Apple Still Expected to Allow iPhone and iPad Apps to Run on Macs Later This Year

[sracer]

Rather than raising iOS and apps up, Apple has been working to move mainstream macOS devices down to more of a computing appliance like a smartphone or tablet. The retina Macbook was the first major step in that direction. Apple has lost significant ground in the education market to Google/chromebooks, and dumbing down the macOS experience to be like iOS devices will help position themselves to regain some ground.

This move (allowing macOS devices to run iOS apps) is an admission on Apple's part that Microsoft was right to bring a touch-centric experience to the desktop. Windows 8.x was derided in part because it was expected to run on non-touchscreen desktop/laptops even though it was designed for touch. But here is Apple going to do the same thing.

How is unifying the developer framework of their apps dumbing down the Mac? The developer community for great Mac apps is constantly dwindling as more and more devs are shifting attention to mobile. Giving devs a framework to run apps cross platform will only push greater and more unified functionality regardless of whether you're running your phone, tablet or computer and open up a slew of new options of Mac users.

This also moves Apple towards a potential reality where they can dump Intel as A-series chips become more and more powerful.

It's a "dumbing down" because iOS apps are less powerful in terms of features and functions. There is more to a "unifying framework" than using the same tools develop for iOS and macOS. There are far too many limitations and restrictions that are placed on iOS and iOS apps than there are on macOS that the lowest-common-denominator will rule. Apple would have to greatly expand the capabilities of iOS and greatly loosen the restrictions placed on iOS apps in order to begin to reach parity between the platforms.

 

[itsmilo]

*requires 2.199€ 2018 13 inch custom chip MacBook Pro or later

Why? Why is this necessary and what type of backward compatibility is this? Why would I watch YouTube video on a 65 inch TV?

Why not? YouTube streams even in 8k

 

[TheColtr]

I know the article said that we do not know how this would work. But in most likelihood, will they be emulating iOS on the Mac? Or are they asking developers to port everything over to the Mac as a condition of staying in the app store?

From what I understand, internally Apple has UXkit that lets them make apps that can be ran on iOS and macOS. Presumably the same thing could be done for third party apps. You could make a “iOS” version that is simple and it could run natively on Mac and iOS, or you could put some more work in and build out the macOS side.

So developers could recompile their app using the new “kit” and have it run on both with no other work, but if they wanted they could put more work into the Mac side and build more features that iOS isn’t capible of.

 

[macs4nw]

Why would it need to do that?

Because performance and display-space compromises will almost certainly have to be made.

 

[cuwickliffe]

If Apple can pull this off, I'm all for it as there are certainly some apps I use on my iPad or iPhone that I'd like to monkey around with on the desktop.

At the same time, this will be crushing for some developers who have iOS and macOS versions who have to make a choice ... do I make a truly universal app and raise the price or keep my apps separated between iOS and macOS?

An example of this is the fantastic Fantastical calendaring app. The iOS versions are inexpensive, but if you want the same experience on macOS, it is much more. I think for great apps like this that people put their heart and lives into, we should pay for what we use. If I can run an iOS version of Fantastical on macOS, the desktop revenue stream dries up. Also, any motivation for Flexibits to update the desktop version drops dramatically. For other apps like this, if the developer doesn't make it a universal app, however, I may be less-inclined to run it on all my devices or find an alternative that does.

There are definitely winners and losers in this equation. What do you think?

 

[CmdrLaForge]

I am not sure if this will come true and how much sense it does make for a lot of apps which rely on the sensors found in the iPhone from accelerometer to camera to GPS. All of those cannot be found in a Mac. On the other hand there are apps which might be nice to pay once use everywhere e.g. like a calculator app.

 

[firewood]

Apple has been working to move mainstream macOS devices down to more of a computing appliance like a smartphone or tablet.

I don't see why people say this, since every Mac since OS X 1.0 has come with a Terminal command-line and downloadable developer tools, from which any pro user can compile and run the same code that runs on unix workstations and enterprise servers. Even use vi or emacs, which are usually not considered dumbed-down editors.

 

[sracer]

I don't see why people say this, since every Mac since OS X 1.0 has come with a Terminal command-line and downloadable developer tools, from which any pro user can compile and run the same code that runs on unix workstations and enterprise servers. Even use vi or emacs, which are usually not considered dumbed-down editors.

My choice of using "macOS" instead of 'OS X" is the clue. I'm not talking about their intention from the beginning. If you look at the macOS software that Apple currently makes available, you'll see that the functionality has been greatly reduced over the past 3-5 years from previous versions. That is a key component in the "dumbing down".

 

[firewood]

Because performance and display-space compromises will almost certainly have to be made.

Developers already know how to make optional display space compromises to create Universal apps (more views, buttons and popovers on big iPads, less on small iPhones). Performance compromises are rarely needed (the processor in my iPad Pro is faster than the one in my MacBook).

