Full Width [alt+shift+f] Shortcuts [alt+shift+k]
Sign Up [alt+shift+s] Log In [alt+shift+l]
46

WatchKit is a sweet solution that will only ever give us baby apps

from Marco.org [alt+shift+b] in programming

In the original 2007 iPhone introduction, Steve Jobs famously derided other smartphones at the time for running “baby” software and the “baby” internet. He was right. Developers weren’t given access to make native apps until the iPhone’s second year. Before the native development kit was ready, Apple tried to pass off web apps as a “sweet solution” for third-party apps, but nobody was fooled. Apple wasn’t using web apps for their own built-in iPhone apps — they were using native code and frameworks to make real apps.1 Developers like me did our best with web apps, but they sucked. We simply couldn’t make great apps without access to the real frameworks. Apps were terrible, and didn’t take off, until we had access to the same native tools that Apple used. *   *   * Developing Apple Watch apps is extremely frustrating and limited for one big reason: unlike on iOS, Apple doesn’t give app developers access to the same watchOS frameworks that they use on Apple Watch. Instead, we’re only allowed to use WatchKit, a baby UI framework that would’ve seemed rudimentary to developers even in the 1990s. But unlike the iPhone’s web apps, WatchKit doesn’t appear to be a stopgap — it seems to be Apple’s long-term solution to third-party app development on the Apple Watch. The separation of Apple’s internally-used frameworks from WatchKit has two huge problems: Apple doesn’t feel WatchKit’s limitations. Since they’re not using it, it’s too easy for Apple’s developers and evangelists to forget or never know what’s possible, what isn’t, what’s easy, and what’s hard. The bugs and limitations I report to them are usually met with shock and surprise — they have no idea. WatchKit is buggy as hell. Since Apple doesn’t use it and there are relatively few third-party Watch apps of value, WatchKit is far more buggy, and seems far less tested, than any other Apple API I’ve ever worked with.2 Apple will never have a very good idea of where WatchKit needs to improve if they’re not using it. But...
26th Feb 2018

Stay updated

Get a weekly newsletter with the top 5 articles worth reading every week.

More from Marco.org

Community

I’ve been taking a break from Mastodon as my social home on the web for about six weeks. It has been more difficult than I’d usually admit. I have an amazing local community in my town that I love and am deeply involved in. But nobody here is a programmer, or even a computer nerd, so it doesn’t serve my need for a tech community. I work alone, for myself, in my house. It’s a fortunate lifestyle with many upsides, but it means I don’t get that form of community at work, either. I’ve had this feeling before… as a teenager in the 1990s. It’s profoundly lonely. But when I got internet access, that started to change. I found my people. First in the Total Annihilation community (RIP, Annihilated), then the HardOCP Forum, then the Something Awful Forums, then Tumblr, then Twitter and our community of Apple bloggers, and then Mastodon. Communities form, change, and dissolve over time. None of those are, today, anything like what they were when I most enjoyed them. We change, too. I didn’t move on from most of those solely because they changed — it was usually because we both changed, and it was no longer a good fit. My break from Mastodon has been a relief in some ways, as I’ve felt increasing divergence between what I wanted and what I was getting from it, but I didn’t know where else to go. Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube are all more video-broadcast platforms than communities. All I’ve found on Bluesky is even more anger and politics, the last things I need or want. Threads hasn’t yet stuck for me, and it’s owned by an asshole. Twitter was an amazing product and community that was previously owned by assholes, and now it’s X, which has a strong but different tech community, and is owned by different assholes. So I’ve just been… nowhere, for the first time since the 1990s. It has been, once again, quite lonely. Sure, it’s been relaxing, too, but in the way a vacation is relaxing. It’s great to take breaks, but after a long vacation, I’m ready to turn my brain back on. Without participating in a large, broad tech community, I’m exposed to fewer new ideas, both of my main jobs (app development and podcasting) are much harder, the quality and reach of my work have suffered, my skills aren’t improving as much, my mind is less stimulated, and I feel disconnected from my professions and passions. My world has gotten smaller. I could keep going like this to prove a stubborn victory or purity test, but I’d mostly just be hurting myself. Communities change, conditions change, and we change. We’re all better off if we’re willing to change our minds, and if our communities let us, no matter how strongly our younger selves declared a previous position. So I’m going to wade back in and see how it goes, trying to find a better balance to hopefully have better results, including on Mastodon. My people are spread across multiple services, and I’m going to explore them all, despite most of them being owned by assholes. I’d love to participate in communities without any assholes benefiting from it, but in the modern world, that simply isn’t possible. The only alternative is to isolate myself and not have a community at all (or a job, or a smartphone, or a computer, or internet access, or a car, or most of my food, or my country). That’s neither a price I’m willing to pay nor a condition I’d try to impose on anyone else. I’d love to have your support, forgiveness, and grace as I try to find my people again, and I strive to offer the same to all of you. Everyone deserves to be part of a community. And as I grow, I’m learning to declare fewer absolutes in a complex, imperfect, and constantly changing world.

