Sideloading iOS Apps No Longer Possible on M1 Macs

[Saturn007]

Hmm... so, if I buy a music CD, I shouldn't have the right to transfer it to a computer, stream it over my home network, record it onto a USB stick that I play in my car, etc.?

The entire notion of a software “license” needs to be critically examined. It may be the way it's always been done, but that doesn't make it right. Plus, virtually no one ever reads them rendering their terms or standing as a contract moot.

The phone and cable TV companies used to claim they owned all the wire in your house and that you couldn't install an extension phone or a cable to show “their” programs on a second TV set in your own home without paying extra! That went by the wayside after several lawsuits and the sheer impracticality of enforcing it.

 

[jonblatho]

How would you propose they be held accountable?

Why should they be “held accountable”? There is no promise of perpetual maintenance when you get an app, even a paid one. So many things can happen — the company goes belly up in a recession, (God forbid) the developer dies in a car crash a month after you buy their app, the app is part of an acquisition and the new parent company kills it off, etc. They can’t be “held accountable” to a contract clause that never existed.

Perhaps you should change your username to “4karentv”?

 

[4jasontv]

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.

It's not about bullying. Quite the opposite. It's about stopping developers from telling us how we use software we paid for.

 

[4jasontv]

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.

How is this difficult. They shouldn't have the right to ask me to agree to anything.

 

[4jasontv]

Why should they be “held accountable”? There is no promise of perpetual maintenance when you get an app, even a paid one. So many things can happen — the company goes belly up in a recession, (God forbid) the developer dies in a car crash a month after you buy their app, the app is part of an acquisition and the new parent company kills it off, etc. They can’t be “held accountable” to a contract clause that never existed.

Perhaps you should change your username to “4karentv”?

Fraud is fraud. If the software doesn't function as claimed they should be able to generate profit from it. Unless they pass away they are liable to refund. If it's sold ownership is transferred just like any other industry.

This idea that software is 'special' and 'to hard to make work' needs to be squashed. Either do your job or find a different one. The very idea that you can sell something that doesn't work is absurd. We go after companies all the time that make claims that are not true. If the app fails to work on the platform they claim its for then it doesn't work and they committed fraud. It's really simple, what are you having difficulty understanding? Is it the part where they should have to work for a living instead of trying to profit off their midterm computer science assignment?

 

[bwillwall]

I am so sick of all these fanboys defending Apple no matter what they do. On Android you can literally install any app package from the internet. Developers will live when more platforms can support their apps... The Mac has ALWAYS allowed you to openly install apps which could include ones from unofficial sources. STOP giving Apple the go-ahead to lock down the Mac platform just because now it runs iOS capable hardware. If an app is compatible with a mac it should be 100% in the users hands to install.

 

[TheWatchfulOne]

I am so sick of all these fanboys defending Apple no matter what they do. On Android you can literally install any app package from the internet. Developers will live when more platforms can support their apps... The Mac has ALWAYS allowed you to openly install apps which could include ones from unofficial sources. STOP giving Apple the go-ahead to lock down the Mac platform just because now it runs iOS capable hardware. If an app is compatible with a mac it should be 100% in the users hands to install.

Nobody is defending Apple "no matter what they do." And this story isn't about Apple locking anything down. This is about Apple allowing developers to make their iOS apps unavailable on the Mac when said apps are not compatible with the Mac. Because if an app is incompatible with the Mac, and the developer has no way to implement and test Mac support, it should be 100% within the developers' right and ability to make it unavailable on the Mac.

 

[ericwn]

I am so sick of all these fanboys defending Apple no matter what they do. On Android you can literally install any app package from the internet. Developers will live when more platforms can support their apps... The Mac has ALWAYS allowed you to openly install apps which could include ones from unofficial sources. STOP giving Apple the go-ahead to lock down the Mac platform just because now it runs iOS capable hardware. If an app is compatible with a mac it should be 100% in the users hands to install.

Sounds like you may not have the best time in Apple’s systems then. On the other hand, Android is also not a desktop OS and if it were possible to pirate Android software to make it run elsewhere those developers might have the exact same reservations.

