Facebook, Google, other major developers decline to offer native Apple silicon apps at lau...

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 38
    There are many reports of Microsoft supporting Apple Silicon from 'Day One'.

    Here's a link.   https://www.computerworld.com/article/3588102/microsoft-gets-ready-for-apple-silicon-macs.html

    cy_starkmanwilliamlondonwatto_cobraronn
  • Reply 22 of 38
    no one cares or is even expecting these things.

    some might if for some reason existing Mac Google Chrome or Mac Google Earth stop working even via Rosetta 2

    and the chances of that are, well, the only real chance for that is if Google or Apple decide to intentionally asshole the other by actively preventing them from working.

    that is possible but not very likely. Google is hardly going to give up a vector for raping its users. and Apple is going to want to show “everything still works”.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 23 of 38
    The last time I checked, Mac Office for MacOS did not support Visual Basic. Has that changed? That's why I never used Mac Office.
    Just for your information, Office for Mac does now have the ability to execute a limited subset of the VBA for Office capabilities and has done for a couple of years. Complex macro code still won't execute properly or will error out, but it is quite capable for UI and data transformation purposes.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 24 of 38
    Naiyas said:
    The last time I checked, Mac Office for MacOS did not support Visual Basic. Has that changed? That's why I never used Mac Office.
    Just for your information, Office for Mac does now have the ability to execute a limited subset of the VBA for Office capabilities and has done for a couple of years. Complex macro code still won't execute properly or will error out, but it is quite capable for UI and data transformation purposes.
    That's extremely helpful. I had no idea. I'll investigate. Thanks.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 25 of 38
    Pascalxx said:
    I don’t understand the merit of having native apps for many of these when they run just as well in a browser, especially the streaming services and the Google apps.
     But how can we live without Candy Crush!

    Talk about clickbait. :-) 
    watto_cobraronn
  • Reply 26 of 38
    Pascalxx said:
    I don’t understand the merit of having native apps for many of these when they run just as well in a browser, especially the streaming services and the Google apps.
     But how can we live without Candy Crush?!

    Talk about clickbait. :-) 
    williamlondon
  • Reply 27 of 38
    rob53 said:
    Maybe the future of all apps is through a browser, especially if HTML starts supporting app-like user interfaces. And since streaming apps already exist, then maybe that's our window to the future of desktop apps, not just games. That may be the approach for big companies that dislike Apple's App Store interface. I suspect Google and Facebook are discussing whether they can bypass the App Store by using streaming for all their apps for Apple Silicon. Just a guess.
    Disagree. I’d rather have local apps that have been security tested than having to rely on the browser to protect everything. I don’t trust websites and don’t trust running their apps. Already seen abuse on medical and commercial sites that just don’t want to run on Mac browsers. 
    The "abuse" you see in browsers is often also in apps, just hidden from your eyes, and enough part of the functionality of the app that it easily passes through the security tests.
    williamlondonronn
  • Reply 28 of 38

    genovelle said:
    Maybe the future of all apps is through a browser, especially if HTML starts supporting app-like user interfaces. And since streaming apps already exist, then maybe that's our window to the future of desktop apps, not just games. That may be the approach for big companies that dislike Apple's App Store interface. I suspect Google and Facebook are discussing whether they can bypass the App Store by using streaming for all their apps for Apple Silicon. Just a guess.
    Ironic since that was how Apple originally offered Apps for IOS and developers complained. Apple changed course and develop deep APIs giving them deep access to many of the technology Apple uses to build their apps. Browsers don’t have that. Apple also spent billions in marketing to make it viable. Their loss will be the gain of smaller developers to shine. 
    Browsers could have that; in fact, Safari is lagging when it comes to implementing it.

    So… yeah… at this stage Apple is the main bad guy as far as keeping us from getting proper webapps.
    williamlondon
  • Reply 29 of 38
    Pascalxx said:
    I don’t understand the merit of having native apps for many of these when they run just as well in a browser, especially the streaming services and the Google apps.
    Came here to say exactly that.

    I mean, you get everything you need from the web versions, why bother prioritizing an app.  One that's probably just going to wrap a web browser anyway, from what I've seen.
    edited November 2020 ronn
  • Reply 30 of 38
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 6,957member
    Well I think that … nope, can’t even muster the  f**ks to finish this comment. 

    If Facebook vanished tomorrow, the human race would immediately evolve into the ‘Q’. 
    qwerty52
  • Reply 31 of 38
    a hawkins said:
    Pascalxx said:
    I don’t understand the merit of having native apps for many of these when they run just as well in a browser, especially the streaming services and the Google apps.
    Me too. We’re now saturated with apps. Can’t see any reason why we want a Facebook or Twitter app on Mac. (Unless they offer pro functionality like TweetDeck.)
    They're a helluva lot smaller memory footprint, have more functionality and are secure.
  • Reply 32 of 38
    How can this article talk about "Google apps" and not mention their most important and widely used app (by far)?  In other words, what about Chrome?  It's not listed among the non-ported apps, so does that mean a native version of Chrome will be available?

    Having said this, I don't use any of the apps listed in this article (nor do I generally use Chrome), so these "apps from major developers" aren't that important.  In fact, Facebook and Google (with the exception of Chrome) aren't really major Mac developers.  They are web platforms.
  • Reply 33 of 38
    crowleycrowley Posts: 9,113member
    Was anyone really expecting them to?  Intel Macs have baely any apps by those developers, Facebook and Google prefer to deliver via the web for the wider audience, and  as users of desktop systems aren't so insistent on apps foor everything.

    Not a problem.
  • Reply 34 of 38
    Back to the old “strangle it in the cradle” tactics? Good luck with that. CVS lost my business forever by refusing to take ApplePay in favor of their own now defunct competitor. Their loss was RiteAid’s gain. 
    headfull0wine
  • Reply 35 of 38
    Very good news! In this case I will for sure bye an AppleSilicon Mac!
  • Reply 36 of 38
    Perhaps that's because Apple "sold" us a Mac mini for $500 that we have to send back and did not provide any system software updates for the first two months when pretty much nothing worked. Just saying.
  • Reply 37 of 38
    BeatsBeats Posts: 2,642member
    Jealousy from the iKnockoff maker and his sidekick spy Zuckerberg.

    omasou said:
    Will anyone notice the absence of these apps?

    Most are probably used on iOS and iPadOS or in a browser. “I” didn’t even know most of them existed on macOS.

    The companies are probably waiting to see if anyone uses their existing apps through Rosetta2 and even then they may just say here use the iOS version instead.

    These apps are for Apple Silicon so they don't exist.
  • Reply 38 of 38
    I blame the article for not doing a good job of making this clear, but most the commenters in here don't understand what is being discussed.

    Apple Silicon by default will enable iPad and iPhone apps to be ran on Big Sur. Developers can manually go into their dev account and disable this. The article is saying that Facebook, Google, Snapchat, etc have manually disabled this capability.

    This isn't at all about building new apps or targeting Apple Silicon specifically, just that these developers have opted out of having their apps be available on the Mac platform. Apps like SnapChat that doesn't really shock me. I'm sure FB has far better privacy invasion via he browser than it does via iOS, so they don't want people using that version. Candy Crush likely wants to optimize their interface for macOS before they get a ton of user complaints about it not being right or having bugs.
    edited November 2020
Sign In or Register to comment.