Pun Pr Web Scrap Software For Mac

• Pun Pr Web Scrap Software For Mac Pro

I for one encourage all windows users to throw their I-phones in the electronics scrap bin. Apple has proven they don't care about Windows users and they must think we will all run out and buy an over priced MAC. Dream on Apple.

Anyone unfamiliar with how things currently work: macOS and iOS use 2 different UI frameworks (CocoaTouch and UIKit, respectively). And this causes problems when trying to compile the source code between the two platforms. Ex: things like font and color are defined specifically in each framework (NSFont and NSColor versus UIFont and UIColor). If they combine these frameworks, it makes the design and maintenance of cross platform software a lot easier (it'll still be difficult), and the at the very least, you wouldn't have to stub out a bunch of class names and files. BUT - the most important work is still on the developer to ensure that their app runs great on iPhone, iPad and Mac and has a cohesive UI that scales and takes advantages of the different technologies. It's no different from Responsive Web Design or the shift from iPhone to iPad (and vice versa).

Photos is still very much an AppKit app. UXKit is just a simple compatibility shim on top of AppKit. There are many like it, and there's nothing particularly interesting about UXKit except that it is used by the team that developed the Photos app. If Apple intends to fully support universal Mac/iOS apps then they're going to need a whole lot more than an AppKit compatibility shim. Those apps will be UIKit top to bottom, which means a lot of new features will need to be added to UIKit (resizable windows, menu bar and menu commands, mouse handling, etc.). UXKit is just a simple compatibility shim on top of AppKit.

There are many like it, and there's nothing particularly interesting about UXKit except that it is used by the team that developed the Photos app. Yes, it is, but I think you're underestimating the value of a 'compatibility shim'.

Sure, right now it's all backed by AppKit, but once developers are writing for this abstracted API it makes it possible for Apple to pull out the underlying AppKit implementation details and use a UIKit adaptation instead. Shared Text and UI controls and libraries could be useful, but we need to consider the 'one UI' given the title of the article ' Apple Plans Combined iPhone, iPad & Mac Apps to Create One User Experience'. That just screams Marketing Department Overreach to me, and I've arguments about this exact issue with sales and marketing people before. The 'one user experience' idea is a fallacy because the physical interfaces are so much different. There are definitely overlaps with typical phones, computers or TVs, but developers should embrace and accentuate the the differences, not try to force everything to the lowest common denominator. For example, an iPhone has limited text input because of a small screen where the keyboard takes up almost half the space. However, it does have a great camera and a shit ton of useful sensors that no computer or TV ever will.

Pun Pr Web Scrap Software For Mac Pro

It's not like how apps get made is part of Apple's product marketing, if anything it's their developer outreach. My money is on this being a developer focused update to fix the CocoaTouch/AppKit dichotomy, which will make it easier to develop a Mac version of your software alongside the iOS, watchOS, and tvOS versions. Spinning it as 'combined iPhone and Mac apps' sounds like a misunderstanding on the reporter's part. IOS has gotten a really large developer following with a ton of great apps. Not a lot of that has spilled back to the Mac side of things, but if the basic toolkit were compatible it would be easier for iOS devs to make the jump.

I think it's more likely iOS apps will run in a sandboxed emulator on the Mac. Xcode already does this, and it would trivial to build and bundle an emulated app for MacOS with the standard iOS build.

I can't see real unification happening. The platforms are just too different - not just physically, in terms of interface modality and available hardware, but in terms of design culture. For the most part, iOS apps have very little in common with Mac apps - and that will continue to be true even if Apple releases a series of Tablet Macs as the next evolution of the iPad Pro.

