iOS apps on macOS would bring hope for Apple Watch, Apple Health support on Mac
With Apple rumored to bring support for universal apps in iOS 12 and macOS 10.14, the move could also be good news for the Apple Watch, potentially untethering it from the iPhone for both setup and sync.
As an emerging and limited platform, the Apple Watch currently requires a connected and paired iPhone to set up. In addition, health data is also synced through the Apple Health app, which is exclusive to iPhone.
Notably, both the Watch and Health apps are not available on the iPad, nor are they available on macOS. This despite the fact that improvements in watchOS, as well as the addition of LTE connectivity in Series 3 hardware, have allowed the Apple Watch to become more independent from the iPhone.
This week, a new rumor has alleged that Apple will let iOS apps run on the Mac starting with software updates next year. The major change to Apple's systems is said to be known internally as project "Marzipan."
It's easy to see where this could be advantageous for both developers and users. Popular third-party apps will be available to access on the Mac, while presumably new tools will make it easier than ever for developers to port their software to macOS.
But the possibility of iOS apps on the Mac also highlights the areas where continuity between Apple's platforms are lacking, and apps from Apple itself are missing.
Most native apps on an iPhone have equivalent apps on Mac -- Safari, Mail, Notes and Calendar all have mobile and desktop versions. With iOS 11 and the new Files app for iOS, the lines between macOS and iOS have been further blurred.
But the lack of Apple Watch connectivity and support on both Mac and iPad remains an obvious area where Apple's platforms could grow and get better, together.
The addition of LTE connectivity on an Apple Watch gives it more independence from the iPhone, allowing data on the go. Battery constraints prevent it from being a full-fledged, all-day iPhone replacement, but Wi-Fi is abundantly available, and using that instead of LTE allows for much longer uptime with Apple Watch hardware.
Not to mention, sometimes managing apps or viewing data is easier or more convenient on a larger screen. It's easy to see why an Apple Health app for Mac would be preferable to some users, especially those who want to dive deep into the tracking data captured by an Apple Watch or other connected health accessories.
There is also the possibility of enticing new Apple Watch customers who may not be iPhone users. By allowing an Apple Watch to be set up and synced with a Mac instead of an iPhone, Apple's wearable device could potentially expand its reach and attract new users.
Ditching the iPhone entirely might be a stretch, especially considering the fact that notifications on the wrist, via integration with iOS, are a key selling point of the Apple Watch. But regardless, Apple Watch syncing and Health data viewing on a Mac would open the wearable device to new and exciting possibilities, especially as the hardware and battery life continue to improve.
It's a small but significant way that allowing iOS apps on macOS could be a game changer for both platforms, well beyond just letting you play Clash of Clans on your Mac.
As an emerging and limited platform, the Apple Watch currently requires a connected and paired iPhone to set up. In addition, health data is also synced through the Apple Health app, which is exclusive to iPhone.
Notably, both the Watch and Health apps are not available on the iPad, nor are they available on macOS. This despite the fact that improvements in watchOS, as well as the addition of LTE connectivity in Series 3 hardware, have allowed the Apple Watch to become more independent from the iPhone.
This week, a new rumor has alleged that Apple will let iOS apps run on the Mac starting with software updates next year. The major change to Apple's systems is said to be known internally as project "Marzipan."
It's easy to see where this could be advantageous for both developers and users. Popular third-party apps will be available to access on the Mac, while presumably new tools will make it easier than ever for developers to port their software to macOS.
But the possibility of iOS apps on the Mac also highlights the areas where continuity between Apple's platforms are lacking, and apps from Apple itself are missing.
Most native apps on an iPhone have equivalent apps on Mac -- Safari, Mail, Notes and Calendar all have mobile and desktop versions. With iOS 11 and the new Files app for iOS, the lines between macOS and iOS have been further blurred.
But the lack of Apple Watch connectivity and support on both Mac and iPad remains an obvious area where Apple's platforms could grow and get better, together.
The addition of LTE connectivity on an Apple Watch gives it more independence from the iPhone, allowing data on the go. Battery constraints prevent it from being a full-fledged, all-day iPhone replacement, but Wi-Fi is abundantly available, and using that instead of LTE allows for much longer uptime with Apple Watch hardware.
Not to mention, sometimes managing apps or viewing data is easier or more convenient on a larger screen. It's easy to see why an Apple Health app for Mac would be preferable to some users, especially those who want to dive deep into the tracking data captured by an Apple Watch or other connected health accessories.
There is also the possibility of enticing new Apple Watch customers who may not be iPhone users. By allowing an Apple Watch to be set up and synced with a Mac instead of an iPhone, Apple's wearable device could potentially expand its reach and attract new users.
Ditching the iPhone entirely might be a stretch, especially considering the fact that notifications on the wrist, via integration with iOS, are a key selling point of the Apple Watch. But regardless, Apple Watch syncing and Health data viewing on a Mac would open the wearable device to new and exciting possibilities, especially as the hardware and battery life continue to improve.
It's a small but significant way that allowing iOS apps on macOS could be a game changer for both platforms, well beyond just letting you play Clash of Clans on your Mac.
