5 ms·

Funny situation, there's another thread I was replying to someone who wanted to shift back to native apps instead of cross plat electron apps (for performance r

Funny situation, there's another thread I was replying to someone who wanted to shift back to native apps instead of cross plat electron apps (for performance reasons). Well, Apple Passwords on Windows is a good example of how that turns out in reality. I believe it's using WinUI. While the performance is nice, the experience is entirely unlike what you get on Mac and winds up making you wish you were using another service entirely.

porcoda 4y ago
This has been the story of Apple apps outside MacOS forever: they appear to always do the absolute minimum to claim support, and you end up with a super clunky windows app that is terrible. I doubt they’d do much better using electron: I think their development model is that if it isn’t on one of their platforms, they pump out a minimum-effort, low quality app. I’d guess that electron ones would be just as clunky, except with a significantly higher memory and CPU footprint.
- waboremo 4y ago
  That hasn't really been true. Apple supported iTunes and Safari which were great options on Windows. Not just "I'm already an Apple fan so I have to use it", but actively deciding to use them. The root of the problem for Apple is that they cannot get away with doing what they used to in the past, they already have a plethora of platforms within their own umbrella to support, adding Windows native to the mix seems to result in maybe a handful of developers taking on enormous burdens by trying to catch up to their expected Mac apps. If Apple were to seriously put its weight behind a cross-platform toolkit, this might change, especially as they want their services to grow. It's the very reason why their main service competitors can even compete. But I agree that if they were to suddenly switch to Electron without a care it wouldn't turn out well, but likely have a better end user experience than their current reveals.
  - paulryanrogers 4y ago
    So SwiftUI for Windows?
    - waboremo 4y ago
      Would be very interesting!
    - kalleboo 4y ago
      For QuickTime for Windows they ported a portion of the Classic Mac Toolbox to Windows to make it work. For Safari Windows they ported a portion of Cocoa. Having an internal Windows version of SwiftUI would not be unthinkable!
  - lmm 4y ago
    > Apple supported iTunes and Safari which were great options on Windows. Not just "I'm already an Apple fan so I have to use it", but actively deciding to use them. No they weren't. They were notoriously awful. Apple resorted to bundling Safari with QuickTime to try to get you to use it but everyone still hated it.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - emsixteen 4y ago
      Nonsense, iTunes was great and got stick just for being iTunes. 300GB library around that time with no issue at all. Smart Playlists made all other players obsolete for me.
steve1977 4y ago
Apple had (has?) Cocoa ported on Windows actually, so whatever they could so on macOS, they could do on Windows as well. Cocoa as such is cross-platform.
- mattl 4y ago
  It was a product briefly. OPENSTEP Enterprise. There was talk of selling licenses to distribute but that never happened
- marvel_boy 4y ago
  Any link to the port of Cooca to Windows?
  - PlutoIsAPlanet 4y ago
    Looking at the Apple Music app for Windows quickly, it does appear Apple has done some porting of their APIs to Windows. https://i.imgur.com/tdr6XTO.png https://i.imgur.com/tdr6XTO.png
    - simongray 4y ago
      https://forum.winworldpc.com/uploads/editor/82/fnzv4nyssemk.jpg https://forum.winworldpc.com/uploads/editor/82/fnzv4nyssemk....
  - steve1977 4y ago
    Apart from the already mentioned OPENSTEP for Enterprise, see also here: https://www.stone.com/dev/StonesThrow2/OneFoxTwoFox.html https://www.stone.com/dev/StonesThrow2/OneFoxTwoFox.html Basically, it was called Yellowbox, but it didn’t officially survive the release of Mac OS X IIRC. But Apple was at least still using parts of it for some Windows ports back then I believe.
Karellen 4y ago
> Apple Passwords on Windows is a good example [...] the experience is entirely unlike what you get on Mac If you were a Windows user, why would you want an app that acts like a Mac app? Surely the benefit of having a dedicated Windows app is that the experience should be like other Windows apps.
- waboremo 4y ago
  You're not really thinking about it as a "mac app", but rather "the service". You expect it to act like the service you use on other platforms with all the features you rely on. If I'm using Spotify, I don't think "oh this doesn't use windows navigation component from winUI", I immediately know where the genre categories are because I've already used it on android or linux and expect it to be there. I know exactly how to add a song to my library, to shift around playlists, to manage folders, everything is as I learned it on [other platform]. Design development becomes this duplicated burden where every feature now has to go through the ringer twice (or more) to fit native components for their respective platforms. When you hit limitations on those native components, you're now having to make the decision to either hold back the feature entirely, or create fragile workarounds. In an alternate timeline native components would have had far greater appeal, where people actually hate and boycott apps designed otherwise. But we don't. Even on iOS or mac, people regularly rely on apps that only vaguely interpret their native components. The situation is even worse on windows past 7, where the idea of a "windows app" is so jumbled there is nothing to "expect" from the experience - which is actually part of why I think these unified app designs have really taken off.
  - oneeyedpigeon 4y ago
    > If I'm using Spotify, I don't think "oh this doesn't use windows navigation component from winUI" We're either very different people or we have different use cases :) It immediately feels jarring to me to be using macOS and suddenly presented with a non-native UI. But I only ever use macOS on the desktop, so I don't have this cross-platform issue. What I find strange is, I would have thought that was the 99% common case — it seems strange to me to optimise for individuals using multiple OSes rather than multiple apps on one OS. > Design development becomes this duplicated burden That sounds like an OS flaw if true. Of course, I accept that some design will be necessary, even with the finest SDKs available to humanity, but it should be so burdensome that going non-native is seen as the solution. > Even on iOS or mac, people regularly rely on apps that only vaguely interpret their native components. You're totally right. Every now and again, I say to myself "I really must use Safari for the 'more native' experience", but I always come running straight back to Chrome again. > The situation is even worse on windows This was one of the things I liked best about macOS when I first migrated — everything was so consistent, things didn't visually clash, etc. I still get the impression it's better on macOS, but heck, it's definitely not as good as it used to be.