6 days ago • 2 votes
Bob and Van

For the first half of my childhood in suburban Ohio, we lived next to Bob. Bob and his wife were a kind, reserved older couple who decorated their home mostly with crucifixes and talked about Jesus a lot. Bob helped my mom with a lot of common household tasks after my dad died. When she woke up to a small fire on our deck, she didn’t call the fire department — she called Bob.1 I never learned any of Bob’s political views, though I can make some guesses in retrospect. They never mattered. He was just our neighbor. We later moved, and hit the neighbor jackpot with Van. Van was deeply kind, generous, and friendly — the sort of neighbor everyone wishes for. In my lazy teenage years, he’d often mow our lawn or shovel our snow for us before I even woke up. As his mobility later declined, I was honored to return the favor. Van and his delightful wife passed away years ago, before I learned how either of them felt on any political issue. If they were my neighbors today, how likely would that be? *     *     * If I learn today that my neighbors have political views that my “side” considers unacceptable and unforgivable, should I be able to have dinner at their house, shovel their snow, or even greet them outside? Should I be condemned for supporting or associating with them in non-political contexts? Should I be condemned for not publicly condemning them myself? While privilege and power dynamics play a complex and unavoidable role in this, I don’t want to associate with any community that would insist on either of those.2 And I can’t help but feel that maybe we were better off before we knew everyone’s hot takes on everything. The town coffee shop was just a coffee shop. We weren’t publicly shamed for going there because one of the owners was an ass. It was just a place to hang out with our friends. Our casual work friends were just casual work friends. We didn’t expect them to take positions on the world’s most complicated conflicts. We could just talk about weather and TV shows, and maybe sometimes get a beer after work. And our neighbors were just our neighbors. That was the day I learned the word “SHIT!” ↩︎ Somewhere on Bob’s wall might’ve been a relevant statement from an influential political dissident about casting the first stone. ↩︎

