Sideloading iOS Apps No Longer Possible on M1 Macs

[4743913]

You are pirating their software. Nobody is accusing you of stealing their content.

This made me LOL and not for any reason you would want...

 

[4jasontv]

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.

“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.

You sound reasonable.

My issue with the concept of licensing has to do with the repeated issues I have had with developers who decide they won't add the features they initially promised, ignore bugs, implement server side DRM and then shut the server down, or generally abandon the software without bringing it to a stable release. This has occurred so many times now that I simply don't trust developers to honor the relationship. And why should they? There is no punishment today to hold them accountable, and many simply go on to a new project without any repercussions for their previous actions. For every Hello Games and CD Projekt RED who stand behind their release there are a hundred developers that dump software as soon as revenue starts to dip.

EULA's on the other hand remain untested, as you said, and so every developer needs to draft their own and each customer never knows what their rights really are. It would be a lot easier for everyone if there was clear rules about what should be expected from software, what timeline developers have to fix issues, and what should be considered a paid update and what should be a fix at no additional cost.

As a consumer I want software patents and code released into public domain ASAP so that others can build of the work. Existing laws provide the developer protection for far to long and fails to provide guarantees that the public will get access to code when that time expires.

 

[ericwn]

This made me LOL and not for any reason you would want...

Nice, I have similar thoughts about your response.

 

[4743913]

Nice, I have similar thoughts about your response.

you may want to have some thoughts about purchasing a dictionary.

 

[Seoras]

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

Yes and no. I provide only iOS but I allow them to be run on Mac OS.
Apple isn't preventing downloading of my apps from the App store they are preventing "side loading" of my binaries from elsewhere. That, to me, is an anti-piracy, move.

 

[Seoras]

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.

Apple's blocking of "side loading" is an anti-piracy measure and a security precaution. Isn't that obvious?
If you are a pirate, and love to free load like some digital parasite, Apple's platforms aren't for you - purchase elsewhere, when you have no option but to spend your coin.
I only write apps for Apple's platforms because it's the only platform that I can make a living on because they defend against piracy.

 

[jonblatho]

You sound reasonable.

My issue with the concept of licensing has to do with the repeated issues I have had with developers who decide they won't add the features they initially promised, ignore bugs, implement server side DRM and then shut the server down, or generally abandon the software without bringing it to a stable release. This has occurred so many times now that I simply don't trust developers to honor the relationship. And why should they? There is no punishment today to hold them accountable, and many simply go on to a new project without any repercussions for their previous actions. For every Hello Games and CD Projekt RED who stand behind their release there are a hundred developers that dump software as soon as revenue starts to dip.

EULA's on the other hand remain untested, as you said, and so every developer needs to draft their own and each customer never knows what their rights really are. It would be a lot easier for everyone if there was clear rules about what should be expected from software, what timeline developers have to fix issues, and what should be considered a paid update and what should be a fix at no additional cost.

As a consumer I want software patents and code released into public domain ASAP so that others can build of the work. Existing laws provide the developer protection for far to long and fails to provide guarantees that the public will get access to code when that time expires.

Part of that relationship, though, is that the license to the software is provided without warranty (to the extent allowable under law…which in most places means very little or no warranty). Like I said, there are a lot of reasons that maintenance of software has to end. You’ll have developers who stand by their work for years and years and other, more eccentric ones who move from project to project quickly, ditching older projects as they go along.

EULAs aren’t “untested”; in many cases, they are mostly or fully enforceable. Many App Store developers also don’t need to draft their own EULA because Apple provides a standard one that covers the vast majority of use cases, which I linked earlier. It plainly states what I said before: no warranty. It can’t get much clearer than that.

The software should still be a developer’s intellectual property under existing copyright law. Just as there are many reasons why development would cease, there are many reasons why development would continue or restart. Even if the IP was made available to the public, there is far from any guarantee that anyone would pick up the project after it’s been abandoned. There exist many abandoned open source projects — ones that people still use, even — that will likely never see any work again, even with everything out in the open.

That’s just how software works. No software will ever be maintained or supported in perpetuity, and it’s an unrealistic expectation. Abandonment is just a risk you take on, as with any product, even though it’s more common with software. If you aren’t comfortable entering such a relationship with a particular developer, then don’t buy their software.

 

[4jasontv]

Part of that relationship, though, is that the license to the software is provided without warranty (to the extent allowable under law…which in most places means very little or no warranty). Like I said, there are a lot of reasons that maintenance of software has to end. You’ll have developers who stand by their work for years and years and other, more eccentric ones who move from project to project quickly, ditching older projects as they go along.

EULAs aren’t “untested”; in many cases, they are mostly or fully enforceable. Many App Store developers also don’t need to draft their own EULA because Apple provides a standard one that covers the vast majority of use cases, which I linked earlier. It plainly states what I said before: no warranty. It can’t get much clearer than that.

The software should still be a developer’s intellectual property under existing copyright law. Just as there are many reasons why development would cease, there are many reasons why development would continue or restart. Even if the IP was made available to the public, there is far from any guarantee that anyone would pick up the project after it’s been abandoned. There exist many abandoned open source projects — ones that people still use, even — that will likely never see any work again, even with everything out in the open.

That’s just how software works. No software will ever be maintained or supported in perpetuity, and it’s an unrealistic expectation. Abandonment is just a risk you take on, as with any product, even though it’s more common with software. If you aren’t comfortable entering such a relationship with a particular developer, then don’t buy their software.

Or..., as I said, I can support regulation that holds them accountable. I can push for an expectation of a warranty. Every company would love if their industry standard was 'as is' and we don't accept it for most. Software has gotten away with to much for to long and it needs to be shaken up.

It's ok if software prices go up. Good software should be well compensated. But they shouldn't be unregulated.

