Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Sideloading iOS Apps No Longer Possible on M1 Macs
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Why should they have a right to tell me how to use it? Where does it end? Should Microsoft take back software if they don’t like what your write about in word? Should craftsman tell me I can’t use a wrench as a hammer?
A software developer who doesn’t care enough to make the software work correctly has no business telling people how to use it.
Very good post. I believe we have a lot of venters in the thread. Nothing wrong with that. I suppose we all ned to vent at times. What bothers me more than anything, is the entitlement mentality where people expect things for free. And if they don't get what they think they are entitled to, they take from the Developer and use apps in a manner that has not been licensed and approved by Apple and the Developer.
Apple does make great products but, as you said, those products may not always be the best route for some here. Having a choice in that regard is something we all need to cherish.
I will stick with Apple as long as I agree with their stance and development. If it changes, I will waste no time taking another path less traveled.
Purchase vs licensing.
It never becomes your product. You receive a license to use as they see fit. Don’t like it? Go elsewhere. No problem since most stuff is subscription anyway.
The expectation that you have any further right to someone else’s product is baffling.
Consumers are protected by what is at the time of purchase. Consumers are not protected by any whims of expectation created by the same consumers, that is not a part of the official licensing agreement that includes Apple and the respective Developer.
Expectations that are ill-placed and not supported by the user agreement etc. is not reflective of laws broken when it comes to software. The expectations you mentioned earlier are not evidence of laws broken. They are evidence of your personal expectations not being met by the Developer.
Again, call it what you want but the product needs to function correctly or it's defective. We need a software lemon law.
But this idea of licensing only works for the consumer if developers have but a year to monetize their software.
Selling software that doesn't work, or has 'a few bugs' isn't consumer friendly and needs to be addressed. The user agreement should not be able to negate the expectation that software first and foremost works. We give developers a pass because they can send out patches. I have no issues with those developers. My issue comes from the software that is sold with problems and never fixed.
No one is saying the law was broken. The law is broken. It doesn't protect consumers but rather allows business to sell faulty software.
Last edited:
Emulation isn't a crime. I have the right to install any software I pay for on any hardware I wish. Developers are not expected to support it, but we as consumers shouldn't tolerate behaviors acted solely to interfere with our right to use the software on the platform we choose.
They are expected to support the software on the platform they sold it for. That's where we run into issues. Apps that crash on device it is expected to run on. We have been trained that it's 'ok' that sometimes software doesn't work. Well it's not ok. It either works as advertised or it's defective and consumers should be reimbursed.
If an app does not work in the specific manner as advertised in typical day to day function for a consumer, the consumer should inform the Developer and then if the Developer cannot fix the problem, I believe the consumer has the right to a refund.
I believe your expectation that software with bugs is unreasonable etc. is not practical, especially when it may involve millions of lines of code.
If you feel strongly about what you have said in the thread thus far, and believe in adhering to those beliefs, that means you must quit suing Apple forthwith. It also means you can't use Window or Linux OS or apps.
The practical thing to do is be very familiar with what an app is and what it is advertised to do, read the licensing agreement, and if the consumer agrees to the terms etc., then make the purchase.
In my option, not reading the licensing agreement before purchase, and then expecting the Developer to meet expectations and demands that were not previously stipulated by Developer or Apple (as the host) because one can no longer use an app that was never officially licensed or support by other of the aforementioned parties is wrong. It is also a recipe for staying perpetually frustrated.
It would also behoove consumers to contact the Developer prior to purchase, as to his or her future plans for app on different platforms etc., instead of just making blind assumptions.
I think it's far more effective to support legislation that sets conditions on how software can be sold and what the expectations are for reliability than to tell users who are being screwed over to read one-sided T&C and stop using their hardware or just suck it up.
Software developers have had to long where they can act with impunity. It would be hard to make software that doesn't crash, and that's ok. Just because making reliable software would be harder doesn't mean it's not a goal we should strive to hold developers to. Sure, this would make it harder for new software companies to form, but we could have an exception for free software. As long as there are no upfront costs, DLC, ads, or sponsorships than we could treat it different from consumer products.
In my option holding individuals financially accountable for selling products that ship with issues should be the norm and there needs to be a system in place to simplify the process of ensuring the responsible parties are held accountable. Just as we should hold company executives financially accountable if the business is found to be involved in some sort of fraud.
After all, software is a multi-billion dollar industry because you can ship anything you want and fix it later. Or not. For every No Mans Sky and Cyberpunk 2077 there are a hundred developers that release software that never get a post release update.
You mean paid, right? Otherwise, read the article before posting idiotic comments.
I'm torn, but I understand both sides of the argument.
1) Yeah, it sucks that I can't just re-download what I already paid for on another compatible (yet different) device.
2) That said, one of the things I instantly thought would be cool is that I'd have Minecraft on the Mac thanks to this. Nope. Blocked. I understand why. Minecraft PE was always meant for iOS devices (EXCLUDING Apple TV, it should be noted, and there was no reason for this exclusion, other than money grab). There was an AppleTV version (discontinued now, I think...) and there's a version for Mac (Java version)? Long story short, here, is that Microsoft isn't going to allow people to play the PE version on the Mac if they can still milk customers out of more money.
In other words, yes... it sucks. But, from a business standpoint, if you were a company making a Mac version AND an iOS version, you could instantly lose money with the M1 just running the iOS version.
I think it's less about Apple "taking control" and more about appeasing developers.
1) Yeah, it sucks that I can't just re-download what I already paid for on another compatible (yet different) device.
2) That said, one of the things I instantly thought would be cool is that I'd have Minecraft on the Mac thanks to this. Nope. Blocked. I understand why. Minecraft PE was always meant for iOS devices (EXCLUDING Apple TV, it should be noted, and there was no reason for this exclusion, other than money grab). There was an AppleTV version (discontinued now, I think...) and there's a version for Mac (Java version)? Long story short, here, is that Microsoft isn't going to allow people to play the PE version on the Mac if they can still milk customers out of more money.
In other words, yes... it sucks. But, from a business standpoint, if you were a company making a Mac version AND an iOS version, you could instantly lose money with the M1 just running the iOS version.
I think it's less about Apple "taking control" and more about appeasing developers.
Developers trying to make more money. Apple will enforce it because it will make them even more money. Simple as that.
No I didn’t. You’re quoting me. The post I referred to was excellent. If you want to discuss on topic on the points that were made address the author.
I happen to like the current method of Apple being in control of what is allowed in their store. I also like that a Developer has the ability to make an app that supports all platforms (or not). And if I need or want an app function for Mac and my favorite iOS app doesn't support it, I will look towards another app to meet my needs, instead of trying to bully a Developer into giving me what I want.
I also do like this. I think the dev should be in charge of what he wants to do with the software he develop.
They have the right to tell you how to use it because you agreed to it... this isn't difficult.
You are also free to complain about it, as you've obviously taken to.