Going the other way makes even less sense. All the big content creation apps are monsters with hundreds of menu options and settings. There is zero chance of being able to port a functionally equivalent version to a device with a touch UI, a much smaller screen, and limited performance. I hope this isn't based on a fantasy of being able to make everything look and work like Photos or Apple's office clone - because that will mean dumbed down apps on the Mac, and a total loss of faith in the Mac among professionals and power users. Xcode doesn't use an emulator. When you build for the simulator it's building an x8664 binary that runs natively. Also, to your other point (UI integration), my assumption is that you'll need to make a different UI for macOS than you do for iPhones (you have to do the same for iPads, IIRC, even if you're just creating a larger version of the existing iPhone UI).

So if you have a simple way of handling it, you end up with all of your core logic being shared between all versions, and multiple versions of the UI that you just hook up to your existing controllers. But there's minimal non-trivial shared core logic, because the apps live in a different user space and do different things with different end goals.

You can port a Mac DAW to iOS - e.g. Cubase to Cubasis - but it's no longer the same product. Most of the features that make the desktop version so useful in a professional context are lost in translation, because iOS doesn't have the resources to support them. So what do you gain by trying to merge development, except extra work and possibly extra confusion.

There's a thriving open source ecosystem around iOS that is largely unavailable to macOS developers because of fairly arbitrary and unnecessary API differences in frameworks. Unifying the API will open a lot of doors for macOS devs to use iOS libraries and provide a boost to macOS development. I think those thinking about UI convergence are missing the point, and it's doubtful that this is what Apple has in mind.

Having unified APIs makes dev life easier, and having official linkages between desktop and mobile apps makes it easier to do things like document sharing between mobile and desktop versions, or sharing of purchases (so you don't have to buy the desktop/mobile version twice). Well, I hope they can learn from Microsoft's total failure to do this. To be honest, I don't see a persuasive argument. In order for this to be worth the extra development time the company needs to have a big marketshare on both platforms - MS failed because they had zero footprint on mobile, and I think Apple will fail because they have a relatively small footprint on desktop. As a third party developer, is it really worth your time to make a native macOS app when the web is already very capable? In some cases I'm sure it will, but in the vast majority of cases you're going to need to make a web version anyway (for the huge number of Windows desktops out there), so a native macOS app just wouldn't be worth it.

You had been flagged for whatever reasonnot sure why. several Apple software like Safari 5 for Windows and iTunes already ship with macOS UI libraries ported to Windows. Actually, the situation is kind of the opposite: Safari and iTunes eschew the use of macOS's UI libraries. Safari, in particular, is actually just WebKit (which has no 'UI') wrapped up in a Windows-style chrome to appear native. ITunes itself, even on macOS, is some sort of weird C hybrid abstracted API that's not Cocoa (which is why it looks so 'off' on macOS).

This, along with a version of Foundation/CoreFoundation, allows it to work on both platforms–though not very well, I'll admit. The lure of convergence again. That really didn't go so well for Microsoft.

I think that's something that really set Apple's iphone apart and that was really smart. The problem is the iPad. The iPad should be a mac, in my view, like the Surface is a PC. Making the iPad a giant iPhone was a big mistake. Now people make pro applications for the iPad Pro and they're thinking 'shit I really wish this could run on a mac' and now Apple is forced into some kind of compatibility that goes from the iPhone 5s with touch screen to a iMac 4K with touchpad. I agree with the post you responded to.

I have a 13-inch iPad 'Pro' that I'm unhappy with since it doesn't do what it's promised to do. Can I build an iOS app? An Android app? Upload 100GB of data to Google Drive? Play movies stored on my external hard disc? Download Youtube videos for local playback, as some Mac apps can do?

As far as I'm concerned the 'big iPhone' idea is a failure. I don't want a tablet that doesn't have the full power of a PC OS like macOS or Windows. That doesn't preclude touch. The OS and apps could and should be updated to support touch. And Apple has the market power to pull that off. I want an OS with the full power of a PC OS + touch.

You can get there by taking a mobile OS and making it more powerful, or by taking a PC OS and adding touch to the OS and apps. Yes, both options require a lot of work, but Microsoft is further ahead in having shipped it for years rather than denying the problem, as Apple does. Can I Upload 100GB of data to Google Drive? Yesis there something preventing you from doing so? Play movies stored on my external hard disc?

