Having an ARM PL on Mac and an iPad app are totally different things as @StevenL pointed out. And while it is true that Catalyst helps porting from an iPad app to a Mac app, the opposite isn’t true. So DxO would still need to start from scratch to make an iPad app. Then later only development effort could eventually be shared by replacing the macOS app by the iPad app with Catalyst.
2 Likes
To me Catalyst is not a solution for PhotoLab. Did you see what apps are using it? Simple apps like messaging, Music, Maps etc… not high-performance apps.
I agree with the DxO staff. Turning PhotoLab into an iPad app isn’t simply enabling a checkbox. It asks for a completely redesign / unique approach to make it work.
So three ways to go about this are:
- Redesign PhotoLab from the ground up with a dual desktop-mobile/touch philosophy
- Porting PhotoLab to ARM first and then making it work for ARM later (but already take into account that mac is going full touch down the line)
- Ignore the iPad/touch
I would say the second option makes most sense for now. The writing on the wall is that ARM-based touch Macs are coming, and this should be taken into account with every design decision going forward. Also, in the next decade iPadOS and macOS will merge… you can bet on it (Big Sur moved towards iPadOS, while iPadOS moved towards Big Sur… this is no coincidence.
2 Likes
I agree, downvote from me. I would prefer that Dxo spend their effort introducing new functionality rather than refactoring their existing software to run on an ipad.
2 Likes
I wish the best for DxO and PhotoLab in this fast paced moving technologies.
ARM is right in front of the door. iPad Pro is more than a serious “computer” so I guess there is much opportunities and work to be done in the next couple of years. Everyday one step forward for the best quality of our pictures.
3 Likes
Regardless of technical issues, I doubt DXO will ever invest resources to develop an iPad version unless they believe it will result in significant growth of their customer base.
Mark
I think the same… - What dit you think about an iOS PL version?
Next time on1 will publish an iOS app…
I think the iOS/iPadOS should be in mind, and mybe the development with the same ARM architecture mybe easier…
It must not an full featured version in a first step 
1 Like
I can only assume you’ve never used an iPad, especially the latest version.
There is a reason Adobe, Serif, On1 and so many others are happy to put their photo editing onto iPad.
The only issue with iPad photo editing is the lack of screen colour calibration + using printer profiles for softproofing. Fix these two issues and you have the perfect place for 100% workflow of image processing.
It feels so much more natural and fun to edit on an iPad. Just need these two issues fixed (that and utilising full width of external monitor but that minor)
3 Likes
Unless they can code it to support printer profiles, so you can softproof, and some how make it so you can colour calibrate the iPad, then the tool would be utterly useless just like all the other photo editing tools on ipad.
This comes from someone who has spent plenty of time editing exclusively on iPad 12.9inch 2020, and sent off images to printers for them to come back incorrectly due to the lack of these features on an iPad.
2 Likes
To file on location with the iPad Pro and PhotoLab 4+ is my dream!
5 Likes
I love to empty my memory card onto my iPad on location with Lightroom, edit while I’m on a train, pick up where I left off on the desktop. Be able to access my photos on my phone… its literally the feature keeping me on Lightroom CC
1 Like
I would love photolab for ipad. Especially with the deep prime noise reduction.
2 Likes
Now that there’s native Apple desktop hardware (the M1), an iPad version is closer. Porting a version for the M1 over to the iPad will be much easier.
2 Likes
I still don’t understand some technical answers provided, especially being a software dev myself for many years.
- Catalyst was a first step to port iPad apps to Mac. Yes, I understand that’s the opposite direction, but what was important here beyond the direction is Apple’s policy to merge apps. That should call our attention.
- Next after Catalyst came M1 Macs and Apple is further saying to developers: make your apps universal. As I said earlier, there is support for keyboard and mouse on iPad. So, from a technical stand point I disagree with you Lucas: you don’t have to rethink DxO altogether to make it run on the iPad. Why would you? It’s the same: a screen, a keyboard (or the virtual one), a mouse and the same ARM architecture.
