Apple Vision Pro is an appliance not a computer

[jclardy]

Apple Vision Pro is great for doing power points and excel spreadsheets and watching TV and Movies. Right now Apple Vision Pro is an expensive appliance and not a computer. There is currently no native way to build applications and web apps within the system. A computer on the other hand can build apps and websites natively from the device itself. To me a computer can be used to build programs for itself and other devices.

I feel on some level that Apple was wish casting onto the Apple Vision Pro with terms like "Spacial Computing". The truth is the Apple Vision Pro is not capable of being a computer yet. Apple Vision Pro isn't self sufficient enough to be a computer.

Just because an appliance was built using a computer doesn't make it a computer.

So..I presume the first computer wasn't a computer in your definition of computer? It was programmed via physical punch cards, no IDE in sight.

I'd be shocked if we don't see Xcode come to AVP in the next 2 years. Everything is nearly setup for it - iPad has had playgrounds for years now, SPM is actually usable, and visionOS solves a lot of the issues that iPad faces (Not having enough screen real estate, and window management is a bit of a pain, also - base spec is now 16GB/M2.)

Plus making a $3500 headset become your flagship development environment will be great for Apple's bottom line, espeicially given people will still be buying MBP's as toting around a headset isn't quite commonplace yet.

 

[4sallypat]

So..I presume the first computer wasn't a computer in your definition of computer? It was programmed via physical punch cards, no IDE in sight.

I'd be shocked if we don't see Xcode come to AVP in the next 2 years. Everything is nearly setup for it - iPad has had playgrounds for years now, SPM is actually usable, and visionOS solves a lot of the issues that iPad faces (Not having enough screen real estate, and window management is a bit of a pain, also - base spec is now 16GB/M2.)

Plus making a $3500 headset become your flagship development environment will be great for Apple's bottom line, espeicially given people will still be buying MBP's as toting around a headset isn't quite commonplace yet.

Hey I remember doing my first programming on punch cards back in 1960s in school - boy those were fun - especially after you compiled, running the code doesn't run and you have to go one by one thru each card....

 

[cogzero]

* citation needed

 

[iPadified]

Exactly. Apple likes to muddy the waters with words like “comput(er/ing)”. The Mac/MacBook is the only actual computer Apple makes definition based on how average people use the word computer today. It’s not even helpful to label something a computer if its not something that can create software.

According to your definitions:
Mac: used 99.9% of the times as appliance and 0.1%* of the time as a computer
iPad/Vision Pro: 100% appliance

Does these 0.1% matter or is it simply a way to display arrogance of developers towards users?

*I assume there are maximum 0.1% developers and the rest are users. Must be some decent ratio otherwise developers will not survive.

 

[Analog Kid]

I get that this is mostly an effort to slander AVP, but it really is a silly discussion. A computer is something that computes. That’s what it’s meant since it was a job title for a human who computed with tables and slide rules. Computers get their name from the fact they replaced those humans.

I’ve never worked on a supercomputer, but I’d be shocked if they fired up one of those to compile its own code. Those programs are almost certainly compiled or cross compiled on a separate development system.

Apple has arguably been trying to make the Mac into a computing appliance since the original and continue in that direction in the sense that they intend them as closed boxes you buy off the shelf to perform a job (computing) without a lot of user intervention or maintenance. I don’t see any serious distinction between a “computer” and a “computing appliance”.

 

[Timo_Existencia]

I get that this is mostly an effort to slander AVP

This. It's one thing to have an honest discussion about this topic, wherein we talk about the nuances of technology and where things are going. But this whole thread is a disingenuous attempt to denigrate the AVP.

 

[Analog Kid]

[Deleted. That thread was wastelanded for a reason]

 

[Nekomichi]

Apple Vision Pro is great for doing power points and excel spreadsheets and watching TV and Movies. Right now Apple Vision Pro is an expensive appliance and not a computer.

Show me any other non-computer household appliance that can reliably perform those above tasks all in one. I don't think I'll be doing my Excel spreadsheets on a toaster any time soon.

 

[ZombiePhysicist]

Show me any other non-computer household appliance that can reliably perform those above tasks all in one. I don't think I'll be doing my Excel spreadsheets on a toaster any time soon.

You can on your fridge though!

Samsung unveils new smart fridge with a huge 32-inch screen that lets you watch TikTok and order from Amazon in your kitchen

Bespoke Refrigerator Family Hub Plus is part of Samsung's line of products called SmartThings Home, which aims to make home-life more efficient.

www.businessinsider.com

Now if we only had a flying toaster fridge!

 

[hans1972]

A computer on the other hand can build apps and websites natively from the device itself. To me a computer can be used to build programs for itself and other devices.

You don't necessarily use a mainframe to build programs for mainframes. Is a mainframe just an appliance?

Your perspective is limited since you didn't use enterprise or military computers from 1945 and onwards.

 

[TechnoMonk]

The computer is an Appliance.

 

[erikkfi]

I think Apple has the best reply to this

You know what I notice about that ad now? The ridiculous way she closes her keyboard cover. What is that?? She just kinda slams it against the counter and doesn't even cover the front of the iPad.