Well, you could if your hard disc supported a format that iOS could understand, such as a lightning cable, Bluetooth, or Wi-Fi. Download Youtube videos for local playback, as some Mac apps can do? There are apps that let you do this. Can I build an iOS app?

An Android app? No, unfortunately you can't do this yet. This is one of the things that iPad cannot do yet and I'm sure Apple is working on. The OS and apps could and should be updated to support touch. This is an awful lot of work for developersespecially on Apple's platforms, where bolt-on solutions are rare and most apps try to make full use of the medium they have. I want an OS with the full power of a PC OS + touch. You can get there by taking a mobile OS and making it more powerful, or by taking a PC OS and adding touch to the OS and apps.

Yes, we all do–and Apple is doing this from the 'taking a mobile OS and making it more powerful' rather than 'taking a PC OS and adding touch to the OS and apps' as Microsoft is doing. My argument is that this is the better way to do things, and the market seems to largely agree.

But isn't that exactly what'll drive this shift? Anyone that's using an iPad Pro to do this work will immediately flock to the Mac versions of these apps, especially when they're all in one binary, and the UI will reflect the device they're on, regardless of where it was first purchased.

I would love to have those tools on a Mac while still retaining the ability to open/use them on an iPad when I'm on the go and need to make some quick last-minute changes that don't require a full computer. This seems like the perfect, long-term, planned-out setup. Developers currently must design two different apps - one for iOS, the operating system of Apple’s mobile devices, and one for macOS, the system that runs Macs. That’s a lot more work. One set of devices have ONLY a touchscreen as an interface. The other set of devices have ONLY a keyboard and mouse.

So how will this create less work? I think it will mean that each app either (a) bundles two essentially-different programs into one 'application', or (b) gives up on desktop usability. Sadly I expect (b) and I feel that Apple does too, and doesn't mind.

The people that have responded to you seem to be focusing on using touchscreen in a desktop-only/work-only environment, but as an owner of a Surface Book I think that's wrong. When I use my Surface Book for work I very rarely touch the touchscreen because, like @fauigerzigerk said, shoulder pain would become a real problem.

Instead, when work is over I detach the keyboard, turn the device into a tablet, and switch myself over to 'consumer mode'. That's when I use the touchscreen; that's when I break out the pen and start drawing; that's when I switch over to using Windows Store apps because they're built for touchscreen; that's when I switch open Edge because it supports touch gestures; etc. Of course that would assume Apple builds a device that can detach its keyboard or operate as a 2-in-1 where the screen folds over. I agree that as it's designed right now, a Macbook with a touchscreen would be a bad user experience. This is just an anecdote, but when my last Windows laptop died in October I looked really hard at buying a Macbook and eventually decided I couldn't live without the touchscreen. Pardon the pun, but being able to touch anything on my screen like I can do on a phone just feels right. (However, I will say that my default work setup 0 is to flip the screen over, place it on my laptop stand and use it as a second monitor - a decent configuration for annotating documents or taking notes with the pen.) 0.

Fingerprints is a problem, but a more minor one. Pulling your hand off the more accurate touchpad is another one. Screen weight/balance is another one, you want a really stiff screen for touching, but not so stiff you can't easily move it. I'd say one of my biggest peeves is tap area sizes. Your fingers need much bigger areas to tap in accurately, so an efficient touch UI needs way more space for tap areas. But that space is wasted when you are using a mouse/touchpad cursor. I think Apples stance that the additional costs and impediments aren't worth the minor gains has been reasonable.

But it's probably close. I wouldn't be shocked if they changed their minds on their next round of laptops. This is a complete 180 from the approach in the early iPhone, iPad days.

