Apple to combine macOS and iOS applications next year

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, hey_yo_ said:

You don’t know Apple’s history of taking stuff that crashed and burned and make it a hit.

Ultimately, Apple has done nothing to address why UWP failed. They're tying to combine a popular platform, iOS, and a more niche platform, OSX, that operate on different binaries, different GUI styles, and really don't work well with input methods other than what they were designed for.

 

Seeing as Microsoft failed when they pushed multiple tools, and doing everything to incentive developers, short of writing Android and iOS malware delivered via worm, Canonical failed when Ubuntu is designed with a common code base for ARM and x86 that only gets a different coat of paint and compiled differently for the different families, the state of the Android x86 project, Jide's Remix OS, Android IA, I don't have confidence in iOS apps on OSX becoming anything more than a toy for people like me to play with for a week, get bored, and move on to some other novel idea.

[Evelyn Harthbrooke]

3 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

So people who don't want to throw away money = bad people? wow...... just wow.......

No, I don't mean bad people as in people who don't want to throw away money. I mean people who only have bad intentions and only want to publish a scam/spam app or some other malicious app on the App Store.

[DrMacintosh]

3 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

So people who don't want to throw away money = bad people? wow...... just wow.......

If you have a cool app idea but know it won't make money and don't want to pay for being an Apple Developer......then don't. 

[Streetguru]

4 minutes ago, KamranMackey said:

 

Don't you need to use apple products as well to make programs for their ecosystem?

[AlTech]

2 minutes ago, KamranMackey said:

I think you broke your quotes, as they have no content inside of them. Also, what silly system? The fact you have to pay to publish stuff in the App Stores/Safari Extension Gallery? I don't think it's silly. I think it's smart. Also, Google also makes you pay a fee to publish apps on Google Play, so Apple isn't the only one.

Yes but how Google handles it is totally different to Apple.

 

Apple charges a yearly subscription versus a one time payment.

 

Just now, DrMacintosh said:

$100 is too much for the ability to profit heavily off a good app idea?

I'd be willing to pay $100 USD upfront per app as is the new Steam Direct policy. But $100 USD per year is just inappropriate imho.

1 minute ago, KamranMackey said:

No, I don't mean bad people as in people who don't want to throw away money. I mean people who only have bad intentions and only want to publish a scam/spam app on the App Store or some other malicious app.

I know what you meant. To me, spending $100/USD per year on development for Apple stuff is throwing away money unless it's 100% guaranteed to have incredibly high ROI

[DrMacintosh]

2 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Apple has done nothing to address why UWP failed.

Why UWP failed is self explanatory. 

 

Windows Phone is nothing. Windows and the Xbox is not enough, you need a mobile presence which MS simply does not have. 

[AlTech]

Just now, Streetguru said:

Don't you need to use apple products as well to make programs for their ecosystem?

Yes. Preferably an Apple device for the product category you're making an App for.

 

That means buying an iPhone + Mac for developing an iPhone app.

[DrMacintosh]

1 minute ago, Streetguru said:

Don't you need to use apple products as well to make programs for their ecosystem?

Yes

[AlTech]

1 minute ago, DrMacintosh said:

Why UWP failed is self explanatory. 

 

Windows Phone is nothing. Windows and the Xbox is not enough, you need a mobile presence which MS simply does not have. 

UWP wasn't designed to be a Mobile thing though.

 

Windows itself is enough. It's just the adoption of the Store by average joe users is substantially too low for it to become mainstream and for developers to take it seriously.

[DrMacintosh]

1 minute ago, AluminiumTech said:

To me, spending $100/USD per year on development for Apple stuff is throwing away money unless

Well your opinion has not stopped the App Store from being an extremely profitable platform which grows every day as new developers create apps and more users are added. 

 

 

[Zodiark1593]

1 minute ago, AluminiumTech said:

Yes. Preferably an Apple device for the product category you're making an App for.

 

That means buying an iPhone + Mac for developing an iPhone app.

A Hackintosh may also be used, and is fairly popular among hobbyists.

[DrMacintosh]

Just now, AluminiumTech said:

UWP wasn't designed to be a Mobile thing though.

The idea behind UWP was to have apps that scaled across the Windows platform, that includes Windows phone. 

 

1 minute ago, AluminiumTech said:

Windows itself is enough. It's just the adoption of the Store by average joe users is substantially too low for it to become mainstream and for developers to take it seriously.

So Windows wasn't enough.....?

[William Payne]

15 minutes ago, Streetguru said:

I mean how many people actually need high end hardware in a mac? Final Cut Pro? What else?

Crap loads, and I mean crap loads. 

[AlTech]

Just now, Zodiark1593 said:

A Hackintosh may also be used, and is fairly popular among hobbyists.

Forgive me for not feeling the urge to piss off Apple and potentially get in trouble with them.

1 minute ago, DrMacintosh said:

Well your opinion has not stopped the App Store from being an extremely profitable platform which grows every day as new developers create apps and more users are added.

Yes but traditional desktop software sales still generates more revenue than the IOS App Store or Mobile Apps in general.

