Sideloading iOS Apps No Longer Possible on M1 Macs

[svanstrom]

You’re correct.

Legally you can do whatever you want with an .ipa app. Try to execute it on any platform you want, mail it to all of your friends for all Apple cares.

Legally, Apple is allowed to prevent you from actually doing anything useful with the .ipa file if it’s being used in a manner that falls outside the license agreement.

I haven’t read the agreement close enough to know if it covers running the application on the iOS operating system... but regardless Apple is under no legal mandate to allow you to run the application wherever you want. They have to allow usage in within the bounds of the agreement. If the license states that it’s only to be used on iOS, Apple is well within their rights to prevent usage elsewhere.

Relevant laws here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/117

I don't know what praxis is in the US, but there definitely is a possibility to argue that Apple has taken away the consumers' legal right to make adaptations to make functional previously purchased/licensed applications.

It's a very complex issue, as even the previous laws in the area have been sort of a patchwork on top off pre-digital philosophies about copyright/ownership. So there are a lot of stuff in current licenses that simply haven't had their day in court to see if they stand up or not.

 

[Tech198]

Well, at least some good at comes out of this..

Maybe it wasn't possible before because it was not Apple's own chip?

The legality question always seems to still popup whenever you retrict things from how it used to be.

 

[4jasontv]

It is clear now that you have no idea how creation work. What you pay for is the use of what i create from my brain, not the property of the creation itself.
Thats the same thing about music, films... etc.
When i make a short movie, and you buy it, you owns a certain right to play it, but i am NOT liable if the h265 file you downloaded does not work on your grandma’s dvd player.

You also dont own the right to redistribute it (even for free) or organize projections of it without my consent.
This idea that you owns everything you buy regardless of the TOS and can go to court every time you are not happy, is a really old American fashion... and us (the rest of the world) dont really care about that.

Fascinating. It’s clear you didn’t read what I wrote.

 

[chucker23n1]

Oh, one more point. WHERE did you get that copy of that App you "already paid for"?

By copying it from the phone.

You can't. I'd caution anyone thinking that its ok to sideload to think carefully before they do so.

That's not how this method works, though. You simply copy the ipa from the phone to the Mac.

 

[chucker23n1]

Well, at least some good at comes out of this..

Maybe it wasn't possible before because it was not Apple's own chip?

It wasn't possible before because apps in the App Store are compiled for ARM, whereas Macs were x86.

You might theoretically have been able to use an ARM emulator and then run an app inside, but Apple never made such a thing.

 

[Tchakatak]

Fascinating. It’s clear you didn’t read what I wrote.

I did read every single one of your posts. But they just don't make sense.

 

[4jasontv]

I did read every single one of your posts. But they just don't make sense.

Than stop assuming I am saying this is how it all is and rather how it should be. You don’t own your creations. You have a temporarily monopoly to profit off your ideas. But that monopoly should come with limits and expectations.

 

[Tchakatak]

Than stop assuming I am saying this is how it all is and rather how it should be. You don’t own your creations. You have a temporarily monopoly to profit off your ideas. But that monopoly should come with limits and expectations.

It should definitely not be like this. You cannot appropriate yourself without my consent of my creation, and if I just want to lend it to you, this is and should always be my right.

 

[darngooddesign]

I understand that technically I bought an iPhone app to use on my iPhone, and I understand that I didn't buy it with the expectation to run it on my Mac. I also understand that there may be usability issues and bugs because I am using it in a way they never intended and therefore couldn't QA test.

My question was more about why a developer would be against my using it on my Mac if there is no OS X version available.

Unlike what I think Jason's stance is, I do think developers should be paid for their software even if it is twenty years after the release.

 

[4jasontv]

It should definitely not be like this. You cannot appropriate yourself without my consent of my creation, and if I just want to lend it to you, this is and should always be my right.

But it’s not yours. Your ideas aren’t original. It’s derivative and you owe it to the community to make the ideas available to others after a reasonable amount of time. But during that time you have as much rights to say how I use something as any other tool in the toolbox.

 

[Tchakatak]

But it’s not yours. Your ideas aren’t original. It’s derivative and you owe it to the community to make the ideas available to others after a reasonable amount of time. But during that time you have as much rights to say how I use something as any other tool in the toolbox.

I think you are foreign to the whole concept of intellectual property.

 

[gnasher729]

But it’s not yours. Your ideas aren’t original. It’s derivative and you owe it to the community to make the ideas available to others after a reasonable amount of time. But during that time you have as much rights to say how I use something as any other tool in the toolbox.

BS. What do you do for a living actually? If you are so arrogant that you want to have a say about my livelihood, surely I have a say in yours? Are you a Barista? I’ll buy one coffee and you have to deliver free coffees to me for the next 30 years?

 

[gnasher729]

I don't know why you feel I am inconsistent in my position. I feel like I am been clear the entire time. Enough bad eggs ruined it for everyone. It doesn't matter if you are a 'good developer' the trust was broken and the industry has to renew it.

You don’t have a clue what you are writing about.

