It's impossible to transfer Photos library to Vision Pro without iCloud 🤯

[ChromeCloud]

I don't think Apple will ever implement something like that on visionOS.

The use case for syncing pictures between devices through a P2P connection (either with an USB-C cable or wirelessly) is too narrow and becomes more cumbersome as the number of devices you want to keep in sync grows.

I think Apple still supports it on the iPhone and the iPad for legacy reasons but I wouldn't be surprised if they got rid of it in the near future.

iCloud is the way. Sorry.

 

[G5isAlive]

How about i do not like icloud. i do not want it. i should be able to own my own data and move it on to my own devices.

I get that may not be YOUR preference. Which is totally cool. But for those for whom it is their preference, it's really a bit grating to keep telling them to love the cloud, when some of us, quite dislike the cloud.

It's like people telling me to just get spotify or apple music. Yea, I HATE those services. Steve Jobs did at one time too, saying, people dont want to rent their music. Well turns out he was wrong. Many love paying lots of money and owning nothing. But some of us still do and abide by that notion.

Namely, I own my own data. I decide where it lives.

Fair enough… go own your own data with Meta. Seriously, at some point if you dont like Apple’s business model and the way they run their ecosystem, you have choices. Not good choices. But hey. You own your data.

But complaining that Apple doesnt cater to you, whatever.

 

[G5isAlive]

What's worse is photos/videos you take on the AVP cannot be sync'd back to your main library. You have to transfer via interface through selections. It's beyond nuts!

um, what? Syncs fine for me with no intervention. Oh wait, I had iClouds. Oh well.

 

[MacProFCP]

While I use iCloud, I understand the frustration of the OP.

This is, unfortunately, where the world is going. We use Quickbooks and there is a constant push to get users to switch to Quickbooks Online, despite the fact that is lacks features and is bug infested (though the desktop version also has lots of bugs).

Companies, in general, are pushing away from the purchase and "MYOB" style of computing in favor of the subscription model that ties you to their services indefinitely. It sucks, but this is the reality.

If you don't have iCloud, the Vision Pro is probably not for you.

 

[Rychiar]

As a Photographer my photos are multiple terabytes so I’ve never used the photos app at all which never bothered me til the Vision Pro… i really miss the photo stream so i could at least see recent iPhone photos

 

[TJ82]

Isn't the AVP being marketed as a productivity device? How can a simple transfer of a photo between two drives be impossible in 2024

 

[G5isAlive]

Isn't the AVP being marketed as a productivity device? How can a simple transfer of a photo between two drives be impossible in 2024

it's not impossible. Several suggestions have been made, with iCloud perhaps being the simplest but in my experience slow and so I have been looking for and suggested alternatives. But in 2024, if you chose to swim upstream by rejecting Apple's solution, which is your right, you can expect it to be more difficult. In other words, when Apple already provides a solution, they don't always feel pressured to help you ignore it. Shrugs. But a lot of people want their cake and eat it too these days.

 

[TJ82]

it's not impossible. Several suggestions have been made, with iCloud perhaps being the simplest but in my experience slow and so I have been looking for and suggested alternatives. But in 2024, if you chose to swim upstream by rejecting Apple's solution, which is your right, you can expect it to be more difficult. In other words, when Apple already provides a solution, they don't always feel pressured to help you ignore it. Shrugs. But a lot of people want their cake and eat it too these days.

We’re talking about transferring a simple file between two drives.

Apple is removing ways to do this - that’s regressive and anti-technological.

It was fine when iCloud was simply one more way. That was progressive.

What we’re seeing now is Apple becoming a hyper capitalist monster and customers getting frogmarched into ‘solutions’ for cost.

Not all of us care to play the simp. Free world though.

 

[Lounge vibes 05]

This is insane and an outrage. I cannot stand iCloud. Why cant the AVP show up in the finder like the iPhone and iPad?

Because the AVP does not have a data port.
At least not a standard, user accessible data port.

Steve Jobs did at one time too, saying, people dont want to rent their music. Well turns out he was wrong. Many love paying lots of money and owning nothing. But some of us still do and abide by that notion.

He said this when pretty much instantaneous totally wireless music streaming off of your cell phone was still the stuff of fantasy.
In fact, a couple times throughout the years at the all things digital conference, Steve actually did express some interest in music streaming services, while still being skeptical at the time.

Same thing for music… so ridiculous

Agreed. This is a bit of an annoyance, but it is absolutely not exclusive to the AVP. Music library management has been one of my most requested iOS features for years.

