Sure, they said you can just click the checkbox. But there have been huge rough edges, like nothing about collection views working without crashing, until beta 11. Document-based apps get a blank window behind the open dialog box, and the documentation for how to properly handle multi-screen displays or multiple windows is sparse. However, coding for UIKit is soooooo much easier than AppKit, that I'm able to re-build better interfaces with macCatalyst in a fraction of the time it took me to build my AppKit based app. Except pixel-aligned graphics, since the scaling factor from pixels on iOS to macOS is the ratio of two prime numbers.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Some Developers Facing 'Several Problems' Porting iPad Apps to the Mac With Catalyst [Updated]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Speaking as an end user: if I’m having to pay again for the privilege of putting an app I’ve already purchased onto another device - in most cases I’m going to be skipping that app.
I haven‘t really noticed many apps made with project catalyst on the Mac App Store. I hope Asphalt 9 eventually does make it to the mac because that is one game I am really excited for. I’m also waiting for the official Twitter app to make it‘s debut on the mac - it is going to be so nice not having to log onto twitter.com or use tweetbot when I want to use Twitter.
Write once, debug everywhere.
It looks like almost all Catalyst developers were taken off the project after beta 2. Apple promised updates to it's own ported apps early in the beta cycle, but those updates never made it to the betas. I think this is because development of Catalyst was halted to get developers over to iOS 13 to get that ready in time. Catalyst isn't a very visible feature that requires a lot of effort to get it right. We might see Catalyst updates in upcoming 10.15.x releases, but I doubt that. I think Apple will try to get it right next year. It's just taking a lot of effort to get there.
Apple had a serious software problem this year and it will take them some time to recover from that. If they already launch new major software versions next year, they won't have many new things and will just be 'polish' releases.
Apple had a serious software problem this year and it will take them some time to recover from that. If they already launch new major software versions next year, they won't have many new things and will just be 'polish' releases.
I'm sure those moving to Mac OS 10.0 said the same thing. I look at 10.15 as really beginning of a major transition. Thats why I am in no rush to upgrade to it. I am still running 10.12 (my Mac OS 9). My Adobe CS6 won't on 10.15 either, so, I am holding out as long as possible by staggering my upgrades.
I haven't installed Catalina yet due to quite a bit of my important software not yet being compatible but Catalyst "was" a feature I was looking forward to when I did get to upgrade. This is the first time I heard that you have to pay for your apps again. I was just hoping to have some minor convenience of having some phone apps on my Mac for the convenience of saving some time pulling out my phone. I totally misunderstood what this was about. I am not saying that I am not going to use it but unless the software is amazing that I would pay for it multiple times, I would only purchase an app if I only wanted to use it solely on my Mac, which I think would be rare.
Catalina provided the potential to have this massive influx of iOS apps to flesh out the anaemic Mac app store. This would possibly offset the loss of 32bit software. Really surprised by the dire selection of ported apps.
You cannot download content for offline viewing using the website. The Netflix Windows app lets you do it and has been around for years.
Sure, but if Catalyst requires you to rewrite your app to comply, then many devs aren't going to spend the time, money, and effort for so little gain.
I do not know what is that supposed to mean? I know Java GUIs are usually horrible, but that is the fault of programmers, not Java itself.
[automerge]1570563989[/automerge]
I really do not realize how is this worse than “write one specific version for each platform there is”?
Two words for you: Dumpster Fire.
I agree, there are some things that just don't *need* to be backported. Windows has a Netflix app that I think its only major purpose is if you want to run 4K HDR videos on a compatible setup, otherwise there's just no point.
I'm excited for what Catalyst can do for us Mac users, looking at something like djay for example which for some reason only maintains a fully supported and maintained current version on iOS and ipadOS with v3, then has v2 on macOS, and a very buggy v1 on Windows 10 (algoriddim pls.)
But requiring Netflix to port an app over...? I suppose if they did it, sure I'd use it. But no one is worse for wear if they don't.
Troughton-Smith is more well known for data mining Apple code and whinging all the time on Twitter.