Everything was encouraged and often required to be made device-specific, because the UX is subtly different. Apple followed this too, back in the heady days of Skeumorphism. Even the shade of grey on the keyboard was different between iPhone and iPad1. This is yet another indicator that Apple has changed drastically since the Jobs days, and is moving more into alignment with other tech giants in their approach to products. Perhaps after seeing the somewhat success of Microsoft in this arena, they are going to a 'switchable' UI that will change depending on the device type. Instead of writing an app for iPhone, iPad, macOS, the developer just has to write one switchable app.

That would be helpful for the developer, and if implemented right, the user wouldn't be able to tell the difference. This functionality already exists to a degree in iOS. You can render different views based on the device / resolution. This would just be extending it to touch vs.

Keyboard and mouse. I wouldn't think of it as a single UI that (doesn't) work for all devices, but rather a UI that knows what device it's on and can morph accordingly. Apple's never been about the Developers (Developers! Developers!) though, it's been about the users. It's a while since I've worked on Apple platforms, but it wasn't exactly a pleasant experience. Apple — back then at least — had the user experience at the forefront of what they were doing. You endured the pain of writing your app in Objective C, in XCode, submitting it to the app store, paying the subscription fees, dealing with the terrible portals and jumping through many hoops because Apple's platforms were where the users were.

Microsoft's approach was always, 'We're where the developers are, which is where the app(lication)s are, which is where the users will be forced to go'. It's hard to remember quite how much easier to use Apple's devices were in those early days compared to the status quo. but it wasn't exactly a pleasant experience.

Apple — back then at least — had the user experience at the forefront of what they were doing. You endured the pain of writing your app in Objective C, in XCode, submitting it to the app store, paying the subscription fees, dealing with the terrible portals and jumping through many hoops because Apple's platforms were where the users were. Yes, I did those same things and found them as frustrating as you did.

While I don't do iOS dev anymore, it has gotten a lot easier. Swift is an attempt to make a more modern, friendly language. Submitting to the App Store is mostly built into Xcode now, as is managing certificates. Their API/SDKs are top notch for the most part.

Subscription fees were extended to include all Apple development (not just iOS). The portals still exist and haven't gotten any better. The point I'm trying to make is Apple isn't as good to developers as Microsoft is, but they are definitely taking actions to move in that direction. Visual Studio is my favorite IDE by far, but Xcode is definitely taking cues from it. Speaking as a user, many developers are, pardon my French, shit, and will take every mile for any inch given to them. Look at the iOS App Store after Apple introduced subscriptions: Even the most inane apps are now asking for monthly and yearly subscriptions.

Like, what is even the point of, say, a text editor having a monthly subscription? “To justify development costs”, they write elaborate blogs about. Even though they used to be perfectly fine with a pay-once model for years before.

Even though everyone was perfectly happy with buying an incrementally-numbered “Text Editor N” every year, IF they needed to. Some (like Day One I think) try to justify it by charging for features that Apple can provide for free, like iCloud Sync, and reinventing that wheel with their own paid solutions for that.

As a user I was happier with the weekly blog whining about Apple’s draconian walled garden, compared to this subscription-infested market now. People expect updates once they've purchased an app for a few bucks. They tend not to pay more, and developers who release v2 and v3 as completely separate apps are often criticised. Not to mention, export/importing data can be a new issue across apps. An upgrade could be released as an IAP, but asking for more once you've released a paid app is risky also.

I tend to avoid subscription software too, but I can fully understand why developers lean towards it as a way of getting a strong return and justifying further development, taking on staff for support, etc. If the app isn't up to it, then consumers can find an alternative that can scrape by with a single price, right? People expect updates once they've purchased an app for a few bucks. And the App Store model does not allow a developer to e.g. Maintain three different branches of a product (oldstable, stable, beta), with purchases tied to the branch. This makes a 'classic' release flow like 1.0 is released, then 1.1 is released, then 1.2, then 2.0 (with new features, whatever), and then a patch 1.3, impossible.

