It's not Apple but the developers that have opted out. All apps were made available on these macs unless the developers specifically requested to opt out.
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
It's so annoying that tech is getting further and further away from being about what the tech can do; because now we're often having tech-illiterate people forcing the tech to fit their sometimes irrational business decisions. So the business people end up being the ones making all the tech strategies, and then having junior developers forcing square pegs into round holes.
It's not the best experience, but it beats having no app at all.
I hypothetically may be relieved that I had already sideloaded Lightroom before this. Hypothetically of course.
This is asinine, ridiculous reasoning. By this reasoning, Apple shouldn't of ever allowed mouse use on iOS/iPadOS.
Technically, side-loading like this is software piracy. Apps like Netflix also need to worry about content piracy.
This is lame. This was one of the main appeals of wanting to get an M1 Mac.
“Piracy” lol you guys are such shills.
“Piracy” lol you guys are such shills.
Running most "vanilla" iOS apps on the M1 Macs was pretty bad, but some worked really surprisingly well. Facebook Messenger for iOS runs better than Messenger for Mac (probably because it's not Electron!). It was nice to have a Plex desktop app again (could use slightly larger text and a few keyboard shortcuts, but that was about it). And even some games ran well - I've been playing my Square classics with a DualShock 4 and it works perfectly. Sure, I could emulate it, but this way I'm a) paying the developer and b) get cloud saves. Just a couple things I've found useful that now I wouldn't be able to do.
I imagine if anything, developers like Microsoft et al (makers of large software packages that have Mac equivalents) pushed this to avoid us buying a cheaper item and getting a worse experience. But just as developers have to opt-in to get their iOS apps to show up in the Mac App Store, they should only get this "protection" if they opt-out. Why? Abandonware. There's plenty of software people use that is either not maintained or only barely so that still functions just fine.
This is a decision that will affect vanishingly few people, but the fact that Apple went out of its way to block those people is a disturbing one. They actively took steps to block you from using software that you paid for and chose to use this way.
I imagine if anything, developers like Microsoft et al (makers of large software packages that have Mac equivalents) pushed this to avoid us buying a cheaper item and getting a worse experience. But just as developers have to opt-in to get their iOS apps to show up in the Mac App Store, they should only get this "protection" if they opt-out. Why? Abandonware. There's plenty of software people use that is either not maintained or only barely so that still functions just fine.
This is a decision that will affect vanishingly few people, but the fact that Apple went out of its way to block those people is a disturbing one. They actively took steps to block you from using software that you paid for and chose to use this way.
Basically an excuse for developers to sell an app twice. I’m fine with that but the problem is you get ****** iOS to Mac OS ports with little to no changes that make it worth it. Why even give the developers the option to opt out? Everyone argues Apple is king of their domain(App Store) when it comes to shutting down apps like Parler or rejecting Xcloud but won’t tell developers it’s not their problem if people side load their apps on Mac OS ?
that is such a stupid analogy, it's not even close to showing any signs of equivalency of what I'm talking about.
Technically, it is not. You paid for the app, and the license already allows multiple installs on equipment you own.
it doesn't beat having a Mac app which the developer can spend time working on if there's a large demand for it.
That assumes they were going to make such an app. More often than not, they don't, leaving you with no app. Making this explicit "opt-out" from the developer rather than a blanket policy would have preserved both developers who want to target the Mac and those who would accept a sub-par experience over none at all.
Apple knows what is best for me, not me.
Only if they are downloaded from App Store directly.
Like a few people have said, they are side-loading professional apps like Lightroom or 1Password, which require a subscription on the desktop.
Nobody expects apps to be designed for sideloading.
and then you'll see a bunch of iPad App Store views saying "XYZ doesn't work that well. 1 star" when they really mean "it doesn't work that well on my M1 Mac".
To be fair they aren’t getting full desktop functionality it’s still the iOS app right ?
Do .IPA files have an info.plist that could be checked for a possible flag to change?
Yeah it's about control and lockdowns.
You don't own the machine anymore. Pretty soon they'll rent you features.
You don't own the machine anymore. Pretty soon they'll rent you features.
like that's going to prevent all reviews of that sort from happening.
This is outright stupid. Apple has no business actively blocking me from being able to install apps that I want to install.