4th Sep 2026 • 1 votes
Unforgetful

I have ADHD. Probably.1 My entire adolescence was defined by forgetting to do my homework, disappointing everyone around me, and being told by every adult that I was lazy, “just” needed to try harder, and wasn’t living up to my potential. I’ll be working on the resulting shame and anxiety for the rest of my life.2 If someone tells me, “Remember to pick up the dry cleaning tomorrow,” I definitely won’t remember. If someone tells me, “Remember to put the laundry in the dryer in ten minutes,” I probably won’t even remember that. If you’re thinking, “It’s just ten minutes! Nobody can possibly forget that,” I have made an app that’s probably not for you. *     *     * Computers saved me. Despite constantly being told that I’d never get a good job, computers provided a lucrative career path filled with even worse academic performers who couldn’t care less about my grades. What a stroke of luck! I’d be mediocre to terrible at most jobs, but I turned out to be very good at using computers to turn coffee and Phish into money. But computers also save me in smaller, everyday ways. They help me remember. *     *     * Sorry, I just had to go put the laundry in the dryer, which I had forgotten. Really. It’s that bad. *     *     * Calendar alarms changed my life. Events without alarms don’t happen. (If you’re thinking, “Why doesn’t he just check his calendar?” I have made an app that’s probably not for you.) I had less success with reminders until we had ubiquitous voice capture. If I think of something at inconvenient times, like while driving or exercising, I need to capture it immediately or I’ll forget. It cannot wait until I get to my phone or computer. It has to be recorded right then or it’s gone. Siri, for all of its faults, has always been very good at creating tasks in Apple’s Reminders app — and Siri is everywhere. Computer. Phone. Car. Watch. I can almost always ask Siri to add something to Reminders. So Reminders’ integration and ubiquity are invaluable to me. The Reminders app, though, doesn’t fit me at all. I don’t like how it looks, how it works, or how it’s organized. Hell, I don’t even like its icon. There’s nothing about it I like. So I never open it. (Not as if I’d ever remember to check it anyway.)3 Most of my Reminders interaction has always been via Siri and notifications. And that fits me very well, with three major exceptions: If I say “Remind me to buy milk,” but I forget to specify a time (or Siri misses it), Reminders will never notify me, and I’ll never check the app, so it’ll be lost. If I inadvertently dismiss a Reminders notification without snoozing it, Reminders will never notify me about it again, so it’ll be lost. When I do snooze a Reminders notification, which I do a lot, the snooze options suck.4 This spring, I made myself an app to fix all three, and… it escalated. I’ve been using it for months, and it has profoundly improved my life. Today, I’m releasing it, in hopes that maybe it can help other people, too. *     *     * Introducing Unforgetful. The concept is simple: Reminders for ADHD. This means: It’s impossible to lose a task. Notifications always repeat, even if you miss or dismiss them, until the task is completed or deleted. Designed for procrastination. Snoozing is a core feature, with thoughtful intervals that scale as you snooze a task more. Nothing is hidden away. A hidden task is a forgotten task. No folders, no tags, no organization, no different views or modes. No judgment or shame. Nothing is overdue. You’re not in trouble. Everything is either due now or in the future. Didn’t get to it today? Maybe tomorrow. Every day is a fresh start. And Unforgetful does all of that with your Reminders data. That means: Siri works perfectly, everywhere. Just say “Remind me…” without having to specify an app. It replaces your Reminders notifications. Turn them off, turn these on. No import. This isn’t a new system to learn or migrate into. Your Reminders data is just… there. No export. If you try Unforgetful and it’s not for you, just delete it and turn Reminders notifications back on, and all of your data is right there in Reminders. Mix and match. Don’t like it everywhere? You can still use Reminders on your Vision Pro or whatever, or simultaneously use Unforgetful with Reminders or any other app that uses Reminders data. I’ve optimized lots of features and details for ADHD, too: Fast capture with dictation. Tap the microphone button in Unforgetful — or its full suite of widgets, or its Lock Screen or Control Center controls — and quickly dictate a task.5 Spaced-out notifications, not an overwhelming pile at once. If multiple tasks are set to alert you at the same time, they space themselves out so you’re not barraged with a hopeless stack of obligations. And the order changes every day, so nothing gets lost between things. Recurring-task backlogs don’t pile up. If you miss multiple intervals for a recurring task, completing it doesn’t make you click through all of your past failures to get to the present day… it just schedules the next one from now. Remind me 5 minutes after I get home. Location-based reminders can notify you after a set delay. Because if a “remind me when I get home” task fires as I pull into the driveway, I’ll forget it by the time I’m inside, unloaded, and ready to do anything about it. Unforgetful is a Mac and iOS app that’s $19.99 per year (US). One subscription buys all platforms. There’s a one-month free trial so you can really live with it and see if it’s right for you before paying. There are a million task-management apps. Unforgetful is not for everyone, but it’s really for me, far more than anything else has ever been. Frankly, I have no idea how to reach the other people it’s for. But I know you’re out there. If any of this resonates with you… give it a shot. Despite significant progress on my mental health around this from therapy and media, I haven’t (yet?) sought an official ADHD diagnosis because I haven’t sought medication, and that seemed like the main reason why I’d want a diagnosis. That’s probably worth reconsidering. I’ll make myself a reminder to do it. Someday. ↩︎ I saw a psychologist throughout high school for my homework problem. Rather than recognizing 7 of the 9 symptoms of what we now call “inattentive” ADHD, he was just one more adult condemning me for not caring. (I really did care. Nobody wanted me to be “better” more than me.) In the 1990s, if you didn’t do homework but weren’t hyperactive, you were obviously just choosing to be lazy, and the solution was apparently to apply more shame. Not all doctors are good. ↩︎ I’ve tried other apps that are beautiful and work differently, but they’re all complete task-management systems that introduce a lot of features and complexity that I neither need nor want, at the expense of Reminders’ ubiquitous integration that I highly value. I’ve also tried other apps that use the Reminders database, but I haven’t found any of them to be… good. (Sorry. I probably didn’t try yours.) ↩︎ At least they specify the actual snooze times now instead of vague descriptions like “the afternoon,” which I proudly take full credit for, since it happened to change only after I ranted about it relentlessly on our podcast for months. If I truly made this happen, it might be the greatest impact on the world I’ll ever have. ↩︎ Dictation just records every word you say as the title, which is extremely fast and reliable. It doesn’t yet recognize things like “Remind me to buy milk at 10 AM tomorrow.” I haven’t nailed that natural-language processing yet — coming soon, maybe! For now, Siri does that part better. ↩︎