Unfortunately, this 'only ever have a single released/maintained version' approach (that was famously pioneered by Apple in iOS itself!) has caught the entire industry - there is no way to avoid e.g. A major update because it brings a royally fucked up UI, lost/rearranged features or whatever without risking security issues. This is really really bad for enterprise customers where things like 'UI overhauls' can lead to a massive, expensive training for all the users or at the very least an increased amount of helpdesk tickets.

Releasing major versions as separate apps is actually desirable for a number of reasons:. The users decide if and when they want to upgrade. If a trial for a newer version is available, users can try it out before upgrading. Users can keep older versions if they prefer the older UI etc. They’re not forced to like all and any major changes just to keep using the app.

There’ve been plenty of infamous cases where people complained about new versions of popular apps and websites. Generally a predictable timeframe for yearly updates. Users don’t have to pay every month even when an app is getting no updates. Developers are not under any pressure to release updates for the sake of updating to justify a monthly subscription.

Subscription-based software generally loses some or all of these advantages. Subscription-based apps seem to favor developers more than users. Greedy developers, in my unsugarcoated opinion.

Pay-once apps compete with each other for my wallet only once. I can purchase them all over a given period of time. Subscription-based apps constantly compete with EVERYTHING else that I have to pay for every month.

If I’m already subscribing to many apps, it reduces the chances of me subscribing to your app, even if it does not directly compete with those apps in the same category. Photo-editing apps start competing with text-editing apps and games and music apps, perpetually, if they all switch to a subscription model. How is that sane? If my monthly budget needs some breathing room and I temporarily cancel a subscription, I lose features or even access to my existing data. It doesn’t matter how long I had been paying for, not even if I had been a subscriber for years before cancelling. If developers demand a subscription model then users should demand a “loyalty” perk, where you get to retain access to an app for N weeks after cancelling if you had previously subscribed for X months.

Also, you’d think that with the total number of computing users increasing for all platforms across the world, the overall sales of apps, or at least the potential buyers to market to, must be increasing as well, compared to when we didn’t even have subscriptions in the App Store. 'Also, you’d think that with the total number of computing users increasing for all platforms across the world.' A certain percentage of those computing users are developers creating new apps. It's hyper-competitive. If you can get a subscription product off the ground, you can double down on the product and support and get some advantages over small-time developers struggling along still servicing a userbase that paid a couple of bucks, one time, years ago. (For the record, none of our apps are subscription based.

I'm just saying I can completely understand the appeal from the developers' side.). There are 2 parts of the apps. There's model layer and view layer. The model layer is a pain to bring over because certain model objects (UIColor) are only on one platform. So if they make changes to ease that then making a mac app will become way easier. The other problem is that AppKit is not as nice or as easy to use as UIKit in my experience.

If they can bring these two frameworks together under shared functionality that would be great. For example, template Master-Detail from iPhone to iPad is great (and you can always customize). So having that extend to macOS would make mac development easier. I imagine this is what they are planning. The third idea is they are thinking of something greater yet separate that is not meant for existing apps.

Like a new UI Framework that works on both. This seems hard to believe as they have the iOS app base and the goal is to bring that over to mac not start a new app base altogether. Unifying the APIs that exist in slightly different versions on both platforms makes sense. But it's dangerous to talk like that frees you from having to design and implement separate user interfaces for handheld touchscreens and for desktops with keyboard+mouse. I like the idea of getting a compiler error when you try to deploy a touchscreen UI to my MacBook Pro. I paid good money for that Retina display because I want to have a lot of information on screen. I don't want it wasted by 200px buttons.

I end up just using a subclass with isFlipped returning true 90% of the time. I've found that I rarely need to deal with the lower-left issue after that.

What's your biggest pain point after that? I look forward to this from Apple, because then I could scrap so much of my own stuff that's aliasing the two platforms. I think people who haven't built for these platforms don't understand that it's not about Apple letting you provide the same UI on two different platforms, but about getting rid of the lower-level differences between the two that don't need to exist in the first place.