To be fair there are very few iOS apps i'd want on Mac. The ones I do (proper native Whatsapp for instance) can't be done yet due to how they handle the number.
[automerge]1570564448[/automerge]
But how will we live with PCCalc and Lightsout?
To be fair there are very few iOS apps i'd want on Mac. The ones I do (proper native Whatsapp for instance) can't be done yet due to how they handle the number.
[automerge]1570564448[/automerge]
But how will we live with PCCalc and Lightsout?
It is even worse. Much worse. Applications like DiskWarrior, TechTool Pro and Drive Genius cannot be released to rebuild directory of APFS disks (compulsory for booting disks since macOS 10.13 High Sierra, which was released by September 2017), because Apple has not yet released documentation about how to write to such disks more than two years latter:
DiskWarrior 5.2 & Apple File System (APFS)
What’s in the works
The next major release of DiskWarrior will include the ability to rebuild APFS disks. Apple has recently released the “Read” portion of the APFS format documentation. Our developers are now waiting for the “Write” portion of documentation to update DiskWarrior to be able to safely rebuild Apple File System (APFS) disks.
www.alsoft.com
Please, send feedback to Apple about it:
DiskWarrior 5.2 & Apple File System (APFS)
What’s in the works
The next major release of DiskWarrior will include the ability to rebuild APFS disks. Apple has recently released the “Read” portion of the APFS format documentation. Our developers are now waiting for the “Write” portion of documentation to update DiskWarrior to be able to safely rebuild Apple File System (APFS) disks.
DiskWarrior 5.3 & APFS — ALSOFT
www.alsoft.com
Please, send feedback to Apple about it:
Feedback - macOS
Apple wants to hear from you. Send us your comments and feedback about macOS.
www.apple.com
It would be about temporary download, which Safari offers no frameworks for.
But if Netflix wanted to offer temp download on the Mac they'd have built an app on Appkit years ago. They don't. The UI coding is, bluntly, the easy part of it.
Say whaaaat?
If Apple had only made expressedly clear in their Catalyst focused WWDC sessions that Catalyst would only give you an easy entry point for porting your iPad app to macOS, and that this porting process would require a lot of adaptations to the new platform, including UI redesigns.
Oh, wait… they have.
Nonsense.
Apple has made absolutely clear that AppKit will remain the first choice for the development of dedicated Mac apps, and that Catalyst is only a transitional technology simplifying ports of existing apps from iPadOS to macOS. They also made absolutely clear that if you want to start developing a new crossplatform app right now, SwiftUI is the method of choice or at least will be in the long run. This is the future, not Catalyst.
I’m not at all surprised, frankly. It isn’t significantly more difficult to write a Mac app if you have a decent and up-to-date iOS app. Besides the UI code – and even here there is overlap – substantial parts of the code (such as the business logic) can be shared across both platforms. Developers that haven’t released a Mac app so far likely haven’t done this for reasons that Catalyst does not address, e.g. still too much work (including maintenance, testing and customer support) for relatively little demand or basic and flawed conversion into a Mac UI that still requires lots of enhancements. Catalyst ought to be appealing to iOS developers that haven’t considered creating a Mac app before and can provide one now without doing anything extra. Catalyst probably isn’t ready for that.
Muscle memory...the still ever present use of tracking cookies and pixels, intermittent and sporadic ”issues” when an app works just fine. Idiotic HDCP errors on streaming sites whereas the iPad just works. The preference for developers to emphasize or overemphasize Windows compatibility while other platforms get short shrift. I actually don’t cruise around on the internet much as the continual train wreck of advertising and such just gets on my nerves now. I understand people have to pay for what they have and are selling and advertising helps with that, but a focused app on iOS is simply a better experience as it is expected that developers put in some damn effort instead of simply crapping things on to a web page. I have had intermittent success with Coherence and whatever that other app was for creating “apps” out of websites on my Mac and I welcome Catalyst versions of Overcast, LinkedIn and other apps that I spend time in on my iPad that don’t have a Mac version. It simply makes my workflow more streamlined and reduces unnecessary
friction.
That’s a bit like believing that Auto-Tune is the future of opera.
Last edited: