Netflix confirms it won’t port its iPad app to macOS

[Arlen _G_ Holder]

Dateline: October 8, 2019

o Netflix confirms it won¢t port its iPad app to macOS
<https://www.theverge.com/2019/10/8/20904603/netflix-ipad-app-macos-catalyst-catalina-apple-port-streaming-download>
"Ever since Apple first announced that it would let developers port iPad
apps to macOS, anticipation for popular apps debuting on the Mac has been
high. But today, any hopes that Netflix would show up on the Mac as a
native app were crushed, with Bloomberg reporting that the streaming
service won¢t be launching a Catalyst app for macOS."

This is the Bloomburg site TheVerge cites as their factual reference:

o Apple¢s Merged iPad, Mac Apps Leave Developers Uneasy, Users Paying Twice
"[Apple] now lets iPad apps run on Mac computers, but developers say
it¢s more work than expected."
<https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-10-08/apple-s-merged-ipad-mac-apps-leave-developers-uneasy-users-paying-twice>

Here's a factual summary quote from TheVerge:
"Netflix is one of the most popular free iPad apps on the entire
platform. And while it¢s true that it¢s already available on Mac computers
through any web browser, there are advantages to a native app that a ported
iPad version could bring, including downloadable movies and TV shows to
enjoy offline or full integration for Apple¢s picture-in-picture mode."

Where the overall trend is summarized by TheVerge, as:
"It¢s the latest blow for Apple¢s Catalyst app initiative, which appears
to be off to a slow start, despite the fact that Catalina is now publicly
available. As Bloomberg points out, at Catalina¢s launch on October 7th,
there were roughly 20 ported iPad apps available on the Mac App Store.
That¢s not exactly the revolution Apple likely hoped for. DC Universe and
Asphalt 9, two of the biggest Catalyst apps that Apple showcased, missed
the launch and have been removed from Apple¢s Catalina website."

--
Bringing TRUTH to the Apple newsgroups... one fact at a time.

[Alan Baker]

Wow...

...who cares?

You DO understand that I'm asking "Who cares about whether Netflix
chooses to port their app or not?", and NOT "Who cares about facts?", right?

And you DO understand that the underlying source for this is Bloomberg
and that their reputation for getting the facts right is less than
stellar...

...right?

[JF Mezei]

On 2019-10-08 15:05, Arlen _G_ Holder wrote:

> native app were crushed, with Bloomberg reporting that the streaming
> service won¢t be launching a Catalyst app for macOS."

For video apps, especially if Netflix plans to go X265, you probably
want to be native instead of "emulated".

Also, I think there is the issue of DRM on a Mac. To me, Netflix was not
usabel on the web because some screens are DVI, so even if the browser
window was on an HDMI connected TV screen (with with the stupid hardware
DRM), Netflix would refuse to play content on my mac.

It is a shame that they won't have native app because getting it with
proper sound 5.1 and above is the big advantage versus playing it within
a browser where sounds is downgraded to stereo.

[nospam]

In article <X%5nF.88477$Sj1....@fx33.iad>, JF Mezei

<jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:

>
> > native app were crushed, with Bloomberg reporting that the streaming

> > service won┤ be launching a Catalyst app for macOS."

>
>
> For video apps, especially if Netflix plans to go X265, you probably
> want to be native instead of "emulated".

catalyst is not 'emulated'.

[JF Mezei]

On 2019-10-08 16:15, nospam wrote:

> catalyst is not 'emulated'.

It may be compile for 8086 instead of ARM, and this not "emulated", but
that doesn't mean it is optimized to run on OS-X/8086. Optimization may
come later.

One would expect Catalyst to convert the IOS calls made by the app into
IOS-X native calls, so there would be an extra layer between app and
hardware. For the average app, this is transparent, but how does it
perform for high performance apps such as 4K H.265 video or fancy 3D
games? Can it translate IOS heavy graphics to the "Metal" APIs on a Mac
without much overhead?

[nospam]

In article <1F7nF.29728$VU2....@fx12.iad>, JF Mezei

<jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:

>
> > catalyst is not 'emulated'.
>
> It may be compile for 8086 instead of ARM, and this not "emulated", but
> that doesn't mean it is optimized to run on OS-X/8086. Optimization may
> come later.

no.