It's strange to see so many people both here and over on Reddit take issue with Apple doing this - you can't sit there and complain about Electron taking over and then decry a company literally giving you a better option. I'd gladly run a Slack client on my desktop if I could get the iOS build, and I'd really enjoy having RobinHood or Tinder or any number of apps on my desktop so I don't need to pull out my phone (or open a browser) for them. As it stands right now, cross-building your app for desktop from iOS is a rabbit hole that most people are right to shy away from as there's a lot of odd knowledge that's historically been needed to make it work. For example, NSTableView in 10.13 finally supports AutoLayout without needing to hack around it with a caching view, making it much closer to UITableView.

That alone makes certain views much easier. Collection Views also only recently got closer to their UIKit counterparts, and it's made that much more usable as a result. Before these things, there was so much glue code to reuse the same stuff. Sharing layout code before was possible, but an extreme exercise in frustration for a lot of people - now it's getting closer to a 1:1. Using any of the littered unmaintained frameworks for 'UIKit in AppKit' is also usually not that great, since it's another API to learn that's most unofficial and they've almost all been abandoned over the years. Also, as one last personal comment, Apple needs to port UINavigationController - I ended up rolling my own (with the whole header view/etc), which is horrendously annoying to do. While I totally understand that mobile!= desktop, it's 2017 and people have gotten slightly used to some mobile interfaces working on desktop.

At the end of the day it's a simple stacked navigator that'd make code reuse a lot easier. Hell, port the API and have it display differently for all I care. Ninja Edit: if you're an Electron fan, and Apple had frameworks that worked the same on Mac/iOS, you could avoid Electron on iOS if you had a React Native app that could now cross compile (not using the odd third party framework that exists and is never really feature-parity with actual React Native).

Convergence is overestimated. As a users, I actually do not want an identical use experience of apps on desktop and mobile devices because inherently these are different use cases and it does not make sense to mix them. It's not even the same applications that would be used on iPad as on macOS. I doubt technology is an issue here.

Universal binaries for macOS worked well and that was a decade ago. It's the fundamental use cases for these devices that differ and no development framework can bridge that, probably even shouldn't. It would be interesting to compare this to which came out of the Iconfactory in 2011: “Chameleon requires OS X 10.6 or higher. Apps built with it have been proven to be acceptable to Apple for the Mac App Store. Chameleon was first built by The Iconfactory to unify the codebase of Twitterrific for both Mac and iOS.” Frameworks with iOS/macOS targets have long existed and it is proven possible to have events routed in UIKit style. I however fear that the merging of user experiences will come at the detriment of the Mac experience.

SJ said long ago that Macs are trucks and only some people need it. This converging step makes no sense when Apple is already trying to push the iPad as the “computer” for the masses.

The obvious universal API that targets big screens and small, touch or mouse is Qt. It started as a desktop framework, was made touch-aware to be used Nokia and BB10 for phones, powers KDE 5 and I'm hopeful Ollie Paranoid will provide an update in a few weeks re: Plasma on postmarketOS. Now a company with Apple's resources should surely be able to reintegrate the Cocoa Touch hard-fork back into a common modernised Cocoa, which by now has a 30 year legacy from NeXTSTEP. Naturally you'll still need to customize a UI for Mac or iPhone but a unified toolkit is entirely possible. This convinces me my suspicions are correct. They want to replace desktops with iPhones.

Apple has been drastically increasing the power of the processors in iPhones. Now they’re unifying the iOS and macOS experience. They’re going to create a desktop mode within iOS. It’ll use bluetooth peripherals and an HDMI Airplay stick that plugs into a monitor. The iPhone will become a PC we carry around in our pockets containing all our data making it unnecessary to have a different computer in every place we go to. And it will justify spending more on our phones because we’ll be saving not buying desktops.