 

[44267547]

I’m really hoping that Apple don’t plan on adding a touch screen to the Mac, leave that to the iPad keep the Mac a mouse and trackpad only device. I personally have no interest in a Surface like device they are not helpful in the slightest.

I don't have the slightest belief that Apple will be adding any touchscreen to Macs. At least based off what Phil Schiller stated calling the idea absurd. Apple allegedly tested this as well.

https://www.macrumors.com/2016/11/14/phil-schiller-touch-screen-macs/amp/

Phil Schiller quote:

"We think of the whole platform,” he says. “If we were to do Multi-Touch on the screen of the notebook, that wouldn’t be enough — then the desktop wouldn’t work that way.” And touch on the desktop, he says, would be a disaster. “Can you imagine a 27-inch iMac where you have to reach over the air to try to touch and do things? That becomes absurd.” He also explains that such a move would mean totally redesigning the menu bar for fingers, in a way that would ruin the experience for those using pointer devices like the touch or mouse. “You can’t optimize for both,” he says. “It’s the lowest common denominator thinking.”

 

[lowendlinux]

Because performance and display-space compromises will almost certainly have to be made.

If it running off the co-processor that's been talked about the last couple days then there will be no hit in performance on either even if it's not processors are more than powerful enough to run a container with an arm app.

 

[creediddy]

Apple should now have time of building convergence with their Mac and iOS products. Nows the time.

 

[kruegdude]

Mac will not be able to run iOS Apps, but Apps will be able to be developed on a cross platform framework.
That is Devs will need to implement the new framework to allow anything to run on Mac, and vice versa.

Good move; assuming Apple will manage it better than Google and Microsoft did so far.

You seem to get it. The problem with this article is it’s title. It implies the total opposite of what’s probably going to happen.

 

[UL2RA]

I don't have the slightest belief that Apple will be adding any touchscreen to Macs. At least based off what Phil Schiller stated calling the idea absurd. Apple allegedly tested this as well.

https://www.macrumors.com/2016/11/14/phil-schiller-touch-screen-macs/amp/

Phil Schiller quote:

"We think of the whole platform,” he says. “If we were to do Multi-Touch on the screen of the notebook, that wouldn’t be enough — then the desktop wouldn’t work that way.” And touch on the desktop, he says, would be a disaster. “Can you imagine a 27-inch iMac where you have to reach over the air to try to touch and do things? That becomes absurd.” He also explains that such a move would mean totally redesigning the menu bar for fingers, in a way that would ruin the experience for those using pointer devices like the touch or mouse. “You can’t optimize for both,” he says. “It’s the lowest common denominator thinking.”

Apple has gone against their statements numerous times in their history ... the biggest being large-screened iPhones. Nothing Apple says is set in stone. Phil also constantly spews word vomit.

 

[44267547]

When he said that ... there wasn't a unifying of macOS and iOS apps. Apple has also gone against their statements numerous times in their history ... the biggest being large-screened iPhones. Nothing Apple says is set in stone.

Perhaps. But that doesn't definitively mean that Apple will implement a touch screen on a Mac either. Obviously anything can happen, but I don't have reason to believe they will pursue that specific route. To me, it seems very Un-Apple like" if you will.

 

[UL2RA]

Perhaps. But that doesn't definitively mean that Apple will implement a touch screen on a Mac. Obviously anything can happen, but I don't have reason to believe they will pursue that specific route.

I'm not holding my breath. Something like the Surface ... with a full macOS in a tablet with a touch screen and the Apple pen would be pretty awesome though. Some of the things Apple DOESN'T do for reasons that make no sense really boggles the mind though. They have so much potential and yet they stick to some awfully stupid principles sometimes.

 

[firewood]

Mac will not be able to run iOS Apps.

Macs can already run iOS apps that are compiled with an x86 slice (which Xcode allows). The iOS Simulator is merely the macOS window manager for these native x86 iOS apps.

It's just that Apple currently does not allow apps with x86 slices ("fat" apps) in the iOS App store, and does not allow apps that use Cocoa Touch iOS frameworks in the Mac App store. So you have to get these iOS apps that run on Macs directly from the developer of the app.

e.g. It's already possible. It's just that Apple doesn't distribute such apps through its stores today.

 

[laz232]

This also moves Apple towards a potential reality where they can dump Intel as A-series chips become more and more powerful.

Except I need to use programs for work (not apps) - like LibreOffice, full Lightroom, VMWare etc - the latter will not work well on an A-series chip that needs to translate instruction sets to x86...

 

[atikalz]

While multiple reports suggest Apple has decided to place a greater focus on improving the performance and security of iOS and macOS, which will delay some new features until next year, it appears the company still aims to introduce the ability for Macs to run iPhone and iPad apps later this year.

