Apple TV, iPad, and Apple Vision Pro
Let’s begin with Apple TV, a streaming box that is largely unnoticeable when discussing Apple’s sales figures. Of the three devices in the title, Apple TV is oddly the most independent. It is, for the lack of better word, an iPhone of a streaming box. It supports majority of the streaming services via third party app, and the App Store for Apple TV is well populated for an entertainment device hooked up to a TV. However, Apple does try to push for what Apple TV could have been, instead of what it has been so far. With the chipset that goes into the hardware, the product does have some untapped potential that would parallel iOS. Most consumers, including myself, are satisfied with the status quo, as the price range the device is offered at is significantly lower than iPhones or Macs. The other gaming and social services are merely add-ons as of now.
iPads, on the other hand, are controversial. I’ve read analyses and op-eds where the authors argue iPads are the biggest white elephant in the Apple Park. They argue it is not a success in the scale Apple is operating on, and it won’t be until it runs full-fledged macOS. My answer to the question is often reliant on its UI; the touchscreen interface is simply too different from macOS. We had seen how a hybrid UX between a mouse-keyboard and a touchscreen is not inherently better. Ultimately, iPad lives in its own realm where it is still cheaper than Macs, but can offer what only a tablet can offer. My answer doesn’t touch on why iPad can’t be more open; and I believe the lack thereof is the proof enough why there is the demand of improving and opening iPadOS further.
It’s the Apple Vision Pro and visionOS that I find the most bizarre. The device is the culmination of most extreme cases of the two end. It is not inherently positioned to replace or act as a particular appliance or a device at home or work. In fact, most usage cases I’ve read so far were largely for entertainment purposes with focus on privacy. Neither the tablet nor the VR headsets see more demands outside of entertainment space, so normally I would agree with the assessment. But a Vision Pro is more than a streaming box or a tablet. Priced at $3499, the contents a user can enjoy on the device is limited to what has been already been tailored to visionOS. It is possible to run iOS and iPadOS apps on the device, but who would want to fork out three grands and a half then wear a head mounted display when an iPad costs 1/10 of it without a hassle?
What I find odd is its hardware performance is never far behind the current offerings of Mac laptop lines. In theory, M5 on the Vision Pro is capable of running macOS apps independently. I would go so far as to suggest that, at the given price point, it may be better to position the product as a head mounted Mac. Of course, doing so would inadvertently raises some other questions as a computer, such as its limited battery life. If Apple were to make a proper landing with its proposed visual interface device, it will need a killer content of its own — it isn’t so much as a competition against other VR or XR headsets, this is a cannibalistic competition within Apple’s own ecosystem.