Apple has made is easier to make a macOS app from an iOS app, but not the opposite as you say. Making a macOS app become an iOS app is “easy” only is the technology used for the UI is compatible with both platforms (for instance SwiftUI) which is not the case in PhotoLab. So despite Apple pushing developers to have apps work across different platforms, in our case it’s far from trivial.
You could say that it’s our fault for not using a better technology to start with, but when PhotoLab/Optics Pro for macOS was developed, such cross-platform UI technology didn’t exist yet. And in practice current technologies for this are rather young or have pitfalls like not feeling organic.
An iPad app that’s only easily usable with a mouse and keyboard would be considered a very poor experience, and most likely Apple wouldn’t even accept it on their App Store. The app must feel right with just touch, keyboard and mouse are bonus.
3 Likes
I didn’t say the opposite. I did write Catalyst was from iPad to macOS. I also added that now we have common architecture (which is a big thing). But it’s the general tendency that is important here. Apple is clearly pushing in that direction and many dev teams are following. I’m not sure it’s the right move to be the “irréductibles gaulois” who don’t want join the same tendency.
As of today, LR, PS, Affinity, etc. are on iPad. What if C1 makes the same move? At that time, DxO would be the only one not to do so and I’m afraid that would drive many people away from DxO which is something I wouldn’t like to see.
Duhhh… It’s still OK to do vanilla JS for the web, but I definitely got on board the Vue.js (in my case) ship.
Absolutely and I didn’t mean that it shouldn’t support touch. Of course not. But don’t you think that apps like DxO, LR, C1 are really primitive in terms of touch support? I mean that for such apps we just need to touch sliders and make them move. It’s not like we need the accelerometer, get the inclination, special gestures, so on and so forth. Of course, you could implement all these things, as well as Apple Pencil; nobody would complain. For a v1, it’s ok do without this. And that means a lesser amount of work to begin with.
I am sure PhotoLab will end up on iPad at some point because the new Macs will all have an Apple Silicon CPU now. So the base will be the same for all the Apple devices.
It only needs a few more years to achieve the transition, it has only just began !
DxO is certainly aware that big changes need to be done… and also that missing the powerful iPad Pro is a mistake in the long term.
At the same time they need to deliver Mac Intel updates.
And change our underlying UI technology, fit in iOS file management workflow, remove menus, make more space in the smaller display and make controls bigger for touch. Sounds trivial 
I’m not saying an iPad version wouldn’t be interesting but it requires a significant amount of time. So it requires careful consideration.
2 Likes
Thanks, this is great example: what I’m trying to say for several messages is that the convergence decided by Apple is inevitable and will also benefit both the iPad and the Mac. As for your example, change of UI technology to use Metal would definitely benefit the Mac for instance. Dev of iPad and macOS go hand in hand whereas you seem to only point out the differences and gaps to fill in order to make an iPad version. Never ever have I written that there’s no effort, but imho I’m not sure you can afford missing the train by spending years of “consideration”.
I really want an iPad version. Mostly for deep prime noise reduction. Deep prime is going to be very important to me.
I would even be ok with long processing times. Though I think the iPad will surprise people as it’s a pretty speedy chip.
1 Like
Hi,
yes. It would take a lot of time.
Just for some thoughts:
Background: I am not the middle of the world. I used DxO since DxO OpticsPro 9 Elite. The funny thing is i use it mostly private. And also bought DxO PhotoLab 4 last November. Right now i noticed - i have not yet installed it. I remember on last installations always some stupid problems (like it was not possible to write to Windows installation directory from DxO Installer and so on). As home user I have a few PC monitors (mostly as software developer I am used to it). And found most of the time: There is not enough space.
As I said before i did not install the latest version. And i also did not use the previous any longer. Many things changed in the last years and i mostly use tablets for private things.
I hated the serif products on PC - but with an Ipad and pencil it became the weapon of choice. I came to this entry because i remembered dxo and tried to find out wether there is an iPad programm. So yes - you would have customers on the ipad. But as said before- i am not the center of the world and i know that development costs money. Bit sad because i want a photolab on ipad,but your company must see wether it is something which brings a financial benefit or just is a step to ruin.
1 Like