Posts tagged with "developer tools"

Whisky Shuts Down Project That Enabled Windows Gaming on Mac→

Not long ago, Isaac Marovitz, the developer behind Whisky, the open source WINE front-end that made it easy to play Windows games on a Mac, announced the project had come to an end. Whisky is how Niléane got Cities: Skylines 2 running on an M2 MacBook Air in 2023, and the project was well-regarded in the gaming community for its ease of use. In shutting down the project, Marovitz encouraged Whisky users to move to CrossOver, a paid app by CodeWeavers.

In an interview with Ars Technica’s Kevin Purdy, Marovitz said:

“I am 18, yes, and attending Northeastern University, so it’s always a balancing act between my school work and dev work,” Isaac Marovitz wrote to Ars. The Whisky project has “been more or less in this state for a few months, I posted the notice mostly to clarify and formally announce it,” Marovitz said, having received “a lot of questions” about the project status.

As Purdy explained for Ars Technica, Marovitz also became concerned that his free project threatened CrossOver, and by extension, WINE itself. Last week, CodeWeavers’ CEO wrote about the shutdown, to acknowledge Marovitz’s work and commend his desire to protect the WINE project.

It’s always a shame to see a project as popular and polished as Whisky discontinued. Some gamers may not like that CrossOver is a paid product, but I’m glad that there’s an alternative for those who want it.

To me though, the popularity and fragility of projects like Whisky highlight that a better solution would be for Apple to open its Game Porting Toolkit to users. The Game Porting Toolkit is built on CrossOver’s open source code. However, unlike the CrossOver app sold to gamers, Apple’s Game Porting Toolkit is meant for developers who want to move a game from Windows to Mac. It’s not impossible for gamers to use, but it’s not easy either. I’m not the first to suggest this, and Valve has demonstrated both the technical and commercial viability of such an approach with Proton, but as WWDC approaches, a user-facing Game Porting Toolkit is near the top of my macOS 16 wish list.

Permalink

Is Electron Really That Bad?→

I’ve been thinking about this video by Theo Browne for the past few days, especially in the aftermath of my story about working on the iPad and realizing its best apps are actually web apps.

I think Theo did a great job contextualizing the history of Electron and how we got to this point where the majority of desktop apps are built with it. There are two sections of the video that stood out to me and I want to highlight here. First, this observation – which I strongly agree with – regarding the desktop apps we ended up having thanks to Electron and why we often consider them “buggy”:

There wouldn’t be a ChatGPT desktop app if we didn’t have something like Electron. There wouldn’t be a good Spotify player if we didn’t have something like Electron. There wouldn’t be all of these awesome things we use every day. All these apps… Notion could never have existed without Electron. VS Code and now Cursor could never have existed without Electron. Discord absolutely could never have existed without Electron.

All of these apps are able to exist and be multi-platform and ship and theoretically build greater and greater software as a result of using this technology. That has resulted in some painful side effects, like the companies growing way faster than expected because they can be adopted so easily. So they hire a bunch of engineers who don’t know what they’re doing, and the software falls apart. But if they had somehow magically found a way to do that natively, it would have happened the same exact way.

This has nothing to do with Electron causing the software to be bad and everything to do with the software being so successful that the companies hire too aggressively and then kill their own software in the process.

The second section of the video I want to call out is the part where Theo links to an old thread from the developer of BoltAI, a native SwiftUI app for Mac that went through multiple updates – and a lot of work on the developer’s part – to ensure the app wouldn’t hit 100% CPU usage when simply loading a conversation with ChatGPT. As documented in the thread from late 2023, this is a common issue for the majority of AI clients built with SwiftUI, which is often less efficient than Electron when it comes to rendering real-time chat messages. Ironic.

Theo argues:

You guys need to understand something. You are not better at rendering text than the Chromium team is. These people have spent decades making the world’s fastest method for rendering documents across platforms because the goal was to make Chrome as fast as possible regardless of what machine you’re using it on. Electron is cool because we can build on top of all of the efforts that they put in to make Electron and specifically to make Chromium as effective as it is. The results are effective.

The fact that you can swap out the native layer with SwiftUI with even just a web view, which is like Electron but worse, and the performance is this much better, is hilarious. Also notice there’s a couple more Electron apps he has open here, including Spotify, which is only using less than 3% of his CPU. Electron apps don’t have to be slow. In fact, a lot of the time, a well-written Electron app is actually going to perform better than an equivalently well-written native app because you don’t get to build rendering as effectively as Google does.

Even if you think you made up your mind about Electron years ago, I suggest watching the entire video and considering whether this crusade against more accessible, more frequently updated (and often more performant) desktop software still makes sense in 2025.

Permalink

App Store Vibes→

Bryan Irace has an interesting take on the new generation of developer tools that have lowered the barrier to entry for new developers (and sometimes not even developers) when it comes to creating apps:

Recent criticism of Apple’s AI efforts has been juicy to say the least, but this shouldn’t distract us from continuing to criticize one of Apple’s most deserving targets: App Review. Especially now that there’s a perfectly good AI lens through which to do so.