porcoda 4y ago

This has been the story of Apple apps outside MacOS forever: they appear to always do the absolute minimum to claim support, and you end up with a super clunky windows app that is terrible. I doubt they’d do much better using electron: I think their development model is that if it isn’t on one of their platforms, they pump out a minimum-effort, low quality app. I’d guess that electron ones would be just as clunky, except with a significantly higher memory and CPU footprint.

waboremo 4y ago
That hasn't really been true. Apple supported iTunes and Safari which were great options on Windows. Not just "I'm already an Apple fan so I have to use it", but actively deciding to use them. The root of the problem for Apple is that they cannot get away with doing what they used to in the past, they already have a plethora of platforms within their own umbrella to support, adding Windows native to the mix seems to result in maybe a handful of developers taking on enormous burdens by trying to catch up to their expected Mac apps. If Apple were to seriously put its weight behind a cross-platform toolkit, this might change, especially as they want their services to grow. It's the very reason why their main service competitors can even compete. But I agree that if they were to suddenly switch to Electron without a care it wouldn't turn out well, but likely have a better end user experience than their current reveals.
- paulryanrogers 4y ago
  So SwiftUI for Windows?
  - waboremo 4y ago
    Would be very interesting!
  - kalleboo 4y ago
    For QuickTime for Windows they ported a portion of the Classic Mac Toolbox to Windows to make it work. For Safari Windows they ported a portion of Cocoa. Having an internal Windows version of SwiftUI would not be unthinkable!
- lmm 4y ago
  > Apple supported iTunes and Safari which were great options on Windows. Not just "I'm already an Apple fan so I have to use it", but actively deciding to use them. No they weren't. They were notoriously awful. Apple resorted to bundling Safari with QuickTime to try to get you to use it but everyone still hated it.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - emsixteen 4y ago
    Nonsense, iTunes was great and got stick just for being iTunes. 300GB library around that time with no issue at all. Smart Playlists made all other players obsolete for me.