 

[castlerock]

You own the hardware. You do not own the software, you only license it.

Feel free to wipe your hardware and put whatever you like on it.

I write Apps for a living. To be able to make a living I need to make sure my software is keeping me and my family fed.

Thanks for at least being honest where you're coming from. I can respect that.

What I can't abide are those who blow smoke claiming "there's a good [but unstated] reason behind this" or "it's really for your own good" when it's hard to understand the mental gymnastics involved in believing that removing functionality with no obvious harmful effect is somehow protecting the user. It has always been a strong contingent here and I've always wondered what proportion are simply Apple shills versus those who are True Believers in the wisdom of all of Apple's decisions.

 

[jonblatho]

Fraud is fraud. If the software doesn't function as claimed they should be able to generate profit from it. Unless they pass away they are liable to refund. If it's sold ownership is transferred just like any other industry.

This idea that software is 'special' and 'to hard to make work' needs to be squashed. Either do your job or find a different one. The very idea that you can sell something that doesn't work is absurd. We go after companies all the time that make claims that are not true. If the app fails to work on the platform they claim its for then it doesn't work and they committed fraud. It's really simple, what are you having difficulty understanding? Is it the part where they should have to work for a living instead of trying to profit off their midterm computer science assignment?

This is nonsense. What the hell are you calling fraud? You’re not buying software; you’re buying a license to use a given piece of software. Apps can choose to use their own license (which, again, is what’s actually being sold), but many use the standard one offered by Apple, which is available to read here. I would recommend that you do so. I can tell you that pretty much everywhere, “Unless they pass away they are liable to refund,” is false.

When looking at an iOS app’s page on the App Store, you can view the “Compatibility” section, which will make clear whether the iOS app also supports macOS. If it does, it will show a “Mac” section header and specify that it requires a Mac with an M1 chip and macOS 11 or later. If it doesn’t, you’re well within your rights not to purchase it, but understand that no claim of compatibility for the macOS platform has been made.

The same goes for iOS apps that you purchased previously. You purchased the license under the understanding that it was for iOS only, and an app may remain iOS-only. You gain nothing and lose nothing.

Your ignorance isn’t Apple’s or a developer’s fault.

 

[hot-gril]

Call me crazy, but if I ship a Mac app, I want it to be a good Mac app, not a Mac app that inspires users to deliver the glowing praise: “eh, it’s fine.” There are myriad reasons why many iOS apps aren’t currently available on macOS and why some never will be. Same story for why Catalyst apps didn’t suddenly flood the Mac App Store upon release: It’s just not “there” yet for so many use cases.

If the developer doesn’t want to accept the compromises to the experience they want to deliver, or if they’re unwilling (or unable) to support it, that’s their prerogative. Maybe you just love using software that the developer doesn’t care about, though?

Yes, I would rather use software that the developer is unwilling or unable to support than not use it at all. Why is that so hard to understand?

 

[007p]

Supposedly decrypted apps still work? If so meh...wouldn't be the first time I decrypted apps to do things.

 

[4743913]

I write Apps for a living. To be able to make a living I need to make sure my software is keeping me and my family fed.

Do you provide both iOS and macOS versions of your apps?

 

[ericwn]

This is nonsense. What the hell are you calling fraud? You’re not buying software; you’re buying a license to use a given piece of software. Apps can choose to use their own license (which, again, is what’s actually being sold), but many use the standard one offered by Apple, which is available to read here. I would recommend that you do so. I can tell you that pretty much everywhere, “Unless they pass away they are liable to refund,” is false.

When looking at an iOS app’s page on the App Store, you can view the “Compatibility” section, which will make clear whether the iOS app also supports macOS. If it does, it will show a “Mac” section header and specify that it requires a Mac with an M1 chip and macOS 11 or later. If it doesn’t, you’re well within your rights not to purchase it, but understand that no claim of compatibility for the macOS platform has been made.

The same goes for iOS apps that you purchased previously. You purchased the license under the understanding that it was for iOS only, and an app may remain iOS-only. You gain nothing and lose nothing.

Your ignorance isn’t Apple’s or a developer’s fault.

Well said. The last sentence sums it up.

 

[castlerock]

Thanks for at least being honest where you're coming from. I can respect that.

What I can't abide are those who blow smoke claiming "there's a good [but unstated] reason behind this" or "it's really for your own good" when it's hard to understand the mental gymnastics involved in believing that removing functionality with no obvious harmful effect is somehow protecting the user. It has always been a strong contingent here and I've always wondered what proportion are simply Apple shills versus those who are True Believers in the wisdom of all of Apple's decisions.

And proving the point, the first person to junk my comment is exactly the kind of person posting the first type of "blowing smoke" comment I'm talking about. I can understand that Apple makes decisions for "business model" reasons. Why the dishonesty in acknowledging that fact? But, acknowledging business considerations, I'm sure they know that this decision may lead to fewer sales. For one, me. It has pushed me back into holding off on getting a new M1 Mac Mini that I otherwise might have used as a TV computer / Apple TV replacement now that I _can't_ use iOS apps (that haven't been specifically approved) on it. There are limits on the extent Apple wants to play cat-and-mouse with people working around their attempts to lock things down. So there's a reason for doing this, and doing this after launch. Saying it's about confusion is obvious, and very Apple, baloney. People who jump through hoops to install programs using unauthorized methods aren't confused.

I suspect Seoras' (the software dev) point did indeed have something to do with this decision- enough developers complained to Apple that it was getting too easy for people to obtain a binary that worked on a platform that the dev hadn't intended and hadn't _priced_ their software for (thus, Apple "enabling" violation of EUAs). Their legal team might be worried that this opens them up to legal liability. Who knows. But I stand by my viewpoint that it's naive and/or dishonest to hold out everything Apple ever does as somehow looking out for their users' best interest. C'mon, they're the most valuable company in the world. By definition that can't be true.

 

[4jasontv]

This is nonsense. What the hell are you calling fraud? You’re not buying software; you’re buying a license to use a given piece of software. Apps can choose to use their own license (which, again, is what’s actually being sold), but many use the standard one offered by Apple, which is available to read here. I would recommend that you do so. I can tell you that pretty much everywhere, “Unless they pass away they are liable to refund,” is false.

When looking at an iOS app’s page on the App Store, you can view the “Compatibility” section, which will make clear whether the iOS app also supports macOS. If it does, it will show a “Mac” section header and specify that it requires a Mac with an M1 chip and macOS 11 or later. If it doesn’t, you’re well within your rights not to purchase it, but understand that no claim of compatibility for the macOS platform has been made.

The same goes for iOS apps that you purchased previously. You purchased the license under the understanding that it was for iOS only, and an app may remain iOS-only. You gain nothing and lose nothing.

Your ignorance isn’t Apple’s or a developer’s fault.

Get rid of this idea that licensing is a reasonable concept. We are discussing what should be not what is. Yes the law is broken because it has set up a protective environment for anyone to sell defective software 'as is' with all costs placed on the customer to return or resolve issues. Developers forced their rights to be lost by repeatedly selling broken and defective software for decades.

Let me be clear: I DON'T CARE WHAT DEVELOPERS WANT IF THEY DON'T RESPECT THEIR CUSTOMERS. This means they need to ship a fully functional product without issues. Not fix it later. No patches. Not releasing a new version with those issues resolved but new ones. If the developer says it does something than it should do it without errors. It is not unreasonable to expect software to work correctly. Look at games to see how absurd this has become. Developers are frequently shipping games that don't work because they needed to hit some sort of sales deadline. But we also see it in productivity software as well and general purpose software. "Oh... but we can't make complex software flawless..." than don't sell it.

If developers demonstrate they can write software that works they might be able to buy back some goodwill, but they should not be trusted to set licensing terms for a product that has no right to be regulated like it's commercial use of IP.

