Its 100% native Objective-C code on the client, plus a mixed Objective-C and Python pipeline for maintenance and backend - around 60 kloc in total. The other major components are a 50 kloc config-file and a 800k row database.
In addition to being fully desktop native, we also don't sell subscriptions.
> why aren't devs making desktop apps any more
we have a unique insight into the market, having seen every Mac app published in the past 20 years. i don't think your assertion is correct, there are a lot of desktop apps around. there are a few thousand apps under active development, and the majority of them are actually native, not electron (we count 25.000 native sparkle-feeds URLs versus 4.400 electron-feeds). i'd phrase the question the other way: why are there still so many native apps when most end users would never spend a dollar on software? i believe there are quite a few hobbyists out there, developing for fun or out of hopes of being able to make a profit later on. that further contributes to the expectance that software needs to be free, further destroying an already very weak market.
Just wanted to say that I love MacUpdater! It’s focus on usability and getting the app to function with so many types of updaters is what makes it a “classic macOS app” that is always a must-have for me.
I work exclusively on desktop apps nowadays, creating https://lowtechguys.com and https://lunar.fyi and I can say there are a few very annoying issues with this desktop ecosystem.
1. Auto-updating
2. Payments and licensing
3. Friction on trying the app
If you think about it, a web app can be instantly used by loading an URL, is automatically updated with a simple deployment, and you can just slap a Stripe Checkout on it and have payments.
On desktop, all those things have to be solved by hand with various combinations of frameworks/libraries.
The macOS App Store for example solves all the above issues, but its sandbox limitations can make an app impossible. Lunar for example is not allowed on the App Store, and my rcmd app switcher is still missing window switching because App Store restricts apps from fetching windows of other apps.
Of course, all those issues can be seen as advantages by other people:
1. Immutable code (no auto updating means the dev can't break or rip out features from a working app)
2. Free apps (licensing being so hard, a lot of small apps are released for free because the devs have capitulated on the payment front)
3. Works offline (installing apps is not that hard really)
Its 100% native Objective-C code on the client, plus a mixed Objective-C and Python pipeline for maintenance and backend - around 60 kloc in total. The other major components are a 50 kloc config-file and a 800k row database.
In addition to being fully desktop native, we also don't sell subscriptions.
> why aren't devs making desktop apps any more
we have a unique insight into the market, having seen every Mac app published in the past 20 years. i don't think your assertion is correct, there are a lot of desktop apps around. there are a few thousand apps under active development, and the majority of them are actually native, not electron (we count 25.000 native sparkle-feeds URLs versus 4.400 electron-feeds). i'd phrase the question the other way: why are there still so many native apps when most end users would never spend a dollar on software? i believe there are quite a few hobbyists out there, developing for fun or out of hopes of being able to make a profit later on. that further contributes to the expectance that software needs to be free, further destroying an already very weak market.