steve1977 4y ago

Apple had (has?) Cocoa ported on Windows actually, so whatever they could so on macOS, they could do on Windows as well. Cocoa as such is cross-platform.

mattl 4y ago
It was a product briefly. OPENSTEP Enterprise. There was talk of selling licenses to distribute but that never happened
marvel_boy 4y ago
Any link to the port of Cooca to Windows?
- PlutoIsAPlanet 4y ago
  Looking at the Apple Music app for Windows quickly, it does appear Apple has done some porting of their APIs to Windows. https://i.imgur.com/tdr6XTO.png https://i.imgur.com/tdr6XTO.png
  - simongray 4y ago
    https://forum.winworldpc.com/uploads/editor/82/fnzv4nyssemk.jpg https://forum.winworldpc.com/uploads/editor/82/fnzv4nyssemk....
- steve1977 4y ago
  Apart from the already mentioned OPENSTEP for Enterprise, see also here: https://www.stone.com/dev/StonesThrow2/OneFoxTwoFox.html https://www.stone.com/dev/StonesThrow2/OneFoxTwoFox.html Basically, it was called Yellowbox, but it didn’t officially survive the release of Mac OS X IIRC. But Apple was at least still using parts of it for some Windows ports back then I believe.

Karellen 4y ago

> Apple Passwords on Windows is a good example [...] the experience is entirely unlike what you get on Mac If you were a Windows user, why would you want an app that acts like a Mac app? Surely the benefit of having a dedicated Windows app is that the experience should be like other Windows apps.

waboremo 4y ago
You're not really thinking about it as a "mac app", but rather "the service". You expect it to act like the service you use on other platforms with all the features you rely on. If I'm using Spotify, I don't think "oh this doesn't use windows navigation component from winUI", I immediately know where the genre categories are because I've already used it on android or linux and expect it to be there. I know exactly how to add a song to my library, to shift around playlists, to manage folders, everything is as I learned it on [other platform]. Design development becomes this duplicated burden where every feature now has to go through the ringer twice (or more) to fit native components for their respective platforms. When you hit limitations on those native components, you're now having to make the decision to either hold back the feature entirely, or create fragile workarounds. In an alternate timeline native components would have had far greater appeal, where people actually hate and boycott apps designed otherwise. But we don't. Even on iOS or mac, people regularly rely on apps that only vaguely interpret their native components. The situation is even worse on windows past 7, where the idea of a "windows app" is so jumbled there is nothing to "expect" from the experience - which is actually part of why I think these unified app designs have really taken off.
- oneeyedpigeon 4y ago
  > If I'm using Spotify, I don't think "oh this doesn't use windows navigation component from winUI" We're either very different people or we have different use cases :) It immediately feels jarring to me to be using macOS and suddenly presented with a non-native UI. But I only ever use macOS on the desktop, so I don't have this cross-platform issue. What I find strange is, I would have thought that was the 99% common case — it seems strange to me to optimise for individuals using multiple OSes rather than multiple apps on one OS. > Design development becomes this duplicated burden That sounds like an OS flaw if true. Of course, I accept that some design will be necessary, even with the finest SDKs available to humanity, but it should be so burdensome that going non-native is seen as the solution. > Even on iOS or mac, people regularly rely on apps that only vaguely interpret their native components. You're totally right. Every now and again, I say to myself "I really must use Safari for the 'more native' experience", but I always come running straight back to Chrome again. > The situation is even worse on windows This was one of the things I liked best about macOS when I first migrated — everything was so consistent, things didn't visually clash, etc. I still get the impression it's better on macOS, but heck, it's definitely not as good as it used to be.