It’s one thing for Apple’s AI product offerings to be non-competitive. Perhaps even worse is that as Apple stands still, software development is moving forward faster than ever before. Like it or not, LLMs—both through general chat interfaces and purpose-built developer tools—have meaningfully increased the rate at which new software can be produced. And they’ve done so both by making skilled developers more productive while also lowering the bar for less-experienced participants.

And:

I recently built a small iOS app for myself. I can install it on my phone directly from Xcode but it expires after seven days because I’m using a free Apple Developer account. I’m not trying to avoid paying Apple, but there’s enough friction involved in switching to a paid account that I simply haven’t been bothered. And I used to wrangle provisioning profiles for a living! I can’t imagine that I’m alone here, or that others with less tribal iOS development knowledge are going to have a higher tolerance for this. A friend asked me to send the app to them but that’d involve creating a TestFlight group, submitting a build to Apple, waiting for them to approve it, etc. Compare this to simply pushing to Cloudflare or Netlify and automatically having a URL you can send to a friend or share via Twitter. Or using tools like v0 or Replit, where hosting/distribution are already baked in.

Again, this isn’t new—but being able to build this much software this fast is new. App distribution friction has stayed constant while friction in all other stages of software development has largely evaporated. It’s the difference between inconvenient and untenable.

Perhaps “vibe coding” is the extreme version of this concept, but I think there’s something here. Creating small, low-stakes apps for personal projects or that you want to share with a small group of people is, objectively, getting easier. After reading Bryan’s post – which rightfully focuses on the distribution side of apps – I’m also wondering: what happens when the first big service comes along and figures out a way to bypass the App Store altogether (perhaps via the web?) to allow “anyone” to create apps, completely cutting out Apple and its App Review from the process?

In a way, this reminds me of blogging. Those who wanted to have an online writing space 30 years ago had to know some of the basics of hosting and HTML if they wanted to publish something for other people to read. Then Blogger came along and allowed anyone – regardless of their skill level – to be read. What if the same happened to mobile software? Should Apple and Google be ready for this possibility within the next few years?

I could see Google spin up a “Build with Gemini” initiative to let anyone create Android apps without any coding knowledge. I’m also reminded of this old Vision Pro rumor that claimed Apple’s Vision team was exploring the idea of letting people create “apps” with Siri.

If only the person in charge of that team went anywhere, right?

Permalink

Where’s Swift Assist?→

Last June at WWDC, Apple announced Swift Assist, a way to generate Swift code using natural language prompts. However, as Tim Hardwick writes for MacRumors, Swift Assist hasn’t been heard from since then:

Unlike Apple Intelligence, Swift Assist never appeared in beta. Apple hasn’t announced that it’s been delayed or cancelled. The company has since released Xcode 16.3 beta 2, and as Michael Tsai points out, it’s not even mentioned in the release notes.

Meanwhile, developers have moved on, adopting services like Cursor, which does much of what was promised with Swift Assist, if not more. A similar tool built specifically for Swift projects and Apple’s APIs would be a great addition to Xcode, but it’s been nine months, and developers haven’t heard anything more about Swift Assist. Apple owes them an update.

Permalink

On Apple Offering an Abstraction Layer for AI on Its Platforms

Source: Apple.

Source: Apple.

I’ve been thinking about Apple’s position in AI a lot this week, and I keep coming back to this idea: if Apple is making the best consumer-grade computers for AI right now, but Apple Intelligence is failing third-party developers with a lack of AI-related APIs, should the company try something else to make it easier for developers to integrate AI into their apps?

Gus Mueller, creator of Acorn and Retrobatch, has been pondering similar thoughts:

A week or so ago I was grousing to some friends that Apple needs to open up things on the Mac so other LLMs can step in where Siri is failing. In theory we (developers) could do this today, but I would love to see a blessed system where Apple provided APIs to other LLM providers.

Are there security concerns? Yes, of course there are, there always will be. But I would like the choice.

The crux of the issue in my mind is this: Apple has a lot of good ideas, but they don’t have a monopoly on them. I would like some other folks to come in and try their ideas out. I would like things to advance at the pace of the industry, and not Apple’s. Maybe with a blessed system in place, Apple could watch and see how people use LLMs and other generative models (instead of giving us Genmoji that look like something Fisher-Price would make). And maybe open up the existing Apple-only models to developers. There are locally installed image processing models that I would love to take advantage of in my apps.

The idea is a fascinating one: if Apple Intelligence cannot compete with the likes of ChatGPT or Claude for the foreseeable future, but third-party developers are creating apps based on those APIs, is there a scenario in which Apple may regain control of the burgeoning AI app ecosystem by offering their own native bridge to those APIs?