 

[4jasontv]

Well said. The last sentence sums it up.

🤦‍♂️

 

[4jasontv]

Hmm... so, if I buy a music CD, I shouldn't have the right to transfer it to a computer, stream it over my home network, record it onto a USB stick that I play in my car, etc.?

The entire notion of a software “license” needs to be critically examined. It may be the way it's always been done, but that doesn't make it right. Plus, virtually no one ever reads them rendering their terms or standing as a contract moot.

The phone and cable TV companies used to claim they owned all the wire in your house and that you couldn't install an extension phone or a cable to show “their” programs on a second TV set in your own home without paying extra! That went by the wayside after several lawsuits and the sheer impracticality of enforcing it.

Exactly. What a great way to look at it.

 

[ericwn]

Exactly. You must have tasty sand.

 

[[AUT] Thomas]

Great job Apple... Opt-In instead of Opt-Out for the M1...

Like a few people have said, they are side-loading professional apps like Lightroom or 1Password, which require a subscription on the desktop.

...which are different apps.
Desktop binaries have a lot more features than your limited IPA.

Lightroom is the best example. Good luck using a Lightroom plugin with an IPA.

You licensed the iOS app to your Apple ID for multi device use. An EULA restricting the use of a licensed software to certain hardware might not even be considered legally binding. In fact, for similar reason OEM licenses are allowed to be traded freely.

If you insist otherwise, please proof it by posting the exact line of legally relevant text incl. a link to said text stating otherwise.

Anyway, it's really interesting how many people here believe TOS & EULA are an absolute thing... If this madness would extend to retail and your beer would have terms of drink on them that only allow it to be consumed in a transparent glass with the breweries logo on it would you think that's OK as well?
There's certain borders to what a seller or contract partner can request, especially from regular consumers who are protected under consumper protection laws. You want to read up if TOS and EULA are actually enforceable... often they are not.

 

[ericwn]

Exactly. What a great way to look at it.

Greaaat concept. Treat software like hardware.
Tomorrow we’ll see you at Sixt claiming that rental is yours.

LOL

 

[4jasontv]

Greaaat concept. Treat software like hardware.
Tomorrow we’ll see you at Sixt claiming that rental is yours.

LOL

The problem with treating software like hardware is what?

 

[TheWatchfulOne]

Exactly. What a great way to look at it.

Not at all. CD audio is very different from a software application.

 

[liberte1776]

WHY?!

 

[jonblatho]

Get rid of this idea that licensing is a reasonable concept. We are discussing what should be not what is. Yes the law is broken because it has set up a protective environment for anyone to sell defective software 'as is' with all costs placed on the customer to return or resolve issues. Developers forced their rights to be lost by repeatedly selling broken and defective software for decades.

Let me be clear: I DON'T CARE WHAT DEVELOPERS WANT IF THEY DON'T RESPECT THEIR CUSTOMERS. This means they need to ship a fully functional product without issues. Not fix it later. No patches. Not releasing a new version with those issues resolved but new ones. If the developer says it does something than it should do it without errors. It is not unreasonable to expect software to work correctly. Look at games to see how absurd this has become. Developers are frequently shipping games that don't work because they needed to hit some sort of sales deadline. But we also see it in productivity software as well and general purpose software. "Oh... but we can't make complex software flawless..." than don't sell it.

If developers demonstrate they can write software that works they might be able to buy back some goodwill, but they should not be trusted to set licensing terms for a product that has no right to be regulated like it's commercial use of IP.

As a developer, for numerous reasons, I’d much rather sell you a license to use my software that dictates your obligations — and mine — than the software itself.

There's certain borders to what a seller or contract partner can request, especially from regular consumers who are protected under consumper protection laws. You want to read up if TOS and EULA are actually enforceable... often they are not.

“Often” is a stretch. If EULAs are truly as useless as you imply here, they wouldn’t exist. Sure, occasionally parts of EULAs are found to be non-enforceable, but betting on that to happen for a specific term (or agreement) is playing a stupid game in the possible pursuit of a stupid prize.