 

[chucker23n1]

BS. What do you do for a living actually?

Hang on… is Expert MacRumors Pundit not a paying job?

 

[gnasher729]

Than stop assuming I am saying this is how it all is and rather how it should be. You don’t own your creations. You have a temporarily monopoly to profit off your ideas. But that monopoly should come with limits and expectations.

I own my creations. You own the right to pay me and say “thank you Sir”.

 

[gnasher729]

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

I know that in the worst case some of our customers would have a word with Apple and convince them.

 

[svanstrom]

You have a temporarily monopoly to profit off your ideas. But that monopoly should come with limits and expectations.

You keep breaking Hume's law in your arguments; by mixing what is with how you think things should be.

You're also confusing different aspects of what in the most general sense would be IP laws.

 

[gnasher729]

Except for the premise, wording, and overall will.

Again, what do you do for a living? Surely we can expect faultless perfection from you? Probably a cowboy plumber who would have to pay back all the money you made in the last 20 years for shoddy work?

Well, from your overall outlook you seem to be a school teacher. I’d like to watch a lesson you are giving. And point out _every_ _single_ mistake you make.

 

[gnasher729]

Lol, you stay on topic. The issue is that developers have to much say in how their software is used. They need to be dialed back and held accountable.

Says who? Want to become a developer? According to the terms you are asking for? I suppose you lack a few things for that...

 

[MacModMachine]

But it’s not yours. Your ideas aren’t original. It’s derivative and you owe it to the community to make the ideas available to others after a reasonable amount of time. But during that time you have as much rights to say how I use something as any other tool in the toolbox.

as a developer , your simply wrong.

no matter if the idea's aren't original , the implementation (design,coding) is. the developer owns it , takes responsibility for it. they choose what is done with it.

dont like the terms , dont buy the software....plenty others will.

 

[4jasontv]

I think you are foreign to the whole concept of intellectual property.

And you’re forging to the intent. The goal is to give creators a short window to profit on ideas. Not lock up an idea in perpetuity.

BS. What do you do for a living actually? If you are so arrogant that you want to have a say about my livelihood, surely I have a say in yours? Are you a Barista? I’ll buy one coffee and you have to deliver free coffees to me for the next 30 years?

It doesn’t matter what I do. I’m a consumer and should have rights to protect myself from people who think they should profit forever from an idea someone else gave them.

You don’t have a clue what you are writing about.

I own my creations. You own the right to pay me and say “thank you Sir”.

No, you don’t. You have a license to use them. And what are your creations people are so thankful for?

You keep breaking Hume's law in your arguments; by mixing what is with how you think things should be.

You're also confusing different aspects of what in the most general sense would be IP laws.

Selling defective products should be a crime.

Again, what do you do for a living? Surely we can expect faultless perfection from you? Probably a cowboy plumber who would have to pay back all the money you made in the last 20 years for shoddy work?

Well, from your overall outlook you seem to be a school teacher. I’d like to watch a lesson you are giving. And point out _every_ _single_ mistake you make.

Seriously? Go back and read. I have no issue with mistakes if the developer wants to fix them. Most don’t. Developers pushed this attitude on themselves by not doing right on the consumer. If you ship a broken product fix it before you get paid for something else. It’s pretty simple.

Says who? Want to become a developer? According to the terms you are asking for? I suppose you lack a few things for that...

I would love to develop under these terms. It means getting to spend my time creating and not worrying if the software I paid for will crash.

Get off your high horse, write good code, fix your mistakes without asking to be compensated, and own up for your failures. It’s not hard. It’s not complicated. Realize your ideas are barely new, if at all, and should have very limited protection, if any.

 

[4jasontv]

as a developer , your simply wrong.

no matter if the idea's aren't original , the implementation (design,coding) is. the developer owns it , takes responsibility for it. they choose what is done with it.

dont like the terms , dont buy the software....plenty others will.

Are you the type of developer who screws over their customers or do you fix issue because they shouldn’t have had to deal with them in first place?

That’s the issue. Developers aren’t negotiating deals. They have one sided contracts that consumers don’t have any want to reasonably consent to. We need standard rights that all developers and consumers get. But to do that we need to take away these rights developers think they deserve because they wrote them down without asking if they deserve them.

 

[ericwn]

I think you are foreign to the whole concept of intellectual property.

That’s putting it mildly. But opinionated for sure.

 

[MacModMachine]

Are you the type of developer who screws over their customers or do you fix issue because they shouldn’t have had to deal with them in first place?

defects exist in every piece of software. no different than vehicles having recalls.

when buying software , defects are always existent , perhaps you can point out software that doesn't. grab yourself a degree in CS and you can build your own no defect software...

 

[4jasontv]

defects exist in every piece of software. no different than vehicles having recalls.

when buying software , defects are always existent , perhaps you can point out software that doesn't. grab yourself a degree in CS and you can build your own no defect software...

Right. Recalls exist. And the car manufacture is expected to fix it even if they lose money. If someone loses something due to their defect they are liable for that loss.