[captain_to_fire]

Just now, Drak3 said:

Ultimately, Apple has done nothing to address why UWP failed. They're tying to combine a popular platform, iOS, and a more niche platform, OSX, that operate on different binaries, different GUI styles, and really don't work well with input methods other than what they were designed for.

Remember that iOS is the redacted form of macOS and they share the same kernel. Both macOS and iOS apps require Xcode to be made. This is not the same with Windows where you have Win32/64 and UWP which are completely different. 

 

Also, it’s not Apple’s fault why UWP failed. Microsoft is trying to be everything at once but didn’t do enough testing on why their competitors are succeeding. 

 

[Evelyn Harthbrooke]

7 minutes ago, Streetguru said:

Don't you need to use apple products as well to make programs for their ecosystem?

Yeah you do, but that doesn't appear to be a problem for many people.

 

Also, you broke your quotes again, so I was confused as to which post you were replying to.

6 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

I know what you meant. To me, spending $100/USD per year on development for Apple stuff is throwing away money unless it's 100% guaranteed to have incredibly high ROI

You're entitled to your own opinion, but I personally disagree, so I think I'll just leave it there.

6 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

Yes but how Google handles it is totally different to Apple.

 

Apple charges a yearly subscription versus a one time payment.

Honestly, paying the $99/year shows you're committed to your app. If developers decide to abandon their app later on, they don't have to renew their Developer Program membership. At least that's my take on it. Might be wrong, but I don't know.

[Shadestones]

14 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

Its what they are doing now. 

 

They might make ARM Macs but ARM Macs will never be the center of their product line. They can emulate the iOS apps already, they just want to let developers do that easily. 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't the new iMac (Pro's?) have a "Fusion Co-processor" which is ARM based? It might not be too far-fetched of an idea, although I imagine they'd make ARM Macbooks before desktops.

[DrMacintosh]

Just now, AluminiumTech said:

Yes but traditional desktop software sales still generates more revenue than the IOS App Store or Mobile Apps in general.

What are you even trying to say? Desktop software makes more money because they are larger scale projects with much larger price tags than $0.99 or even $4.99

 

iOS applications can be developed way faster, put to market much faster, and updated much faster. The finished product is just cheaper because its supposed to be designed for as many people as possible. 

[Zodiark1593]

4 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

Forgive me for not feeling the urge to piss off Apple and potentially get in trouble with them.

Yes but traditional desktop software sales still generates more revenue than the IOS App Store or Mobile Apps in general.

Well, I did mention hobbyists. More than likely, said hobbyist is much too small a fish for Apple to go after. When money is being made, then it would be appropriate to buy a Mac and make all effort to abide by ToS.

Edited December 21, 2017 by Zodiark1593
Fail autocorrect

[DrMacintosh]

1 minute ago, Shadestones said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't the new iMac (Pro's?) have a "Fusion Co-processor" which is ARM based?

Yes, for secure boot. Thats about it. 

[Streetguru]

1 minute ago, KamranMackey said:

Yeah you do, but that doesn't appear to be a problem for many people.

It's basically just a walled garden that has no reason to exist, yet for some reason people put up with it, but here's a big list of things

https://stallman.org/apple.html

 

4 minutes ago, William Payne said:

Crap loads, and I mean crap loads. 

But like what? Or lots of people need final cut? How many of them are doing 4k+?

[Evelyn Harthbrooke]

2 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

Forgive me for not feeling the urge to piss off Apple and potentially get in trouble with them.

Apple doesn't go after Hackintoshers. It went after Psystar Corporation, but that was because they were building and selling built-Hackintosh systems. However, Apple doesn't go after individuals. Just like how they don't sue people for jailbreaking their device, but that's because jailbreaking is not illegal, and hasn't been since 2010.

[DrMacintosh]

Just now, Streetguru said:

It's basically just a walled garden that has no reason to exist,

For not having a reason to exist its rather odd that Apple has become the most valuable and profitable tech company there is.......just saying. 

[William Payne]

Just now, Streetguru said:

 

But like what? Or lots of people need final cut? How many of them are doing 4k+?

Final cut is only a tiny tiny part, you also have to factor in Premiere pro users, after effects, photoshop, all adobe apps, Capture one pro, Davinci Resolve and many others. 

 

4k editing is also a tiny part of it, I have met people editing 8k Red's on Mac's. There is a large user base in the mac world, photographers, videographers, retouchers, designers both 2d and 3d, app developers, coders, machine learning. 

 

That is why the iMac Pro was released, though most people are waiting for the new Mac Pro that is supposed to appear next year. 

[Evelyn Harthbrooke]

5 minutes ago, Streetguru said:

It's basically just a walled garden that has no reason to exist, yet for some reason people put up with it, but here's a big list of things

https://stallman.org/apple.html

That's your opinion, and I'll respect it. However I personally disagree.

 

Also, I'm not really that interested in reading what Stallman has to say about Apple, as he criticizes anything and everything if it isn't open source or if it uses proprietary components, which I don't really approve of.