Apple need to find a solution to this and fast because otherwise they could get into trouble for this which is to basically tell users who have over 5 gigs of photos/videos that they must purchase icloud+ and upload all of their photos/videos to the icloud+ if they want to view them on the VP. VP owners should be able to sync their Apple devices to the VP so they can view their photo's and video. They should not have to pay for increase icloud storage to do so.

Not sure what you expect them to do, they can’t just go around and retroactively add a different port to it, it’s already shipped.

I just spent an hour on the phone with Apple trying to solve what I think should be really simple. I'd like to see my 90GB Photos library on the VP but I don't use iCloud and I don't want to upload my photos to the cloud.

Feels like basic functionality to me but Apple Suport wasn't able to help. I'd even have to sign up for 200GB iCloud just to get my photos on the headset.

Blows my mind that I can't sync Photos to my VP like I sync to my iPhone or an iPad. What do you think, am I using it wrong?

Have you tried connecting your Mac to the VP as an external display, opening the files or photos app next to your Mac display and dragging and dropping between the two?
This works between two Macs, in between a Mac and an iPad, I don’t see why it wouldn’t work between a Mac and a VP.
But I don’t know.

I’m sorry but this is insane. I pay for iCloud and get good use out of it, but if it’s fundamental to the experience then Apple should just say that. Or include more than the measly free 5gigs if the device costs $3500 and needs it to transfer images.

Assuming you actually need iCloud to do what OP is trying to do, this would be a horrible oversight at best or an incredibly greedy and user-hostile decision at worst.

Assuming the drag and drop/airdrop method doesn’t work, they don’t necessarily have to use iCloud.
Any cloud photo service will do the trick, as long as they can access it through the web browser.

 

[G5isAlive]

We’re talking about transferring a simple file between two drives.

Apple is removing ways to do this - that’s regressive and anti-technological.

It was fine when iCloud was simply one more way. That was progressive.

What we’re seeing now is Apple becoming a hyper capitalist monster and customers getting frogmarched into ‘solutions’ for cost.

Not all of us care to play the simp. Free world though.

chuckles. you be you. I prefer to explore real solutions then rant against the world and anonymous people on the internet to support a personal agenda.

as I stated numerous times now, there are multiple FREE ways to transfer files that does not include iCloud. But to repeat a few, AirDrop, independent servers such as your own Mac, or Box (App) or DropBox (Browser) or what I use, my Synology NAS. There are more.

There is precisely ONE way that I know of that is NOT supported and unfortunately for me, and apparently others, it is my preferred and fastest method, direct wire transfer. Do I like that? No. Do I feel the need to abuse others about it? No. Free world does not mean no consequences.

Apple is a business. You don't get to be the top company in the world by not earning money. Feel free to chose a platform that meets your requirements. I dont rant about Bentley Motors not offering a car I can afford.

 

[dwhite601]

Apple does have a USB input option for the Vision Pro, but it's only available for formal members of their developers program which costs $99/year. My membership isn't at that level and I'm not even allowed to see the order page.

Apple selling $300 Developer Strap with USB-C port for Vision Pro

It costs a lot because the replacement part contains the right speaker.

I had hoped that, with all those extra pins in the battery's 'lightning' cable, there would be room for data. Plugging a memory stick into the battery would be a bit weird, but it would get the job done.

David

 

[AlastorKatriona]

Blows my mind that

Blows my mind that anyone doesn't use iCloud. Truly.

 

[arkitect]

Because the AVP does not have a data port.
At least not a standard, user accessible data port.

Not sure what you expect them to do, they can’t just go around and retroactively add a different port to it, it’s already shipped.

Sure, I agree that the ship has sailed and there is no data port on the current version.

But that does make me wonder why it wasn't included with v1.

Does that tell us anything about Apple's vision for the Vision "Pro"?

If this is going to be a productivity tool, stand alone, not tethered to a Mac, it needs a hardware port to facilitate transfers… iCloud or any "cloud" does not cut it when you're transferring and saving large files.

That it is missing makes me go…"Hmmmmm…" 🤷🏻‍♂️

I do not think it was because of costs or time constraints. I suspect Apple just do not want people (beyond the developers) to have access to that.

 

[AlastorKatriona]

I’m sorry but this is insane. I pay for iCloud and get good use out of it, but if it’s fundamental to the experience then Apple should just say that. Or include more than the measly free 5gigs if the device costs $3500 and needs it to transfer images.

Assuming you actually need iCloud to do what OP is trying to do, this would be a horrible oversight at best or an incredibly greedy and user-hostile decision at worst.

iCloud is incredibly cheap and has been fundamental to the entire Apple ecosystem experiences for a decade. Get over it.

