6 ms·

Chameleon - UIKit for Mac development

97 points by sahillavingia 16y ago

christo16 16y ago
Definitely a cool, will make porting iOS apps easier. However, a lot of the ideas in UIKit are meant for a touchscreen and wont translate well.
- shaggyfrog 16y ago
  This is what I was trying to say, but it's much more concise. Thank you :)
- joshaber 16y ago
  Sure but it's all in how you use it. Not everything comes over cleanly but a lot does. AppKit is old and crufty and doesn't play well with Core Animation. Since Chameleon is Core Animation-based, it's already off to a better start than AppKit.
shaggyfrog 16y ago
I really don't get the point of this at all. When I've ported iPhone apps to iPad (i.e. make them Universal) there was always little-to-no work to do on the underlying model classes, but always a lot of work to do designing new views since the UI model is so much different (mainly from the bigger screen). Same deal with Mac OS X, except the UI changes are even more extreme. If I want my iOS app to work on a Mac's screen, I'll have to spend the time to redesign the UI. Which is fine, so how is this thing going to save me any time at all, really?
- glhaynes 16y ago
  It could be useful for lots of folks that know UIKit inside and out but haven't dealt with AppKit before.
  - shaggyfrog 16y ago
    But a Mac's interface is not an iOS interface. There are different constraints and different best practices, and sometimes completely different widgets. To make a decent UI, you have to understand the native platform.
    - gte910h 16y ago
      Sometimes perfect is the enemy of the good. The ability of a stopgap measure such as this is a good way to let established iOS players test the Mac waters without a huge investment.
      - deleted 16y ago
        [deleted]
    - glhaynes 16y ago
      Definitely agree. And no doubt this is why Apple hasn't announced UIKit on Mac (yet).
    - silkodyssey 16y ago
      I think the same argument can be made with regard to iPhone apps running on iPad. iPhone apps on the iPad are not very pleasant but if you absolutely must have that iPhone app on your iPad then you can put up with a suboptimal experience just to have the functionality. I think the same thing occurs on the desktop. Many times I use iPad applications and wish they were available on the desktop. iPad applications especially I think can work very well on the desktop due to the large display. But don't take my work for it. Have a look at the streamtome app on the mac app store. The interface mimics that of the iPad. I am not sure if it uses chameleon but there's a good chance I would guess. http://itunes.apple.com/app/streamtome/id405892506?mt=12 http://itunes.apple.com/app/streamtome/id405892506?mt=12
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - scrod 16y ago
    >It could be useful for lots of folks that know UIKit inside and out ... Then they'll have a very easy time picking up AppKit — certainly much easier than someone coming from any other platform would have, mobile or desktop. The lineage from AppKit is supposed to be one of the advantages of UIKit. These frameworks are very similar.
- joshaber 16y ago
  But AppKit is pretty awful. I'm much more interested in Chameleon as a Core Animation-based replacement for AppKit than as an easy way to port iOS apps.
Samuel_Michon 16y ago
Fascinating idea, but as also mentioned in the article: won't Apple do something similar? There are way more iOS developers than there are Mac developers, and many more flock to the iOS platform every day. Surely, Apple has some incentive to make it easy for iOS developers to make software for the Mac. From the article: Apple already has a version of UIKit that runs on the Mac: every time you launch the iOS Simulator, you're using that framework.
- joshaber 16y ago
  I know right? You'd think Apple would do this themselves but for some reason they haven't show any interest. Especially weird considering AppKit is so old and crufty.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
pohl 16y ago
Of course, Apple executives may change their priorities when they see how many developers are interested in a tool like Chameleon. Many people have speculated that the popularity of the Jailbreak SDK accelerated the release of the original iPhone SDK. It would be great if history repeated itself. Great, so they're trying to position themselves to take credit for what may be inevitable.
- ugh 16y ago
  Aren’t you way too cynical?
  - pohl 16y ago
    I guess i should say: Chameleon looks great, and I applaud their work. I just pulled the only quotation that peeved me. In regards to your question, cynicism involves a belief about someone's motivations, and I'm only going off of what they have put in black & white: that it would be so awesome if they were able to repeat the most spectacularly dubious credit-taking in iPhone history. I realize that those 4 months between the availability of the first iPhone and the announcement of the official SDK were agonizing and suspenseful, but I don't believe for a second that the most notoriously secretive tech company didn't already have an SDK in the works. If I were iconfactory, I wouldn't labor to connect myself with that event.
- gte910h 16y ago
  Or they're trying to work to make the future possible. I'm sure lots of things are inevitable too, doesn't mean you don't laud the person who actually brings it about.
mhd 16y ago
Right after opening, the app store seemed flooded with programs that had UIs that clearly showed their iOS heritage. And I've yet to see a singly one where this actually is good (no, Twitter for Mac isn't one). Going further along this road doesn't seem like a good idea to me. Yes, you'll save some time. But unless you're making a throwaway, gimmicky application, you'd better invest some time in creating a new GUI that'll better integrate into the desktop. This time, most likely you're not the only thing on the screen.
- gte910h 16y ago
  There is huge value in "throwaway" applications. The decision to spend considerable time to even test the Mac market is a huge barrier to entry. This would be a good stepping stone to prove that there is an audience there.
  - nupark 16y ago
    Providing a poor quality application doesn't necessarily tell you anything about the audience a proper port would have, it can be significantly damaging to your brand, and is a waste of press attention.
    - gte910h 16y ago
      Doesn't necessarily tell you anything. But it can. If you can find for 4-5k that "Yeah, people will buy stuff on mac like our iOS stuff, pull out the whole hog" it makes an excellent business case. Also, not everything is brand based. For many things, removing the old thing from the store completely obliterates all mention ever made of it (as it wasn't the sort of thing that gets press attention anyhow). Not everyone is selling apps that make 6-7 figure incomes. Many people are selling multiples that rake in 4-5 and doing quite nicely with that, and with no marketing.
bonaldi 16y ago
Am pretty excited about this -- I have an iOS app that would work great as effectively a desktop accessory on the Mac. Unfortunately the UIKit implementation isn't there yet -- there's no NIB loading, table views aren't editable, etc -- though what is done is very impressive. Will be watching this one.
willstraf 16y ago
Everyone here is missing the point, this is not exactly meant for direct ports of iOS applications to Mac OS X. For example, look at Twitter for Mac and Twitterific in the Mac App Store, they aren't direct / touch-based ports, but rather, they take cues from their iOS counterparts.
jailbreakmen 16y ago
Are all you guys dumb. Soon Mac Os X lion will come out and it will have many features that iOS has even now it has the Mac app store a duhh
colacoosorio 16y ago
You are all a bunch of incredible selfabsorbed losers. Appple OS, be it for iPhone, Mac or iPad is incredibly easy compaired to really intelligent designed stuff from the much looked down upon Microsoft and Android platform. As a friend of mine, who is in the bussiness once explained to me: those Apple people think they are smart because they pay dearly for a closed OS, integrated in very flashy and absurd expensive design hardware, but they are too dumb to do some real work: they wouldn't know where to start-just too complicated. No-brainers with too much money to throw around and easily caught in hypes... Seeing what is written here I can only whole heartedly agree. Btw I own 3 iPhones, not because they are good to make a call with ( they are inferior to the cheapest Motorola, Samsung or Nokia) but becuse they look so nice...

