not what people think of when you say “spatial computing”.
Only spatial computing apps matter.
Only spatial computing apps matter.
One of the clear goals of the product is to serve as an alternative to monitors. In that sense, any productivity tool (like the newly launched Final Cut Pro and Logic Studio for iPad) would immediately be extremely useful in visionOS, even if it’s not fully spatially aware.
It may not be the flagship spatial computing experience, but that doesn’t mean it should be thrown out as a “cheap trick” either. It likely is the more common experience for day to day interaction with the device, which is Apple’s goal.
Hear yourself man, you’re saying be able to look at iPad apps on a big monitor is the killer app for Apple Vision Pro.
MacBooks with Apple Silicon processors can run a shitton of iPad apps natively. App developers can choose not to have their apps listed in the store if they want, but many do.
Or you can just… plug an iPad into a monitor with USB-C.
When the Apple ecosystem works, it's extremely powerful.
AFAIK it’s only Mac->iPad. If you’re running an app that also exists on your Mac (or equivalent like a browser) then you’d be able to take over the context on your Mac but it isn’t technically “[throwing] iPad Apps up on any monitor”.
They’re most definitely on an anti-Apple/Vision Pro crusade given their replies, but they asked for a specific thing and I gave them the exact thing they asked for.
> basically virtual floating iPads which is nice, but not anything too special
Instead, it was saying that being able to interact with those apps in a spatial way will be valuable:
> What's much more interesting is that existing iPadOS apps can… [get] the full 2.5D treatment with all of the various controls taking on the expected visionOS appearance and behavior
That’s not what the person said, but also it might actually be the “killer app” for the vision pro.
Having a large, high-fidelity monitor anywhere you go would be extremely useful. Maybe useful enough to get people to keep coming back to the Vision Pro after the novelty wears off.
Multi monitor setups are overrated anyway. I work entirely off a laptop screen and only a portion of that screen is where my focus is most of the time. Having multiple monitors at my desk is mostly for decoration and looking like you’re a big deal. Switching a virtual desktop isn’t hard.
Some creative types could legitimately use multiple monitors to lay out a lot of content, but I also don’t think those creatives will necessarily prefer an Apple Vision Pro over their existing tools, unless they’re doing something truly spatial like sculpting out a life size car or something. But that’s definitely not the norm. Most people are just going to browse web sites and stare at spreadsheets.
I staunchly disagree with this. I work from home and as such have no reason to optimize my desk for showing off or acting like a big shot, and find that having at least one extra monitor is a huge productivity boost because for most tasks, it practically eliminates the need to juggle applications or windows — everything that's relevant for the task at hand can remain visible the whole time without a cramped tiled windows setup. Virtual desktops are great but to me, work best in concert for switching tasks rather than being used as a tool to corral windows on a single screen.
When I need to work away from my desk, it's somewhat frustrating even with a 16" laptop.
I get that you don't care about having a big monitor, but it shouldn't be surprising that other people want big monitors. Personally, I hate working on my laptop screen, if I can use the Apple Vision Pro as a remote monitor while traveling, that's certainly worth some amount of money to me.
No, it's a way to mitigate the "chicken and egg" problem for the platform. Having existing apps to make the device immediately useful is important, even if they're not all exploiting the capabilities of the platform immediately.
Nobody knew what the point of a microcomputer was back in the Apple II days (at the time I thought it was crazy that anyone would buy a computer rather than design and build their own). The best anyone could imagine with was keeping recipes and playing games. Yet the killer app was Visicalc, with analysts and accountants buying their own (expensive!) apple IIs and visicalc and getting around MIS (what's called IT these days).
The second consideration is "onramp". Clicking a button and being able to experiment with an app you've already written yourself is way better than being given sample code. Likewise the crufty skeuomorphic cues (from the desktop metaphor of PARC and then the Mac to the "leather" of the ios notepad and shiny "wheels" of its date picker) are important onramps that get people using something so that they can develop the correct metaphors. It wasn't Apple who came up with "pull to refresh", it was the developers (Brichter's app Tweetie, then quickly adopted by others).
So while you're right in the long game, I think your dismissal is premature.
That’s the question: what is the killer app for VR? Seems like it could be gaming but I didn’t see a lot of gaming examples during the keynote.
When I say onramp: Visicalc made the Apple II but I do think gaming got it into the home.
Don't get me wrong, it's cool and I'm intrigued, but 2.5D controls are about as groundbreaking as skeuomorphism.