 

[cnnyy20p]

There are different types of computers: General-purpose and Specialized-purpose. There have been discussions as to whether devices like the iPhone or iPad should be classified as general-purpose computers. While you can perform general everyday computing tasks on devices like the iPhone or iPad, you cannot freely customize or manipulate these devices as you would with traditional computers. Everything is designed and laid out for you within strict rules. So they fall into a gray area between general-purpose and specialized-purpose types.

APVs, iPhones, and iPads can be easily viewed in the same category as game consoles (just not solely for playing games). They still perform complex computations, but only a set of software is allowed to be used.

If there is so much ambiguity in the term "computer" (since Apple made such a controversial topic) then why don't we come up with dedicated names for these different types of computers?

• APVs, iPhones, iPads, Game Consoles: General Specialized-Purpose Computers, Closed-Environment Computers
• Mac, Windows, Linux, Android Devices: All-Purpose Computers, True General-Purpose Computers.

 

[InvertedGoldfish]

This it’s just more of what you would call a flop 🤷‍♂️

 

[Abazigal]

I guess the point - who really cares? On any normal day, I easily clock more hours on my iPad than any other computer, because that's what I use to teach in the classroom, review my teaching material, play YouTube or podcasts while I mark my students' work, or sneak in a game of "Slay the Spire" now and then.

The question for the vision pro should be - is there a place for yet another device in your life, especially when it's being marketed at consumers who are already fairly entrenched in the Apple ecosystem, and would also own a number of Apple devices. If you already have an iPhone, an Apple Watch, an iPad, maybe 2 Macs (desktop and laptop), maybe even an Apple Studio or SDR display, what then is the use case of a vision pro?

That's for the individual to decide, but whether the vision pro can / should be considered a computer is a red herring. We should learn to look beyond such arbitrary and artificial labels, rather than be bound by them.

 

[Timo_Existencia]

While you can perform general everyday computing tasks on devices like the iPhone or iPad, you cannot freely customize or manipulate these devices as you would with traditional computers.

What's a "traditional computer?" An IBM Mainframe? Can you freely customize an IBM mainframe?

But perhaps more importantly...what do you mean that you can't freely customize or manipulate these devices? There are 1.8 million apps available for the iPhone. That's more apps than are available for the Mac by a long shot. Clearly, developers think that iPhone is ripe for customization by way of their apps.

Again and again, this is a reach by those of you who are trying to denigrate IOS in some way. The whole premise is not based in any sound.

 

[ZombiePhysicist]

What's a "traditional computer?" An IBM Mainframe? Can you freely customize an IBM mainframe?

But perhaps more importantly...what do you mean that you can't freely customize or manipulate these devices? There are 1.8 million apps available for the iPhone. That's more apps than are available for the Mac by a long shot. Clearly, developers think that iPhone is ripe for customization by way of their apps.

Again and again, this is a reach by those of you who are trying to denigrate IOS in some way. The whole premise is not based in any sound.

I think everyone is trying hard to advance their agenda and trying harder not to understand one another.

It’s pretty clear most people in the ‘iOS is an appliance camp‘ mean some variation of the ‘desktop personal computer’ Which became a thing with the Apple 2 in the late 70s and is still here with us in some form. Steve Jobs and Jeff Raskin wanted the original Mac to be a closed appliance of sorts itself. So even this “traditional” desktop pc form factor has vacillated from more open and expandable to more appliance like. The desktop OS however for both stayed pretty open with “side loading” anything you want as a default.

The iPhone and then iPad OS changed that openness default and the devices became more appliance like over time. A lot of computational applications are still available but the lack of freedom, that for a proportionally glowingly smaller number of people, makes the device restrictions insufficient for the types of work they need to do, while for many others it’s more than sufficient.

None of that is hard to understand unless you’re trying to misunderstand it by being overly literal and dogmatic. Which is often the case on forums and a guise for a type of personal politics. Which is a shame. We can use these forums to try to understand each other better and advance our understanding and further information and knowledge, or try to advance our personal politics and propaganda. The latter, imo, ads noise, not signal.

TLDR. Yes both desktop pc’s and iPads are computing devices that can do many of the same things, but desktop pc classes of devices have long been open and capable of more open application projects for a class of work that more restricted appliance like computing devices are not serviceable for a significant class of users requiring side loading and other more customized environments.

 

[Timo_Existencia]

but the lack of freedom, that for a proportionally glowingly smaller number of people, makes the device restrictions insufficient for the types of work they need to do...

Can you give me an example of the type of work that you couldn't code for an iPad? Because I think what you mean is that a small number of people don't want to have to pay Apple for its IP in order to code for an iPad. But the iPad has no limitation on the types of work you could code for it (excepting porn I suppose). So far as I can see, there is zero limitations on the type of work you can do on any Apple device. There are form factors that can work on one device better than another...but that's a different discussion.

 

[cnnyy20p]

What's a "traditional computer?" An IBM Mainframe? Can you freely customize an IBM mainframe?

