3 ms·
> MS failed because they had zero footprint on mobile, and I think Apple will fail because they have a relatively small footprint on desktop. Two possilities h
by CodeWriter23 9y ago
> MS failed because they had zero footprint on mobile, and I think Apple will fail because they have a relatively small footprint on desktop.
Two possilities here:
They dust off NextStep’s YellowBook support (Cocoa for Windows) and update it to support UIKit.
-or-
What if the parameters of Marzipan is not a compatibility API, but an effort to package the iOS Simulator and your x86 simulator builds transparently for the end user. Then port the iOS Simulator to Windows.
Halo Effect 2.0
- frik 9y agoTo your "YellowBook" point, yes, looks like possibility. And several Apple software like Safari 5 for Windows and iTunes already ship with macOS UI libraries ported to Windows. So in near future iOS apps may run on macOS and Windows - quasi true universal apps (not the UWP-crap)
- saagarjha 9y agoYou had been flagged for whatever reason…not sure why. > several Apple software like Safari 5 for Windows and iTunes already ship with macOS UI libraries ported to Windows. Actually, the situation is kind of the opposite: Safari and iTunes eschew the use of macOS's UI libraries. Safari, in particular, is actually just WebKit (which has no "UI") wrapped up in a Windows-style chrome to appear native. iTunes itself, even on macOS, is some sort of weird C++ hybrid abstracted API that's not Cocoa (which is why it looks so "off" on macOS). This, along with a version of Foundation/CoreFoundation, allows it to work on both platforms–though not very well, I'll admit.
- frik 9y agoYes true. What I meant: Safari 5.1 (Win32 version, discontinued) comes with several MacOSX user mode libraries ported to Win32 DLLs. Older iTunes and QuickTime (like 5 years ago) came with MaxOSX libraries ported to Windows too - at least from what I recall.
- saagarjha 9y agoSomeone keeps flagging you…