[sms]

On 10/8/2019 1:07 PM, JF Mezei wrote:

<snip>

> It is a shame that they won't have native app because getting it with
> proper sound 5.1 and above is the big advantage versus playing it within
> a browser where sounds is downgraded to stereo.

You can install Bootcamp and Windows on the Mac and then use the Windows
Netflix app. A VM may also work though others have reported problems
running the Netflix Windows App in a virtual window, and in using WINE,
due to lack of hardware acceleration (on Linux boxes). The same may be
the case running a Windows VM on a Mac using Parallels or VMware Fusion.
This is not surprising since many Windows applications don't run well,
or at all, in a virtual window.

Another advantage of running the Netflix App under Windows, rather that
running it in a browser window, is that you can download stuff for
off-line viewing (like when on a plane or other situation where you
don't have a broadband data connection). You can also do downloads on
iOS, Android, and FireOS devices. But running in a browser Window you
can't do that.

A copy of Windows 10 is pretty inexpensive and is the optimal solution
for Netflix on a Mac, and of course there are many other applications
that are Windows-only that are useful.

[Arlen _G_ Holder]

On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 12:46:08 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> You DO understand that I'm asking "Who cares about whether Netflix
> chooses to port their app or not?", and NOT "Who cares about facts?", right?

Hi Alan Baker,
I think you may have completely missed the strategic point, even though it
was clearly & repeatedly stated in the articles.

HINT: It's not about 'netflix'.

> And you DO understand that the underlying source for this is Bloomberg
> and that their reputation for getting the facts right is less than
> stellar...

Alan,

You apologists brazenly deny facts simply because you don't like them.

If you have reason to believe the articles' got their facts wrong...
o Name just one

Otherwise, the fact you don't like facts doesn't change that they're facts.

--
Bringing TRUTH & adult logic to Apple newsgroups - one fact at a time.

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-10-09 1:04 a.m., Arlen _G_ Holder wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 12:46:08 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> You DO understand that I'm asking "Who cares about whether Netflix
>> chooses to port their app or not?", and NOT "Who cares about facts?", right?
>
> Hi Alan Baker,
> I think you may have completely missed the strategic point, even though it
> was clearly & repeatedly stated in the articles.
>
> HINT: It's not about 'netflix'.

Really?

Because one company that already had a more than adequate solution for
presenting content on the Mac chose NOT to port their iOS app...

...that's supposed to mean that Catalyst is doomed?

>
>> And you DO understand that the underlying source for this is Bloomberg
>> and that their reputation for getting the facts right is less than
>> stellar...
>
> Alan,
>
> You apologists brazenly deny facts simply because you don't like them.
>
> If you have reason to believe the articles' got their facts wrong...
> o Name just one

Bloomberg concocted a story about secret chips on server motherboards
that is absolute nonsense.

[nospam]

In article <qnk7ql$l8h$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Alan Baker <nu...@ness.biz>
wrote:

> >
> > If you have reason to believe the articles' got their facts wrong...
> > o Name just one
>
> Bloomberg concocted a story about secret chips on server motherboards
> that is absolute nonsense.

bloomberg is not credible because they reward journalists for fake news.

[sms]

On 10/8/2019 1:07 PM, JF Mezei wrote:

<snip>

> For video apps, especially if Netflix plans to go X265, you probably
> want to be native instead of "emulated".
>
> Also, I think there is the issue of DRM on a Mac. To me, Netflix was not
> usabel on the web because some screens are DVI, so even if the browser
> window was on an HDMI connected TV screen (with with the stupid hardware
> DRM), Netflix would refuse to play content on my mac.
>
> It is a shame that they won't have native app because getting it with
> proper sound 5.1 and above is the big advantage versus playing it within
> a browser where sounds is downgraded to stereo.

Netflix certainly has the resources to write a native OS-X app, or port
their iPad app to OS-X.

There is something else going on here that is not being disclosed,
beyond "the web app is good enough."

Perhaps there is something in OS-X that makes a native app not possible.