97 points by sahillavingia 16y ago

Definitely a cool, will make porting iOS apps easier. However, a lot of the ideas in UIKit are meant for a touchscreen and wont translate well.

shaggyfrog 16y ago
This is what I was trying to say, but it's much more concise. Thank you :)
joshaber 16y ago
Sure but it's all in how you use it. Not everything comes over cleanly but a lot does. AppKit is old and crufty and doesn't play well with Core Animation. Since Chameleon is Core Animation-based, it's already off to a better start than AppKit.

shaggyfrog 16y ago

I really don't get the point of this at all. When I've ported iPhone apps to iPad (i.e. make them Universal) there was always little-to-no work to do on the underlying model classes, but always a lot of work to do designing new views since the UI model is so much different (mainly from the bigger screen). Same deal with Mac OS X, except the UI changes are even more extreme. If I want my iOS app to work on a Mac's screen, I'll have to spend the time to redesign the UI. Which is fine, so how is this thing going to save me any time at all, really?

glhaynes 16y ago
It could be useful for lots of folks that know UIKit inside and out but haven't dealt with AppKit before.
- shaggyfrog 16y ago
  But a Mac's interface is not an iOS interface. There are different constraints and different best practices, and sometimes completely different widgets. To make a decent UI, you have to understand the native platform.
  - gte910h 16y ago
    Sometimes perfect is the enemy of the good. The ability of a stopgap measure such as this is a good way to let established iOS players test the Mac waters without a huge investment.
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
  - glhaynes 16y ago
    Definitely agree. And no doubt this is why Apple hasn't announced UIKit on Mac (yet).
  - silkodyssey 16y ago
    I think the same argument can be made with regard to iPhone apps running on iPad. iPhone apps on the iPad are not very pleasant but if you absolutely must have that iPhone app on your iPad then you can put up with a suboptimal experience just to have the functionality. I think the same thing occurs on the desktop. Many times I use iPad applications and wish they were available on the desktop. iPad applications especially I think can work very well on the desktop due to the large display. But don't take my work for it. Have a look at the streamtome app on the mac app store. The interface mimics that of the iPad. I am not sure if it uses chameleon but there's a good chance I would guess. http://itunes.apple.com/app/streamtome/id405892506?mt=12 http://itunes.apple.com/app/streamtome/id405892506?mt=12
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- scrod 16y ago
  >It could be useful for lots of folks that know UIKit inside and out ... Then they'll have a very easy time picking up AppKit — certainly much easier than someone coming from any other platform would have, mobile or desktop. The lineage from AppKit is supposed to be one of the advantages of UIKit. These frameworks are very similar.
joshaber 16y ago
But AppKit is pretty awful. I'm much more interested in Chameleon as a Core Animation-based replacement for AppKit than as an easy way to port iOS apps.