Mark Gurman and Ina Fried, reporting for Bloomberg News and Axios respectively, both claim the framework for combined apps remains on Apple's software roadmap for 2018, despite some planned iOS 12 features likely being pushed back to 2019, including a new home screen with a redesigned grid of app icons.

Apple's software engineering chief Craig Federighi reportedly revealed the plans during a meeting with employees earlier this month.

Last month, Gurman reported that developers will be able to design a single third-party app that works with both a touchscreen, and a mouse or trackpad, depending on whether it's running on an iPhone, iPad, or Mac. Apple would presumably also streamline its own apps on the desktop and mobile.

The report didn't explain how all of this will work, but Apple could be planning to release a new SDK with new APIs that enable true cross-platform functionality. Right now, Apple's UIKit and AppKit frameworks provide the required infrastructure for iOS and macOS app user interfaces respectively.

It's worth noting that Apple already has a private framework called UXKit, used for the Photos app on Mac. In 2015, Jason Snell said UXKit "sits above the Mac's familiar AppKit frameworks and strongly resembles UIKit on iOS."

Apple tentatively plans to begin rolling out the change in iOS 12 and macOS 10.14, so there will likely be an announcement at WWDC 2018 around June. Following a few months of beta testing, major new versions of iOS and macOS are typically publicly released in September and October respectively.

The project is reportedly codenamed "Marzipan" within Apple. Gurman speculated that universal apps would make it easier for Apple to one day create a single operating system for all of its devices, should it ever go down that avenue. At the very least, it could bring some renewed attention to Mac apps.

Apple would be following in the footsteps of Microsoft's Universal Windows Platform, aimed at helping developers create universal apps that run across Windows 10 and Windows 10 Mobile, the latter of which is being phased out.


Article Link: Apple Still Expected to Allow iPhone and iPad Apps to Run on Macs Later This Year

Tell me: What's the benefit of using touch based app concepts on an non touch laptop computer?

 

[Mac 128]

And then finally comes the Lightning port, or Lightning port adapter?

Now I understand why the last MacBook Pro update didn't get them, even though there's plenty of room to add one, and there's currently no way to use a pair of Lightning headphones on a Mac.

 

[dan110]

With Microsoft having moved to updating Windows twice per year, how backwards would Apple look if they moved back to releasing every other year or so? The industry-wide software development trend is to release faster and faster, not slower.

There's also no reason that fast releases have to result in poor quality releases. With the recent embarrassing security issues, I hope Apple is getting the nudge it apparently needed to prioritize software quality over new features.

When you say, "There's also no reason that fast releases have to result in poor quality releases. With the recent embarrassing security issues, I hope Apple is getting the nudge it apparently needed to prioritize software quality over new features.", you're contradicting yourself.

Apple has proven, without a shadow of a doubt, that quality has suffered regarding its core software offerings. An extra six months won't be a negative to the Apple consumer that has come to expect the highest possible quality while paying the "Apple Tax". Otherwise, why pay the Apple tax and just buy an Android or other competitive product that works just as well/bad depending on one's expectation of tech quality?

So, instead of launching a new iPhone every fall with a new iOS, launch it every 18 months. Stagger that 18 months with new hardware and software additions to the company's lineup every 6 to 12 months. This will give the company and developers a nice rhythm to keep pace with new developments while ensuring high quality standards. It *might* also allow Apple time and energy to get back to producing truly innovative products instead of the lackluster iThings they've been releasing lately.

The company is simply too tied to the iPhone and iOS. And frankly, I think consumers are getting a bit board of it but since there isn't really a comparable competitor they stay with the ecosystem.

 

[Mtmspa]

I really want the new home screen... It hasn’t had any change since the original iPhone OS and it’s getting old...

I use apps on my phone. Don’t care what the home screen looks like.

 

[jonnysods]

Touch screen macbook pro?

Wow if that came with an Apple pencil it would cancel my iPad pro plans

 

[dan110]

This seems like a huge project that won’t really amount to many changes or benefits for the average user.

My theory and also that of many that I work with is that Apple is trying to train consumers to move away from dedicated personal computers. They may keep 1 or 2 models around for hard core developers, but the "Mac" as we know it seems to a dead man walking. They're going to try to push the iPad Pro or some facsimile to fill the void left by a defunct MacBook line.

 

[pubwvj]

This is great but Apple should be offering legacy software support everywhere so that all iOS apps run on both iOS devices and Macs and all Mac applications run on both iOS devices and Macs. This is a fairly trivial task that would open up a huge amount of software that they have caused to be abandoned. There is a tremendous amount of excellent kids educational software that doesn't run on modern MacOSs (and iOS) that would then be available. There is also a lot of business applications and just fun other stuff. They can sandbox it all to make it safe. Apple has the resources.