[sms]

On 10/8/2019 1:07 PM, JF Mezei wrote:

<snip>

> It is a shame that they won't have native app because getting it with
> proper sound 5.1 and above is the big advantage versus playing it within
> a browser where sounds is downgraded to stereo.

Remember that Netflix is in a little spat with Apple.

In 2018 Netflix stopped allowing new subscription signups through the
Apple App Store because they didn't want to pay the commission
<https://www.macrumors.com/2018/12/28/netflix-no-more-itunes-billing-options/>.

Earlier this year Netflix dropped Airplay support
<https://www.macrumors.com/2019/04/05/netflix-app-no-longer-supports-airplay/>
citing unspecified "technical limitations."

Perhaps Netflix is upset about Apple's new streaming service that has
the potential to take market share
<https://www.apnews.com/7ad99db7474246d7a1ffb7aa656ecc2e> and is
refusing to produce a native app for OS-X believing that this will
negatively affect the sales of OS-X machines, a highly unlikely result.

[nospam]

In article <qnkn0p$d8e$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> Netflix certainly has the resources to write a native OS-X app, or port
> their iPad app to OS-X.

yep.

> There is something else going on here that is not being disclosed,
> beyond "the web app is good enough."

yep.

> Perhaps there is something in OS-X that makes a native app not possible.

nope. perhaps you're trolling again.

[Arlen _G_ Holder]

On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 02:04:22 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> Because one company that already had a more than adequate solution for
> presenting content on the Mac chose NOT to port their iOS app...
>
> ...that's supposed to mean that Catalyst is doomed?

Hi Alan Baker,

Kudos to you for comprehending the strategic import of yesterday's news.

Adults do two things apologists almost never can do, Alan...
o Adults comprehend basic facts
o And then, adults form logical reasonable conclusions based on them

That you comprehended the strategic import wasn't about Netflix
o Is good.

Very good in fact.

Now you simply need to comprehend the answer to this basic fact:
o How many iOS apps run on the Mac today?

--
Bringing TRUTH & logic to Apple newsgroups - one fact at a time.

[Arlen _G_ Holder]

On Wed, 09 Oct 2019 06:30:30 -0400, nospam wrote:

> bloomberg is not credible because they reward journalists for fake news.

Hi nospam,
You apologists consistently exhibit the seven basic traits of apologists
o What are the common well-verified psychological traits of the Apple Apologists on this newsgroup?

<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/18ARDsEOPzM/KU28NQlpBwAJ>

One of those traits, is that you own an imaginary belief system
o Which is supported by exactly zero facts

That is, if you believe the story published to be factually wrong
o Then simply name just one fact that the cites said which were wrong.

You apologists almost always fail the simple 3 word test of adult beliefs:
o Name just one

--
Analyzing apologists' imaginary belief systems - one fact at a time.

[Alan Baker]

1. Bloomberg reported that there was a chip secretly being installed on
server motherboards. Despite repeated calls for confirmation, this has
never been shown to be the case. Yet Bloomberg won't recant.

[Alan Baker]

Why does that matter; "today" specifically?

[Alan Baker]

Oh, and for your edification:

A QUESTION is not a FACT.

[Arlen _G_ Holder]

On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 15:19:01 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> 1. Bloomberg reported that there was a chip secretly being installed on
> server motherboards. Despite repeated calls for confirmation, this has
> never been shown to be the case. Yet Bloomberg won't recant.

Hi Alan Baker,

The brazen denial of facts by you Apologists is one of your 7 basic habits
o So is your attempt to deflect focus away from the on-topic facts

You apologists always prove for me you have no _adult_ response to facts.

FACT:
o The subject is: Netflix confirms it won't port its iPad app to macOS

The Bloomberg article reported on this very fact:
<https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-10-08/apple-s-merged-ipad-mac-apps-leave-developers-uneasy-users-paying-twice>
"Major app developers and service providers like Netflix Inc. are also
demurring on taking part, at least at this early stage."

What FACT is reported in _that_ on-topic Bloomberg article, Alan...
o That you (and nospam, apparently) claim - is not credible?

HINT: Apologists fail the simplest test of imaginary belief systems:

o Name just one

--

Reporting TRUTH on the Apple newsgroups; one fact at a time.