14th Aug 2026 • 1 votes
A letter to John Ternus

As Apple celebrates its fiftieth birthday, we celebrate the spirit of its formation, when people who loved computers started making great computers to inspire more people to love computers. That spirit is difficult to find in the tech business today. Immense scale, soulless optimization, and an insatiable thirst for growth dominate its behavior and discourse, leaving little room for the spirit and principles embodied by Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak. Apple still has this spirit, and I believe you do, too. But it’s not infinite or invincible. It’s under constant pressure, including from Apple itself. It seems likely that you’ll soon be leading Apple, which will place unfathomable responsibility on your shoulders. As you grow into the leader that we know you can be, I urge you, on behalf of everyone who loves computers as much as we do, to protect and cultivate this spirit of Apple’s founders as the company’s top priority: We love computers. We don’t hide that — we celebrate it! We use computers to enhance our minds, lives, and abilities — not to be controlled, restricted, tricked, placated, angered, or surveilled. Our computers work for us, with the utmost respect for our time, attention, money, data, and privacy. We are customers and owners — not resources to be harvested, annoyed, or badgered into ever more services and upsells. Apple leads the industry in these values, but leading doesn’t always mean excelling. Remaining true to these values requires constant diligence, honest evaluation, introspection, and the audacity and courage to effect change. Apple doesn’t settle for fine, functional, or good enough in its hardware (and thanks for your incredible work on that). We love making and using products that aren’t just great, but greater than they need to be, always raising the bar of greatness for its own sake. Software, services, revenue sources, and world impact need to be held to that same standard. Focus on making great computers with great user experiences above all else, and you can trust that every other major goal will follow: profit, market share, expansion, impact, and benefit to the world. Making great computers must remain Apple’s top responsibility, because if you don’t do it, nobody will.

1st Apr 2026 • 1 votes
Retreating to Safety

Ten years ago, Apple’s Phil Schiller surprised Apple enthusiasts and developers by walking out on stage at John Gruber’s The Talk Show Live WWDC event and giving an open, human, honest interview to a somewhat jaded community. I wrote this in response: Both Apple and Phil Schiller himself took a huge risk in doing this. That they agreed at all is a noteworthy gift to this community of long-time enthusiasts, many of whom have felt under-appreciated as the company has grown. […] Phil’s appearance on the show was warm, genuine, informative, and entertaining. It was human. And humanizing the company and its decisions, especially to developers — remember, developer relations is all under Phil — might be worth the PR risk. This started a ten-year run of interviews by Apple executives on The Talk Show every year at WWDC that proved to be great, surprisingly safe PR for Apple. No executive ever said something they shouldn’t have (they’re pros), no sensational or negative news stories ever resulted from them, and Apple’s enthusiastic fans and developers felt seen, heard, and appreciated. *     *     * For unspecified reasons, Apple has declined to participate this year, ending what had become a beloved tradition in our community — and I can’t help but suspect that it won’t come back. (A lot has changed in the meantime.) Maybe Apple has good reasons. Maybe not. We’ll see what their WWDC PR strategy looks like in a couple of weeks. In the absence of any other information, it’s easy to assume that Apple no longer wants its executives to be interviewed in a human, unscripted, unedited context that may contain hard questions, and that Apple no longer feels it necessary to show their appreciation to our community and developers in this way. I hope that’s either not the case, or it doesn’t stay the case for long. This will be the first WWDC I’m not attending since 2009 (excluding the remote 2020 one, of course). Given my realizations about my relationship with Apple and how they view developers, I’ve decided that it’s best for me to take a break this year, gain some perspective, and decide what my future relationship should look like. Maybe Apple’s leaders are doing that, too.