 

[author.brian.mendonca]

I hope this is an oversight. If "Spatial Computing" is going to become the new era of how we work, we should expect this device to be a standalone computing device rather than an extension of our primary devices. Otherwise, I suspect the Vision Pro will fall into the same limitations as the iPad/iPadOS lineup in that they are:



1. Excellent as a consumption device

2. Excellent in productivity cases where if you are working within the first party apps such as Mail, Safari, iCloud Drive, etc.

3. Fair or Poor for users who deal with a lot of file-based manipulation and management.



In OP's case, the biggest difference (and limitation) between MacOS and the other Apple-OS's is that MacOS allows you to manage libraries for the first party apps such as Photos, Music, and Final Cut Pro. In all other operating systems, you are limited to a single system library. While the reasons for using multiple libraries can be considered niche and uncommon, the problem is that it can be a game-breaker for the users who need that flexibility. This undoubtedly keeps users tethered to a main workstation if they are using the MacOS-unique features as part of their ordinary workflow.



Can this limitation be overcome from the software side? I believe so but predict we would need to see a more robust file management implementation first.

 

[dz5b609]

I wouldn't say I fear it, just that I never felt I needed it. And it irks me that I would have to get a 200GB subscription just to get my photo library over to the VP.

Buys a 3500 dollar device, complains about having to pay a 3 bucks per month for storage. People never cease to amaze me.

 

[turbineseaplane]

This is "the future" Apple wants for all their devices.

macOS and the Mac devices are just the last vestiges of the past Apple wants no part of.

Apple want you totally locked down, controlled, and as their financial subordinate in the "subscription required for everything" business

To quote Steve (who was using it differently)

"Are you getting it yet"?

 

[tornadowrangler]

My opinion, they should have either made the Vision Pro a full Mac experience, modifying Mac OS to be more spatial, or they should have just made it a display you connect to a Mac (therefore making it much much cheaper).

I think making it an iPad is going to hold it back from its full potential.

 

[turbineseaplane]

I hope this is an oversight. If "Spatial Computing" is going to become the new era of how we work, we should expect this device to be a standalone computing device rather than an extension of our primary devices. Otherwise, I suspect the Vision Pro will fall into the same limitations as the iPad/iPadOS lineup

It's not - See above at Post #45

Apple wants every one of their customers to eventually "need" a subscription from them (perhaps several).

This is the end game of the "Services" push

 

[tornadowrangler]

Buys a 3500 dollar device, complains about having to pay a 3 bucks per month for storage. People never cease to amaze me.

Company sells device for $3500, then requires $3 per month to transfer stuff to it. Companies never cease to amaze me.

 

[boss.king]

My opinion, they should have either made the Vision Pro a full Mac experience, modifying Mac OS to be more spatial, or they should have just made it a display you connect to a Mac (therefore making it much much cheaper).

I think making it an iPad is going to hold it back from its full potential.

Yeah, the iPad is already the Apple device most held back by software and interface limitations, so it feels a bit weird to base their next generation of computing on their most hamstrung platform.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Buys a 3500 dollar device, complains about having to pay a 3 bucks per month for storage. People never cease to amaze me.

Don't forget paying for Apple Music too
And probably for some Video apps

Is there ever an amount of "extra charging" it's ok for folks to be upset about?

They just shelled nearly $4k for the Scuba Mask ... can't they get a few bones thrown their way?

 

[AlastorKatriona]

Company sells device for $3500, then requires $3 per month to transfer stuff to it. Companies never cease to amaze me.

No one believes in Vision Pro less than I do, and even I think this is perfectly acceptable, because you should already be using iCloud.

 

[boss.king]

Assuming the drag and drop/airdrop method doesn’t work, they don’t necessarily have to use iCloud.
Any cloud photo service will do the trick, as long as they can access it through the web browser.

Isn’t the OP specifically saying that that’s not the case. If you can just airdrop stuff then that’s less of an issue, but it should still have the basic wireless syncing feature of an iPhone or iPad considering it’s basically an iPad strapped to your face. I get that paying for cloud storage is pretty common, but it shouldn’t be the only option for media transfer to and from the device, which is what the OP makes it sound like. Of course, I don’t have a Vision Pro so I can’t confirm myself, just going off what the OP has said.

 

[eicca]

Blows my mind that anyone doesn't use iCloud. Truly.

iCloud is horrific. It’s been nothing but reliability battles for me and every single person I know that tries to use it. Sometimes data will sync. Sometimes it won’t. Sometimes it’ll disappear.

Blows my mind that anyone thinks iCloud is acceptable in its current state.