Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple Brings iOS Apps Into Mac, But Won't Merge Platforms (cnet.com)

Posted by msmash on from the how-about-that? dept.

Stephen Shankland, writing for CNET: With its next-generation MacOS Mojave software, Macs will be able to run some apps written for iPhones and iPads, a big new step in bringing the two technology platforms closer together. Craig Federighi, Apple's senior vice president of software engineering, announced the change Monday at Apple's Worldwide Developer Conference in San Jose. And he said Mojave will include four apps Apple itself brought from its iOS mobile software to MacOS: Home, Stocks, News and Voice Memo. "There are millions of iOS apps out there, and we think some of them would look great on the Mac," Federighi said. For now, it's only Apple that has the ability to move iOS apps to MacOS. But that'll change in 2019.

27 of 46 comments (clear)

  1. for how long? by fred6666 · · Score: 1

    for how long?

    1. Re: for how long? by saloomy · · Score: 1

      Forever, unless stated otherwise.

  2. Why not just include an emulator? by jandrese · · Score: 1

    How hard would it be for Apple to include an iOS emulator for the Mac that could run regular iOS apps? Sure it's a different instruction set, but that's a long solved problem. They even have the big multitouch trackpad so you don't have to work too hard to emulate gestures. I'm pretty sure they already have this for developers, so it shouldn't be that hard, although I'd prefer it if they put in a little effort to make it seamless on the desktop. You could install an iOS app just the same as a regular Mac app and launch them with double clicks just like you would with any app. I bet it would see a reasonable amount of usage.

    --

    I read the internet for the articles.
    1. Re: Why not just include an emulator? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      They have an emulator in XCode. However, the user experience is terrible, and that's the value that Apple brings - a user experience that doesn't completely suck.

      By bringing frameworks and APIs closer together, it allows the developer to make an app people would actually want to use, instead of some garbage emulated not-quite-right touch UI that barely works, otherwise known as Windows 8.

    2. Re:Why not just include an emulator? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There's no guarantee the computer has a trackpad because of the Mac mini, iMac and Mac Pro.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    3. Re:Why not just include an emulator? by Chelloveck · · Score: 2

      There's no guarantee the computer has a trackpad because of the Mac mini, iMac and Mac Pro.

      There's a lot you can do without multitouch, though. Most things I do on my phone could just as easily be done on an emulator with a single traditional mouse pointer. Make the emulator treat the scroll wheel (or modifier key + scroll wheel) as a pinch/stretch zoom gesture and that'd cover almost everything.

      --
      Chelloveck
      I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
    4. Re: Why not just include an emulator? by Yaztromo · · Score: 1

      They have an emulator in XCode.

      Technically they have a simulator. When you build your Xcode project, it is actually compiled twice: once for the target iOS device, and once for Intel x86_64. When you run your code in the simulator, it's running native Intel code, and not emulating the iPhone/iPad processor as in a full emulation environment.

      It's worth being aware of the subtle differences. You can get huge performance increases in your code in the simulated environment, as you effectively have full access to the x86 CPU's processing capabilities. For this reason on-device testing is still very important.

      Yaz

    5. Re: Why not just include an emulator? by Arnold+Reinhold · · Score: 1

      Appleâ(TM)s emulations of the 68000 on the PowerPC and, later, the PowerPC on Intel worked quite well. They also had tools for distributing a program with separate binaries for different platforms. No doubt they can dust them off to distribute apps for both ARM and x86 when the time comes. Apple seems to be taking their time to think this through, which is wise.

    6. Re: Why not just include an emulator? by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Merging the experience in a way that doesnâ(TM)t force the developers to think of the different interaction results in things like Windows CE or Windows 8.

      Importing an application in this context can be easy, by ensuring the best user experience for a given device is another story.

      --
      Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    7. Re:Why not just include an emulator? by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Already tried it. There's a simulator in XCode that does exactly that. And it makes for a terrible user experience.

      What Apple are doing now is the right approach for user facing apps. Make iOS apps compilable for OSX, but allow for changing the things that are different on the desktop OS. Like resizable windows, typing and editing with a real keyboard, target sizes suitable for mouse pointer rather than finger, different transitions, a menu etc.

    8. Re: Why not just include an emulator? by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      I don't think there's any need for fat binaries. The App Store and The Mac Store are separate places. Different download for users, different upload for developers.

      Same XCode project for both, same code, compiling for 2 different targets.

      A developer would probably want to deliver them on a different schedule anyway. Different testing plan. And quite likely different bugs to fix.

    9. Re:Why not just include an emulator? by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 1

      Last I visited an Apple store, the iMacs were controlled by those magic touchpad things.

    10. Re: Why not just include an emulator? by bondsbw · · Score: 1

      Actually Apple is doing pretty much exactly what Windows 8 did, since WinRT was a set of universal APIs with targeted compilation. There was no emulation involved.

      Sure it sucked, but it's hardly fair to compare Apple's 2019 vaporware with an OS Microsoft released back in 2012.

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    11. Re: Why not just include an emulator? by jandrese · · Score: 1

      The problem with that emulator is that it emulates an entire phone screen, not just one app. There's no OS integration which makes for a terrible experience.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    12. Re:Why not just include an emulator? by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      I have a Mac app directly hand-ported from iOS years ago - and there's clearly something missing. It would certainly not be better with automatic porting or emulation.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
  3. The Xcode Simulator Works Well by glennrrr · · Score: 2

    As a long time iOS developer, I disagree with your assertion that you need to be constantly tethering a device. I do 90% of my work via the simulator, and only hook up a device when I'm debugging gestures or other similar features late in the development cycle when I want to make sure the user experience is good.

    1. Re:The Xcode Simulator Works Well by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Agreed. I'm the same.

      But it depends what sort of app it is. Motion, GPS, Games, Camera, VR etc, you probably do want to use device rather than simulator. And it doesn't take much longer to do so.

  4. Re:I'll Settle for Plants vs. Zombies II by cfalcon · · Score: 1

    paraphrase: "Plants vs. Zombies is too hard to play on a small screen"

    I think this is how they sell you an iPad :/

  5. Re:Home, Stocks, News and Voice Memo!! by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

    Things have clearly changed. Back when I had an iPod Touch it wasn't possible to remove icons you didn't want. You had to shove them into a folder and put it in a corner of a page somewhere.

  6. Re:Sad by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

    Why do you think they're ditching Intel for ARM?

    Good question. Why would anybody think that?

  7. Hoping by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1
    I had to buy a Windows laptop in order to run some SDR software I had to work with. Then they released a nice version of the software in iOS. But my main platform is a Mac.

    I'm keeping my fingers crossed that I might be able to go Windows free again. Then I can give the laptop to someone I don't like.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    1. Re:Hoping by bondsbw · · Score: 1

      2004 called to let you know that Macs can run Windows now.

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    2. Re:Hoping by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      2004 called to let you know that Macs can run Windows now.

      But its still Windows, with all the update fun that Microsoft provides.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  8. Re:Bait and switch 101 by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 1

    And a lone Windows 10 Phone user will cry "but we had that way back in 2015!"

  9. Re:Does it have dll hell? by BasilBrush · · Score: 2

    No. There's no point in sharing libraries between apps in this day and age. Storage devices are large, and code binaries are relatively small.

  10. Yes pls by Smiddi · · Score: 1

    The sooner Apple allow iO/S apps to run on Macs the better.

  11. Re: Sad by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

    Apple has never use an in-house processor for their Mac. The last time they came close to doing so with the PPC it turned into a disaster they had to abandon. So it's hard to say it's something Apple tends to do.