30th May 2025 • 38 votes

More in programming

Contract testing implementation challenges

This post was previously published through my newsletter on October 19, 2026. From time to time, I will republish newsletter issues on my blog here if I think people (and search engines) might benefit from it. If you want to read everything I’ve written once it is posted, I recommend signing up for the newsletter. For the last 5-6 years or so, I’ve been talking about, teaching and helping teams implement contract testing on a regular basis. To make that more concrete: at the moment, I’m having ongoing conversations with four different potential clients about helping them in some way with their contract testing implementation, and so far, I’ve run my contract testing workshop four times this year. It probably doesn’t come as a surprise to you when I say that I really like the concept of contract testing as a means of addressing integration testing challenges in distributed software systems. However, no matter if I’m speaking, teaching or implementing contract testing, certain challenges almost always come up at some point, and I want to highlight some of those today. Understanding the concept of contract testing First of all, it often takes people a while to understand the concept of contract testing, especially when they’re used to what I call the ‘traditional’ approach to integration testing: deploying the systems and services in scope to a shared testing environment and then testing them ‘as a whole’. Of course, the more distributed your system and your development process is, and the higher the deployment frequency, the more complex and the slower this integration testing approach is going to be. The premise behind contract testing is to break that integration testing puzzle down into small chunks of individual consumer-provider pairs, and then test the integration between those two in an asynchronous manner. By asynchronous, I mean that there is no need to deploy consumer and provider into a shared environment; both parties perform their part of the process in their own, local development environment. This means you can detect potential integration issues before you deploy, instead of stumbling onto them after you do so. This makes contract testing (or contract-based integration testing, to use its proper name) a significantly different approach to integration testing compared to the more ‘traditional’ approach. In my experience, it usually takes people time to wrap their head around how the process actually works, which steps you should take and in which order, and what you (do not yet) know after each step. It often takes going through several contract testing cycles before people start to ‘get it’. That’s not their fault, that is to be expected, since the contract-based approach to integration testing is, again, quite different from what they’ve been doing for so long. To better cater to this, I redesigned my contract testing workshop a year and a half or so ago. It is now a full-day workshop (half a day is simply too short), and I take much smaller steps and repeat them more often. From what I see, this has led to a better understanding of the concepts with my audience, and that’s the whole point. Contract testing === Pact I’ve talked to quite a few teams that had heard of contract testing somewhere, decided that that was the way out of their integration testing problems, and then immediately started writing contract tests with Pact. Understandable, because Pact is a very useful, very powerful and very popular tool, plus, it’s open source, which makes it easy for teams to get started. Often, they skipped a step in the process. Pact is very much a consumer-driven contract testing tool by nature, and while consumer-driven contract testing is the richest and most powerful of the different approaches to contract testing, it is not necessarily the best fit for every team and every context. It’s a classic example of using the wrong tool for the problem at hand, because they didn’t take enough time looking at the problem and the available solutions. That’s not the problem of Pact, even though it is often framed that way (‘Pact didn’t solve my problems, therefore Pact is not a good tool’). That’s a ‘we didn’t fully understand the problem and the context’ problem. Contract testing removes the need for communication Another challenge that I often see when I talk about or help teams with contract testing is the fact that teams don’t talk to each other. This then leads to integration issues, because team A expects something from team B that team B doesn’t supply. Contract testing is not the solution to these problems. It can’t be - tools alone do not solve problems, let alone communication problems. What contract testing does do is make potential integration issues visible early on in the development process, often earlier than (again) more ‘traditional’ approaches to integration testing. That’s where the value of contract testing can be found. It is not a means to replace communication between teams. In fact, and this is especially true for consumer-driven contract testing, contract testing cannot succeed without good communication between consumer and provider teams. Contract testing replaces all other types of integration testing This one comes up less often than it used to, but sometimes, I still hear people saying that when they will have contract-based integration tests in place, they don’t need other types of integration tests anymore - including E2E tests. That’s simply not true. While contract testing is a great way to find out earlier about the impact of a change in a specific consumer or provider further downstream, in many cases, I wouldn’t rely on these tests alone before moving to production. Because of its asynchronous nature, contract-based integration testing only verifies whether a consumer and a provider speak the same language - can a consumer understand the message returned by a provider in a specific situation? It does not verify that the request or the response message reaches the other party in the first place, for example. In other words, it doesn’t test connectivity between a consumer and a provider. And because integration testing is broken down into individual consumer-provider pairs, you don’t see the entire system working ‘as a whole’. This means you might want to keep a few end-to-end tests in place, even when you’ve got good contract testing coverage across the board. The above is not a complete list of challenges with contract testing, but the ones I mentioned here are those that come up most often.

