Mac Version Now Available

[arlo]

As of today, the first-ever Mac version of BandHelper is available. This is free for every account level, so you can download it and try it out.

https://apps.apple.com/app/id1503592748

This requires macOS 10.15 (Catalina) or later.

I'll try to anticipate some frequently asked questions:

Does this replace the BandHelper website?
The Mac version is almost the same as the iOS version, which is designed more for performing than for data entry. If you want to use MIDI, remote control, device linking, auto-scrolling, backing tracks or videos from a Mac instead of a tablet, you can use the new Mac app. If you want to add users to your account, edit your data or batch-import new data, you should use the website as before. In short, this is an alternative to the iOS and Android mobile apps, but is not an alternative to the website.

Does this do everything the mobile apps can do?
The goal is to do everything the mobile apps can do, but there are a few current limitations that I hope I can address in the future:
- Layouts don't respond to two- and three-fingered tap gestures (seems to be an Apple bug).
- Inter-app audio is not available (will require rewriting the inter-app audio code).
- Multi-route audio is not available (seems to be a limitation of the iOS to Mac porting process).
- Supported document formats are PDF, JPG and TXT -- no Word or RTF files (a limitation of the Mac frameworks that I don't expect to change; it's more likely Word and RTF support will eventually be removed from iOS, too).

Will you be releasing a Windows version next?
Because Apple provided a system for porting from iOS to macOS, it was relatively easy to release a Mac app. The emphasis is on relatively, because it was not easy, but releasing a Windows version would require a vastly greater investment in development time, maintenance time, test equipment and getting to know a separate ecosystem. So I would say if the Mac version becomes notably popular, that could make an eventual Windows version more likely, but meanwhile the best option is to buy the Android version and use it on an Android emulator like Bluestacks.

If you have additional questions about the overall capabilities, you can post them here. If you try the app and run into a problem, please post a help ticket instead.

[wakevortex]

Disappointing...

many musicians can or will NOT run CATALINA for various quite major issues with plugins etc...
is there no way to run it with Mojave? what about a download link from you that is not the App Store which actually prevents even downloading to try it?

Thanks
Bill P

[arlo]

I could try the app on an older macOS version, but I'm guessing the SDK uses OS frameworks that are only available on Catalina. I don't think Apple would have added this limitation for no reason.

The reason Catalina is a difficult update is that it drops support for 32-bit apps. That change was in the works for years, so in my experience it's only apps that haven't been updated in years that are no longer compatible.

[The Saint]

Hi Arlo

I was really pleased to read that there is now an app for iMac.

But then found out that I'm running 10.13.6 and that's as good as it gets for my mid 2011 Mac..!

Is it likely to be available for me at any point..?

I understand that there has to be a cut off point somewhere, just upset that I'm sitting right on the cut off point...!! 

Cheers

Graham

[wakevortex]

Great shame..as I mentioned some of us CANT upgrade to Catalina as it would break some vital music related stuff

Bill P

[arlo]

But then found out that I'm running 10.13.6 and that's as good as it gets for my mid 2011 Mac..!

Is it likely to be available for me at any point..?

Compatibility is determined by Apple, and I don't expect they would expand backwards compatibility after a product is released.

Great shame..as I mentioned some of us CANT upgrade to Catalina as it would break some vital music related stuff

You mean it's a shame the developers of your other music apps haven't updated for 64-bit compatibility? You could write to them about that.

I had to deal with updating or replacing 32-bit apps on my own computer when I started this process six months ago. It was a pain, but I got through it, and found some nicer apps in the process. If you're not ready to do that now, BandHelper for Mac will be here when you are.

[arlo]

I did try the Mac app on a couple older app versions today, but it won't launch. The macOS 10.15 requirement is baked into Apple's build system. I think that reflects the reality that the app SDK relies on current OS frameworks.

[tonyt]

Congrats Arlo! I'd heard about Catalyst apps but haven't tried any yet.

I'm struggling a little with navigation so far. For example, a two-finger vertical swipe scrolls up and down, but I can't find any way to do a horizontal swipe (or arrow keys) to switch between songs.

Do you think this is something in the layout or in the framework?

[arlo]

I'm struggling a little with navigation so far. For example, a two-finger vertical swipe scrolls up and down, but I can't find any way to do a horizontal swipe (or arrow keys) to switch between songs.

Responding two a two-fingered horizontal swipe like other apps would be nice, but I don't think that's available to Catalyst apps, at least not yet. Meanwhile, you can click and swipe horizontally (a drag gesture) to achieve the one-fingered swipe gesture from iOS, or you can edit your layout and add the Next Song / Previous Song buttons.

[bronnos]

Arlo,

Big thanks for this! Really appreciate a MacOS version! Been waiting for this.
And ignore the haters. At some point progress needs to be made, leaving old stuff behind. The stuff that doesn't work on the new OS is just lagging behind, and that is definitely not your fault although it might be annoying. They should complain to the makers of that piece of software..

Regards,

Jeroen 

[danray0424]

Thanks for this, Arlo! BandHelper came to mind immediately when I heard about Catalyist.

Here's my thing though--I installed and launched it, and it did great. But now when I re-launch it, it just sits there. The top of the "sync" indicator is lit up and there's a spinning doodad in the left viewcontroller.

Thoughts?

[arlo]

If you try the app and run into a problem, please post a help ticket.

[Dutch]

I've got too many apps that I use all the time that won't work if I upgrade to Catalina.  I certainly understand your position but I'll have to keep using the Internet version for the time being.

I don't want to pay Microsoft a yearly subscription is my biggest complaint.   

[arlo]

I don't want to pay Microsoft a yearly subscription is my biggest complaint.   

Do you mean for MS Office? They have one-time purchase options, too.

[Erawal]

Before deciding whether to upgrade to Catalina in order to get access to the new BandHelper Mac App (I have the same issues others have re: not wanting to lose some key programs), it would be helpful to know this: 

Will running BH on the Mac App be faster than using the web interface?  While I love Bandhelper, it has become almost unusable on my Mac (via the Web interface) -- I have a large number of songs in Bandhelper, and the time lag when adding songs, going back to list view, etc. is really long, and makes it painful (again, almost unusable) to add songs from my computer.   

BH works great on my iPad and iPhone, but sometimes I have lyrics on my computer that I want to load into the program; for that and for other reasons, I'd love to be able to use my nice big screen Mac to use Bandhelper.  If I can reasonably expect that the MacApp would work more like the iPhone and iPad app in terms of speed, I think it might be worth it to me to upgrade to Catalina, especially since I understand that Audacity just released a version of their program that (might) work with Catalina.

Thanks in advance for any advice you can provide re: expected speed of the BandHelper Mac App versus accessing BH thru the Web interface.

(Separately, if you have any advice about how to make the web interface usable for folks with large song databases, I'd appreciate that, though I realize that may belong in a different thread).