But perhaps more importantly...what do you mean that you can't freely customize or manipulate these devices? There are 1.8 million apps available for the iPhone. That's more apps than are available for the Mac by a long shot. Clearly, developers think that iPhone is ripe for customization by way of their apps.

Again and again, this is a reach by those of you who are trying to denigrate IOS in some way. The whole premise is not based in any sound.

But iOS devices are limited compared to Mac, simple as that. The boot loader is locked.

The problem is not why these limited functionality devices are limited. There are benefits to why they are being limited. The problem is the ambiguity the term “computer” Apple had made. And people start crying about the term even though I can be easily fix by our own (such as coming up with new term).

 

[ZombiePhysicist]

Can you give me an example of the type of work that you couldn't code for an iPad? Because I think what you mean is that a small number of people don't want to have to pay Apple for its IP in order to code for an iPad. But the iPad has no limitation on the types of work you could code for it (excepting porn I suppose). So far as I can see, there is zero limitations on the type of work you can do on any Apple device. There are form factors that can work on one device better than another...but that's a different discussion.

3D modeling. Real 8k production video. A number of scientific applications. A lot of crypto work. A lot of financial services applications (banking Wall Street). Vast majority of software development work. A lot of AI work. The list can get pretty long.

 

[Timo_Existencia]

3D modeling. Real 8k production video. A number of scientific applications. A lot of crypto work. A lot of financial services applications (banking Wall Street). Vast majority of software development work. A lot of AI work. The list can get pretty long.

Huh? You can't code an application to do 3D modeling on an iPad? The limitations on this, previously, have been because traditionally IOS has had less computational intensive chips. But there are 3D modeling apps on the iPad, and with the advent of M-series chips and the Vision Pro, that number is going to rise. And all the rest of the list you've given: none of that has anything to do with "openness" of the platform, which was your suggestion earlier, and the suggestion of the OP. And a LOT of financial services apps are now web-based, and there are plenty on available for IOS and iPadOS.

Again, I think you keep trying to say one thing but then present another. Nothing you've listed above is more readily available on walled-garden or open-garden systems. The differentiator is the power of the chips in the machine. which as I said, has to do with form.

 

[Timo_Existencia]

But iOS devices are limited compared to Mac, simple as that. The boot loader is locked.

The problem is not why these limited functionality devices are limited. There are benefits to why they are being limited. The problem is the ambiguity the term “computer” Apple had made. And people start crying about the term even though I can be easily fix by our own (such as coming up with new term).

But what computing applications require an open boot loader? Again, you and others are trying to blur some imaginary line. If "computer" only means a device in which you have access to the boot loader, a definition that is nowhere to be found anywhere, then that means a lot of systems that you'd obviously consider computers are not computers.

And, where exactly is this a problem?

 

[Timo_Existencia]

Let's imagine that the Pentagon wants to develop their own computer platform that is hyper-focused on security. So they build their very own hardware and develop their very own OS. They hire programers and train them in the coding language of the OS. The programmers are then able to code a bunch of software that is specifically used inside the pentagon. The programs can be written to accomplish anything that any other computer program on any other platform can do..

You're telling me that you wouldn't consider the Pentagon's boxes and OS a computer?

 

[ZombiePhysicist]

Huh? You can't code an application to do 3D modeling on an iPad? The limitations on this, previously, have been because traditionally IOS has had less computational intensive chips. But there are 3D modeling apps on the iPad, and with the advent of M-series chips and the Vision Pro, that number is going to rise. And all the rest of the list you've given: none of that has anything to do with "openness" of the platform, which was your suggestion earlier, and the suggestion of the OP. And a LOT of financial services apps are now web-based, and there are plenty on available for IOS and iPadOS.

Again, I think you keep trying to say one thing but then present another. Nothing you've listed above is more readily available on walled-garden or open-garden systems. The differentiator is the power of the chips in the machine. which as I said, has to do with form.

Not really. it's not doing any ray tracing. It would be so limited as to be laughable. Youre pushing a square peg in a round hole. And again are employing literalism an dogma to try to not understand. It's possible to build a building out of tooth picks, it doesnt mean it's a practical or good idea.

I'm done talking to people actively trying not to understand.

 

[Timo_Existencia]

Not really. it's not doing any ray tracing. It would be so limited as to be laughable. Youre pushing a square peg in a round hole. And again are employing literalism an dogma to try to not understand. It's possible to build a building out of tooth picks, it doesnt mean it's a practical or good idea.

I'm done talking to people actively trying not to understand.

You're totally mischaracterizing my response by doing exactly what you accuse me of doing. You're not hearing what I'm saying:

I've asked you to show me a list of things you can't code to do on an iPad "due to the closed nature of the OS." Instead, you've given me a list of things that aren't practical given the power of the device. That's a wholly different discussion. For example, it may not be practical or even possible to do 8K video editing on an iPhone. But not because of Apple's walled-garden approach to the OS, rather, solely because of the form factor and the power of the chip inside.

This is evidenced by the fact that you can do everything else you listed above on the Mac, on software contained within the Mac App store.

You're moving the goalposts of the discussion.