Comments
It it has to do with different views (screens) but running the same models (business objects) and class libraries (functions) for easier reuse of your existing code. But the frontends are very different.
I very much doubt we’re going to be running windowed iOS apps on the Mac as suggested.
Yup, AI got it wrong In the original, and got quite upset when I pointed it out.
As you say, this is not running iOS apps on the Mac, which would be a usability nightmare. They’ve aligned the UI frameworks so that it’s much easier for developers to share code between the platforms. It’s also possible that they’re working on a responsive UI, so that it automatically adjusts itself depending on the device it’s running on.
But no, they’re not going to be running iOS apps on the Mac. Not really their style.
I’ve been waiting for Apple to allow that data to be synced back to a new iPhone or restored iPhone without performing a complete restore. Some issues require a reinstall of iOS and not a restore from backup. In that case any Health data gets lost. That kinda sucks, for me.
Mid be happy even if it didn’t sync with my Mac but could be restored separately.
The limited size and capabilities of the Apple Watch mean it’s likely that a parent device will remain necessary. I just don’t think the iPhone needs to be the only potential parent device, particularly in Apple’s ecosystem.
https://www.apple.com/watch/cellular/
So the dream of totally untethered Apple Watch should wait a few years more to become a reality, until all carriers worldwide adopt the LTE Apple Watch.
Besides, even if people may well replace their iPhones with their LTE Apple Watch thanks to AirPods, I think more than 99% of iPhone users will continue to carry their iPhones, because the iPhone is primarily a computing device, not a telephone.
And as long as people carry their iPhones along with their LTE Apple Watch, untethering the two makes no sense.
Running iphone on iPad isn’t the same as either on Mac, because input interface affects app design. Of course Apple won't do this with its own iOS apps, but I don’t think XCode will even give you a way to simply port your iOS views (apps) for the Mac target. You will create a macOS desktop project, which will share your common assets.
AI’s headline about ‘running iOS apps on Mac’ is one opinion, but I suspect it won’t be what we see. It will be more like what MR’s headline of this story is:
“Apple Plans to Let Developers Release Universal Apps That Work Across iPhone, iPad, and Mac”
https://www.macrumors.com/2017/12/20/apple-plans-universal-ios-mac-apps/...(argh this text editor won’t let me resize that headline text). The difference may seem subtle but it’s completely different.
Bloomberg's original report suggested that Twitter users, specifically, could be a beneficiary, because the official Twitter client for macOS is updated so infrequently when compared to the iOS app. Interesting to note that the Twitter app for Mac has an almost iPhone-like vertical interface. Might give us an idea of what a hastily-ported-to-macOS app might look like in our brave, new world (if the rumor is even true).
I have heard some interesting use cases over the last few years from readers who want to buy an Apple Watch but can't. One person who reached out was a bit older and he didn't have his own smartphone — he shared with his wife. But because the watch requires an iPhone, and because only one active watch can be paired at a time, he and his wife essentially had to draw straws to find out who would get the watch. She ended up with a watch and he wore a fitbit.
Obviously that story is a highly specific use case, but the point is I think there are a number of reasons to make the Apple Watch connect with the Mac and iPad in meaningful ways (that go well beyond just unlocking your Mac). I think it would be nice, for example, to have notifications from macOS apps appear on the watch. Prior to adding LTE support, managing synced music on the watch was a nightmare — I would have preferred to have done it on my Mac.
Which way Apple Watch can provide the most functionality? a) Thinking of it as an extension to Mac or b) thinking of it as an extension to iPhone? Or c) Thinking of it as a totally standalone device?
It is easy to answer c: when you think of it as “c” you just get a Fitbit, nothing more, despite the availability of LTE.
For a and b, let’s go by examples for now: in Health and Fitness, thinking of it as an extension to Mac doesn’t make sense, because the Mac is not a source for health and fitness data. In contrast the iPhone is a source for health and fitness data thanks to accessories and the iPhone’s own input. So, aggregating the health and fitness data on the iPhone makes more sense than aggregating on the Mac.
The same thinking can be generalized to other domains, such as playback, directions, events, notifications... As a whole, integrating it with the iPhone provides more functionality to the Watch than integrating it with the Mac.
What if watch management could be done via a browser on any device, and was controlled via the cloud? That would be an alternative solution for more complex setup and sync activities that can’t be done on a tiny screen (activities like adding apps, adding Apple Pay cards, viewing health data, entering account passwords, etc.). I don’t think Apple would go this route (I think a native Mac app is a better option), but it’s interesting to think about.
The other way was the easiest, less functionality but more market share with platform agnosticism. As many clones have already proven, such a watch cannot survive against the pressure from traditional watchmakers. You can put one and only one watch in that spot on the wrist. Not two, not along with a fitness tracker or any other gadget. And that one watch must provide the most functionality to replace traditional watches. Their iPhone arsenal came to the rescue and they succeeded...
Frankly, I think for people who really want a well designed smart watch, don’t care about phone notifications and just want a quality fitness tracker/timepiece, optional iPhone independence would be nice.
Definitely agree with everything else you said though. Being tightly integrated into the iPhone platform is the key to initial watch success. My question is, where does it go from here? And how?