[sms]

On 10/8/2019 2:59 PM, JF Mezei wrote:

<snip>

> One would expect Catalyst to convert the IOS calls made by the app into
> IOS-X native calls, so there would be an extra layer between app and
> hardware. For the average app, this is transparent, but how does it
> perform for high performance apps such as 4K H.265 video or fancy 3D
> games? Can it translate IOS heavy graphics to the "Metal" APIs on a Mac
> without much overhead?

Code translation between the app and the hardware greatly affects
performance so it's unlikely that Catalyst would use that approach. More
likely it's simply the ability to compile the same code-base to both iOS
(ARM) and OS-X (x86) with Catalyst taking care of the various
differences in code required for each OS.

Catalyst is a good idea. If successful it would help increase content
sales, and also help increase Mac sales which have not been doing so
great recently.

[nospam]

In article <qnvohu$arl$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

>
> Code translation between the app and the hardware greatly affects
> performance so it's unlikely that Catalyst would use that approach. More
> likely it's simply the ability to compile the same code-base to both iOS
> (ARM) and OS-X (x86) with Catalyst taking care of the various
> differences in code required for each OS.

it's *much* more than that.

> Catalyst is a good idea. If successful it would help increase content
> sales, and also help increase Mac sales which have not been doing so
> great recently.

mac sales have been doing quite well recently.

[JF Mezei]

On 2019-10-13 13:57, sms wrote:

> Code translation between the app and the hardware greatly affects
> performance so it's unlikely that Catalyst would use that approach. More
> likely it's simply the ability to compile the same code-base to both iOS
> (ARM) and OS-X (x86) with Catalyst taking care of the various
> differences in code required for each OS.

The point I tried to make is that the various calls to code in various
IOS libraries have to be translated to calls to native OS-X equivalent
routines.

Conceptual : in code the app calls IOS_draw_circle(xpos, ypos, diameter);

Catalyst on OS-X must publish an entry point called IOS-draw_circle so
the linker can resilced it when building the app, and that entry point
must then contain code that reads the IOS format arguments, and
translated them to "native" OS-X arguments and calls the relevant OS_X
routines to accomplish the task.

And when you setup callbacks, this could be tricky because those
callbacks point directly to IOS code in your app, so the OS_X code needs
to do a callback of a middleman routine that then converts the OS-X
callback arguments to the IOS arguments that the IOS app expects to get
when the system calls one of its routines.

For routines that are identical on IOS and OS_X, this becomes really
easy. But when you're talking about different environment and different
version of structures that teh framerowks use, then there needs to be
argument conversion. Apple could implemnent the actual code natively
with the IOS arguments, but that might make maintenance a nightmare, and
becomes harder to manage UI events since the event loop is still OS_X
native (and must remain since your mouse may move to a native OS_X app).

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-10-11 9:10 p.m., Arlen _G_ Holder wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 15:19:01 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> 1. Bloomberg reported that there was a chip secretly being installed on
>> server motherboards. Despite repeated calls for confirmation, this has
>> never been shown to be the case. Yet Bloomberg won't recant.
>
> Hi Alan Baker,
>
> The brazen denial of facts by you Apologists is one of your 7 basic habits
> o So is your attempt to deflect focus away from the on-topic facts
>
> You apologists always prove for me you have no _adult_ response to facts.
>
> FACT:
> o The subject is: Netflix confirms it won't port its iPad app to macOS

That is a fact. The rest is SUPPOSITION and SPECULATION

>
> The Bloomberg article reported on this very fact:
> <https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-10-08/apple-s-merged-ipad-mac-apps-leave-developers-uneasy-users-paying-twice>
> "Major app developers and service providers like Netflix Inc. are also
> demurring on taking part, at least at this early stage."

Netflix is in a well-publicized feud with Apple.

>
> What FACT is reported in _that_ on-topic Bloomberg article, Alan...
> o That you (and nospam, apparently) claim - is not credible?
>
> HINT: Apologists fail the simplest test of imaginary belief systems:
> o Name just one

You like naming one phone that The Verge has scored higher than the new
iPhones?