Really looking forward to my complex professional software and content creation and data management desktop tools being dumbed down to the UI complexity of an iPhone just like desktop web apps have been since the advent of responsive design. Maybe the upside of this will be all the developer types fleeing to Linux and Linux finally gaining a comparable user-facing software ecosystem. (Yes, I know a lot of software exists for Linux, but the quantity, variety, and ease of installation of end-user applications on Mac is in a different league; and a lot of mainstream Mac+Windows apps still don't have Linux versions. It's the main thing Apple gained by making OSX developer-friendly in the first place.). This is amazing news. As a developer the idea of writing once and running on many platforms is weight off our shoulders.

However, I can also see how a lot of developers might not like this. For example, Cultured Code charges $13.99 for Things on iOS but $49.99 on Mac. Why the difference?

It is mostly because users expect apps to be cheap on mobile even though developing for both platforms is comparable. However now, developers are going to be expected by users to support both iOS and Mac apps for the same price.

Also, I feel like this news might imply ARM based macOS? The reason MAS is a ghost town I have always assumed was because of the MAS limitations and that unlike iOS devs aren’t required to use the store.

IOS and macOS are totally different so you’d still have to develop custom ui’s though Apple could certainly help to make it easier to develop for both platforms at once. But even then MAS would remain mostly a desert until they even change limitations or require all apps to be from MAS which would be nearly impossible, especially for business customers. That was kind of my point. The new designs don't incorporate any new functionality. The designs don't necessarily look outdated, they look out dated to us because we live and breathe that stuff.

I'm not speaking in absolutes here though - some bank sites do need to be completely reimagined. Chase specifically comes to mind for example, but Wells Fargo's site was perfectly usable and did not feel dated. To go even further, I'm not entirely arguing against redesigns, I'm arguing that if you do go that route it should at least be simple and straight forward, it's a bank site not the next social media behemoth. It's always a really tough problem to keep old users happy who've been using the old sites for possibly years while treating new users to something more modern.

This is one of the toughest problems I've encountered working in this field and haven't yet found an elegant solution. You're doing it wrong if you're stripping features only on small view ports.

I'm not sure how that statement addresses the point made by GP, who said, '.their websites are often terrible on a laptop, which is how I use the Internet.' If not the de facto guidance of mobile-first design, the de jure guidance steers designers toward reduced functionality. The overwhelmingly common outcome of a mobile-first redesign of an application is dramatic reduction of functionality, often spun as a simplification. I would prefer if mobile-first redesigns retained existing functionality but I acknowledge functionality may be reached in new ways that better fit the capability of the device.

The problem is not that mobile-first design strips features only on small view ports; the problem is that mobile-first design strips features full-stop. Unfortunately, I agree that it certainly is a tendency to do that.

But, again, I'd say that's just bad design. A good design with a mobile first strategy should not end with such an outcome. I'd also like to clarify that my tone was directed towards the people who mess it up, not the parent. If you start with a semi truck trailer full of stuff from your suburban mcmansion and try to cram it into a studio apartment, you're going to have a bad time.

But you have to. What you don't have to do is say 'We have all these widgets and need them on mobile so let's figure that out'. Those aren't features. The feature is being able to get the information you need or do your task on any device. If you can't design an interface that accomplishes what you need in a small viewport, that doesn't mean cut it, it means maybe think a bit more.

It's not a situation of fitting every god damn thing on the same screen and then giving up on anything that doesn't fit. When you have more screen real estate use it if you can effectively. Again, your feature is what you can accomplish with whatever it is you're designing. If it's a database of information with tons of categories then it's an IA problem from the tightest box first and then using more space as it becomes available. If a user can't get to the same information on any device then the design ain't working. If its a piece of accounting software you'll have a bunch of crud operations happening and need to focus on designing great forms.

I think most large companies basically decide to cram their mega menu into a side are menu, then expose the search bar and put their app in read only mode. Very much like slapping agile on your team to solve your efficiency problems, it won't work.