yesterday • 1 votes
Suffering as a Feature

Have you seen this? If you haven't, you should. I think everyone needs to. Wealth inequality on a scale this extreme is almost impossible to explain. You have to experience it to understand. Go ahead. Try it out. Where is the top of this graph? Good question. Keep

2 days ago • 1 votes
The upvote dilemma

Hiding upvotes on the discovery feed

3 days ago • 2 votes
The slopocalypse survival guide

Slop is without a doubt everywhere. Be it in restaurant’s menus, music playlists, or online game storefronts, it is now impossible to escape it. Yet, I’ve never met anyone who was actually looking forward to consuming that. No matter how hard it’s shoved down our throats, the human longing to connect with other people through art still remains. Raymond Kotewicz They will not let you filter A simple solution would be to have slop filters. Automatically label AI-generated trash, and let users hide it if they don’t want to see it. So far, I don’t think any of the major internet platforms has implemented this. The common excuse for why they don’t let you easily filter out slop is that it would be technically too difficult. Let me be clear with everyone here: this is complete bullshit. We’re talking about companies that can hire some of the most talented engineers in the world. I don’t think anyone seriously believes they can’t come up with a way to guess if a file has been generated by AI or not. 90% of the slop out there stands out so much everyone can see how it was made after looking at it for 5 seconds. A more plausible reason for the lack of slop filter is that they are simply testing out the waters. They are checking if users will tolerate it. The question tech executives want answered is: will people buy this garbage? And if the answer to that question is yes, here’s what they will do: they will start generating it themselves. They don’t need the useless meat proxies who think typing ten words and pressing enter makes them creative. They definitely don’t want to verse anyone royalties when they could just be making a one time purchase of tokens. If you think this is not real, just ask Tim Sweeney. I bet he will be more than happy to confirm. Roman Navarro Curation by humans for humans So now that it’s clear that tech companies will not save us from drowning in slop, it’s time to turn back to actual humans instead. The good news is they are a lot of people who are here to help you. There are thousands of people on the internet who will search through mountains of content to find the perfect piece of art they want to share with the world. We don’t explicitly call them curators. They are streamers, bloggers, journalists, DJs, overly enthusiast fans, or simply your friends. Some of those people are seriously amazing. There are DJs out there who will spend thousands of hours digging through crates to craft you the perfect ninety minutes of music. Why do you still need those machine-generated playlists? The alternative to blindly trusting the output of a recommendation algorithm isn’t always to become an expert in every field of art. Sometimes you just have to put the trust you had in a machine back into another person. Back to the real world? The real long term solution would be to stop relying only on the internet for distribution. This is already a thing in the music industry. Every city has a record shop that will sell you a carefully selected set of vinyls. For many musicians, physical sales (and concerts) are a much better source of income than streaming. The same goes for the movie. While text-to-video AI is a thing, the real money isn’t made by generating 30 second TikTok dramas. The real money comes from people paying tickets to see a full-length movie in a theater. Sadly I’m not too optimistic about my own field: video games. Somehow it seems the direction we’ve taken is the opposite. We’re all in on online distributions platforms. We have fully accepted them as our new digital overlords. Next month GTA V is coming out without a disk in the box. Sony already announced that the next Playstation will not support physical media. Physical distribution is not even mentioned in the pitch of the average indie publisher. In Breda, the small Dutch city where I live, we used to have two dedicated video games shop. Higher interests rates, expensive rents, and various policy failures have done their jobs: they are both closed. I don’t think this is a good sign for the survivability of the gaming industry.

3 days ago • 2 votes
LARPing with Agents (and Why It Works)

Understanding how assigning anthropomorphic traits to agents can improve their effectiveness and interaction.

3 days ago • 1 votes
📚 BoredReading

You seem to be enjoying this.

Join free to unlock everything.

Create free account

Already have an account? Sign in