 

[dukebound85]

Yes, he is but, he is using it on a platform that the developer did not create nor did Apple approve. As such, he has been using software on a platform he didn't pay for.

You do realize that this EXACT capability is described as a feature on apple's own website for the m1 macs right?

MacBook Pro

MacBook Pro laptop with M4, M4 Pro, and M4 Max chips. Built for Apple Intelligence. Up to 24 hours of battery life. Liquid Retina XDR display.

www.apple.com

 

[4743913]

Yes and no. I provide only iOS but I allow them to be run on Mac OS.
Apple isn't preventing downloading of my apps from the App store they are preventing "side loading" of my binaries from elsewhere. That, to me, is an anti-piracy, move.

why would people be sideloading your apps if they can be installed from the app store? an ios app needs to be purchased (with the same apple id) in order to function on the mac right?

 

[dukebound85]

Where did Apple state that this kind of usage is and would be further supported with the sale of the M1? To my knowledge, Apple has said no such thing. Some individuals found an OS loop hole and sought to exploit it for their own use and gains. And now, it seems some here are acting as if Apple has done something wrong for closing a loophole.

If people bought the M1 just so they could side load, those individuals are getting what they deserve, in my opinion. Either get rid of the M1 if some here want to side loads apps, or use the M1 and respective App Store as intended and supported in the legal agreement.

it's on their website....

 

[dukebound85]

You paid for the app to work on iOS, not macOS.

yet apple advertises the m1 macs being able to do this exact thing as a feature of the computer you are *buying*

 

[Apple_Robert]

it's on their website....

I looked previously and obviously missed seeing it. Be that as it may, Apple has not promised that a consumer can run any app in that manner. Apple allows it if the Developer makes it available. My previous points stand about using an app that has not been licensed by Apple and the Developer on the Mac being wrong. If the Developer allowed such and Apple approved the update, there is no problem.

 

[ericwn]

you may want to have some thoughts about purchasing a dictionary.

You may want to consider contributing something to the topic, but thank you for the ad hominem.

 

[dukebound85]

My company has given Apple permission to make our app available on iPhones, iPods and iPads. Not on Macs.

I'm sure your company also agreed to the terms to be a developer in the apple ecosystem that would override this as they had advertised

 

[dukebound85]

I looked previously and obviously missed seeing it. Be that as it may, Apple has not promised that a consumer can run any app in that manner. Apple allows it if the Developer makes it available. My previous points stand about using an app that has not been licensed by Apple and the Developer on the Mac being wrong. If the Developer allowed such and Apple approved the update, there is no problem.

then apple needs to not advertise this as a feature of m1 macs then don't they?

They can't have it both ways

 

[Apple_Robert]

then apple needs to not advertise this as a feature of m1 macs then don't they?

They can't have it both ways

I agree about the advertisement aspect. Apple needs to better clarify the process or remove that part of the advertisement all together. It is misleading and can cause confusion for a lot of people.

 

[ericwn]

then apple needs to not advertise this as a feature of m1 macs then don't they?

They can't have it both ways

Have a quick check what app icons they’re showing and if these are allowed by their developers.
That might be a false advertising lawsuit incoming

 

[jonblatho]

Or..., as I said, I can support regulation that holds them accountable. I can push for an expectation of a warranty. Every company would love if their industry standard was 'as is' and we don't accept it for most. Software has gotten away with to much for to long and it needs to be shaken up.

It's ok if software prices go up. Good software should be well compensated. But they shouldn't be unregulated.

None of this is realistic, especially where software can be willed out of existence tomorrow by the discontinuation of an API by Apple or another company. Also, the race to the bottom for software pricing has already ended. It’s not going back up.

 

[darngooddesign]

Apple's blocking of "side loading" is an anti-piracy measure and a security precaution. Isn't that obvious?
If you are a pirate, and love to free load like some digital parasite, Apple's platforms aren't for you - purchase elsewhere, when you have no option but to spend your coin.
I only write apps for Apple's platforms because it's the only platform that I can make a living on because they defend against piracy.

Sincere question. If I sideload an iOS app from my phone or iPad, which I already paid for, is it still piracy?

 

[4jasontv]

None of this is realistic, especially where software can be willed out of existence tomorrow by the discontinuation of an API by Apple or another company. Also, the race to the bottom for software pricing has already ended. It’s not going back up.

Developers shouldn't rely on Apple or anther company if they want to make money. Isn't that the justification consumers are told? If you don't like it don't use it? Not everyone needs to make software, and no one who makes software should be making money off software 5 years after release.

 

[Apple_Robert]

Developers shouldn't rely on Apple or anther company if they want to make money. Isn't that the justification consumers are told? If you don't like it don't use it? Not everyone needs to make software, and no one who makes software should be making money off software 5 years after release.

Where does the bolded thinking come from? Do you not expect to get paid for your work? Your posts in this thread are very biased against software developers.

 

[4jasontv]

Where does the bolded thinking come from? Do you not expect to get paid for your work? Your posts in this thread are very biased against software developers.

You are correct, they are. And it's well deserved as I have explained more than once.

 

[Apple_Robert]

You are correct, they are. And it's well deserved as I have explained more than once.

The problem is you expect others you are conversing with to the contrary in this thread to be objective and see the alleged problem with their position, while you continue posting biased and very unrealistic positions that you believe affirm your position.

 

[BeatCrazy]

yet apple advertises the m1 macs being able to do this exact thing as a feature of the computer you are *buying*

Not exactly.

"iPhone and iPad apps you purchased previously that are now available for Mac can simply be downloaded from your purchased list."

Mac

The most powerful Mac laptops and desktops ever. Supercharged by Apple silicon. MacBook Air, MacBook Pro, iMac, Mac mini, Mac Studio, and Mac Pro.

www.apple.com