iOS and macOS are so fundamentally different that the whole notion of getting a cohesive UX with minimal effort by using Catalyst to port an iPad app is absurd
If there is one word I would use to describe what makes an Apple-like experience, it's “cohesion”.
Context & Ripple Effects
This piece lands mid-argument in a debate that started earlier: back in 2017, Daring Fireball argued Apple's unification push should center on letting developers share code between Mac and iOS apps rather than shipping iOS apps themselves onto the Mac (code sharing over app porting). The author takes the harder line — that iOS and macOS are different enough at the interaction layer that any port-for-cohesion pitch is a non-starter.
First-order effects
- Developers weighing Catalyst for their iPad apps face a fork confirmed by later reporting: it works well for adding mouse and window support to simpler apps but struggles with complicated ones (developers report Catalyst struggles with complex apps), so the 'minimal effort' promise holds only at the shallow end.
Second-order effects
- Apple's move to its own silicon effectively reroutes the debate — by announcing that Macs on Apple-designed chips can natively run iOS apps through the Mac App Store thanks to shared architecture (native iOS apps on Apple silicon), it makes the question no longer whether iOS apps reach the Mac but whether they belong there.
Third-order effects
- If the pattern holds, Mac–iOS convergence proceeds through shared hardware and runtime rather than shared UI frameworks — and early M1 reviews suggest the author's warning aged well, with the iOS app experience on those machines ranging from terrible to OK even as Rosetta earned praise (M1 reviews pan the iOS app experience).
The trend: Apple is converging Mac and iOS through shared silicon and runtime rather than through UI-framework unification, leaving app quality on the Mac as the unresolved variable.