Samuel_Michon 16y ago

Fascinating idea, but as also mentioned in the article: won't Apple do something similar? There are way more iOS developers than there are Mac developers, and many more flock to the iOS platform every day. Surely, Apple has some incentive to make it easy for iOS developers to make software for the Mac. From the article: Apple already has a version of UIKit that runs on the Mac: every time you launch the iOS Simulator, you're using that framework.

joshaber 16y ago
I know right? You'd think Apple would do this themselves but for some reason they haven't show any interest. Especially weird considering AppKit is so old and crufty.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]

pohl 16y ago

Of course, Apple executives may change their priorities when they see how many developers are interested in a tool like Chameleon. Many people have speculated that the popularity of the Jailbreak SDK accelerated the release of the original iPhone SDK. It would be great if history repeated itself. Great, so they're trying to position themselves to take credit for what may be inevitable.

ugh 16y ago
Aren’t you way too cynical?
- pohl 16y ago
  I guess i should say: Chameleon looks great, and I applaud their work. I just pulled the only quotation that peeved me. In regards to your question, cynicism involves a belief about someone's motivations, and I'm only going off of what they have put in black & white: that it would be so awesome if they were able to repeat the most spectacularly dubious credit-taking in iPhone history. I realize that those 4 months between the availability of the first iPhone and the announcement of the official SDK were agonizing and suspenseful, but I don't believe for a second that the most notoriously secretive tech company didn't already have an SDK in the works. If I were iconfactory, I wouldn't labor to connect myself with that event.
gte910h 16y ago
Or they're trying to work to make the future possible. I'm sure lots of things are inevitable too, doesn't mean you don't laud the person who actually brings it about.

mhd 16y ago

Right after opening, the app store seemed flooded with programs that had UIs that clearly showed their iOS heritage. And I've yet to see a singly one where this actually is good (no, Twitter for Mac isn't one). Going further along this road doesn't seem like a good idea to me. Yes, you'll save some time. But unless you're making a throwaway, gimmicky application, you'd better invest some time in creating a new GUI that'll better integrate into the desktop. This time, most likely you're not the only thing on the screen.

gte910h 16y ago
There is huge value in "throwaway" applications. The decision to spend considerable time to even test the Mac market is a huge barrier to entry. This would be a good stepping stone to prove that there is an audience there.
- nupark 16y ago
  Providing a poor quality application doesn't necessarily tell you anything about the audience a proper port would have, it can be significantly damaging to your brand, and is a waste of press attention.
  - gte910h 16y ago
    Doesn't necessarily tell you anything. But it can. If you can find for 4-5k that "Yeah, people will buy stuff on mac like our iOS stuff, pull out the whole hog" it makes an excellent business case. Also, not everything is brand based. For many things, removing the old thing from the store completely obliterates all mention ever made of it (as it wasn't the sort of thing that gets press attention anyhow). Not everyone is selling apps that make 6-7 figure incomes. Many people are selling multiples that rake in 4-5 and doing quite nicely with that, and with no marketing.

bonaldi 16y ago

Am pretty excited about this -- I have an iOS app that would work great as effectively a desktop accessory on the Mac. Unfortunately the UIKit implementation isn't there yet -- there's no NIB loading, table views aren't editable, etc -- though what is done is very impressive. Will be watching this one.

willstraf 16y ago

Everyone here is missing the point, this is not exactly meant for direct ports of iOS applications to Mac OS X. For example, look at Twitter for Mac and Twitterific in the Mac App Store, they aren't direct / touch-based ports, but rather, they take cues from their iOS counterparts.

jailbreakmen 16y ago

Are all you guys dumb. Soon Mac Os X lion will come out and it will have many features that iOS has even now it has the Mac app store a duhh

colacoosorio 16y ago

You are all a bunch of incredible selfabsorbed losers. Appple OS, be it for iPhone, Mac or iPad is incredibly easy compaired to really intelligent designed stuff from the much looked down upon Microsoft and Android platform. As a friend of mine, who is in the bussiness once explained to me: those Apple people think they are smart because they pay dearly for a closed OS, integrated in very flashy and absurd expensive design hardware, but they are too dumb to do some real work: they wouldn't know where to start-just too complicated. No-brainers with too much money to throw around and easily caught in hypes... Seeing what is written here I can only whole heartedly agree. Btw I own 3 iPhones, not because they are good to make a call with ( they are inferior to the cheapest Motorola, Samsung or Nokia) but becuse they look so nice...