Read more

The M3 Ultra Mac Studio for Local LLMs→

Speaking of the new Mac Studio and Apple making the best computers for AI: this is a terrific overview by Max Weinbach about the new M3 Ultra chip and its real-world performance with various on-device LLMs:

The Mac I’ve been using for the past few days is the Mac Studio with M3 Ultra SoC, 32-core CPU, 80-core GPU, 256GB Unified Memory (192GB usable for VRAM), and 4TB SSD. It’s the fastest computer I have. It is faster in my workflows for even AI than my gaming PC (which will be used for comparisons below; it has an Intel i9 13900K, RTX 5090, 64GB of DDR5, and a 2TB NVMe SSD).

It’s a very technical read, but the comparison between the M3 Ultra and a vanilla (non-optimized) RTX 5090 is mind-blogging to me. According to Weinbach, it all comes down to Apple’s MLX framework:

I’ll keep it brief; the LLM performance is essentially as good as you’ll get for the majority of models. You’ll be able to run better models faster with larger context windows on a Mac Studio or any Mac with Unified Memory than essentially any PC on the market. This is simply the inherent benefit of not only Apple Silicon but Apple’s MLX framework (the reason we can efficiently run the models without preloading KV Cache into memory, as well as generate tokens faster as context windows grow).

In case you’re not familiar, MLX is Apple’s open-source framework that – I’m simplifying – optimizes training and serving models on Apple Silicon’s unified memory architecture. It is a wonderful project with over 1,600 community models available for download.

As Weinbach concludes:

I see one of the best combos any developer can do as: M3 Ultra Mac Studio with an Nvidia 8xH100 rented rack. Hopper and Blackwell are outstanding for servers, M3 Ultra is outstanding for your desk. Different machines for a different use, while it’s fun to compare these for sport, that’s not the reality.⁠⁠

There really is no competition for an AI workstation today. The reality is, the only option is a Mac Studio.

Don’t miss the benchmarks in the story.

Permalink

App Store Connect Adds New Tools for Developers to Promote Their Apps

Source: Apple.

Source: Apple.

App Store Connect, the web app that developers use to submit their apps to Apple’s App Store and manage them, was updated yesterday with new tools developers can use to promote their apps.

Source: Apple.

Source: Apple.

Developers have been able to submit promotional requests to Apple for quite some time, but the new Featuring Nomination process is now baked right into App Store Connect. Developers can submit nominations from App Store Connect where they will be asked for information about their app. Nominations can be made for events such as a new app launch or adding in-app content and features. When an app is chosen by the App Store editorial team for a feature, developers will be notified in App Store Connect, too.

App Store Connect has also added the ability to generate promotional materials. The assets created can be used on social media and other platforms to promote app launches and other significant events.

These new App Store Connect tools promise to make promoting apps more convenient by including the Featuring Nomination process alongside other aspects of app submission. However, I expect it’s the ready-made promotional assets that are the more significant addition for smaller developers who may not have the budget or skills to create the materials themselves.

A Look at Code Completion and Swift Assist Coming in Xcode 16

Source: Apple.

Source: Apple.

Earlier today, I got the very first live demo of Swift Assist, one of the many developer tools introduced today by Apple. I also saw code completion in action. It was an impressive demo, and although the tools seem like magic and will undoubtedly be valuable to developers, they do have their limitations, which are worth exploring.

Code Completion in Action. Source: Apple.Replay

First, from what I could tell, code completion works extremely well. The demo I saw was of a simple restaurant app that displayed a menu. As an Apple representative typed variables and other items into Xcode, code completion named things in ways that made sense for a restaurant menu, such as Name, Price, and Calories. The feature also filled in types like strings, integers, and bools, along with the appropriate surrounding syntax.

In most cases, after typing just a handful of characters, the correct suggestion appeared and with a quick tap of the Tab key, the rest of the line of code was filled in. When the suggestion wasn’t what was wanted, a little additional typing steered the AI that backs code completion to the correct solution.

The model that drives code completion is trained specifically for the Swift programming language and Apple’s APIs. It runs locally on a developer’s Mac, enhancing privacy and ensuring that it’s available regardless of Internet connectivity. Although Apple was vague about the code on which the model was trained, it was clear from my briefing that it wasn’t on Apple’s own internal code, but Apple said it is code that it is authorized to use. I was also told that the model isn’t trained on the code of the developers that use the feature. Also worth noting is that Apple’s code completion model is continually updated independent of the update release cycle of Xcode itself.

Read more

Apple Highlights Its 2023 Developer Programs

Every year, Apple recaps the programs and other services it has launched for developers. Ever since I started covering Apple, there’s been a certain amount of tension between it and its developers. This year, that strain is running higher than I’ve ever seen, at least among the solo and small developer teams we typically cover.

However, it can simultaneously be true that Apple provides valuable resources for developers that are constantly changing. In a press release today, Apple highlights the following developer programs from 2023:

This year, Apple has also updated the Apple Developer Forums in advance of WWDC and rolled out Pathways, a collection of videos, documentation, and other resources focused on core topics like Design, Swift, SwiftUI, Games, visionOS, and App Store distribution.

There are a lot of great resources here. Far more than when I was learning to code around 2015. I’m particularly intrigued by Pathways, which looks as though it does an excellent job of pulling together materials that would otherwise require developers to consult multiple sources.