Sideloading iOS Apps No Longer Possible on M1 Macs

[Alan Wynn]

It's amazing to me how people bend over backwards to defend anti-user decisions like this; immediately deferring to some nonsense about piracy, developer choice, and Apple's preferences rather than thinking about what's best for the end user.

It is not nonsense. Users get a license with a set of terms and the system enforces them. The owner of the software gets to decide, not the person who has only licensed it. What is best for the user is ensuring that there is a robust commercial software market place. To do that, developers need to know their rights are respected.

Worse yet, there haven't been any comments in this thread so far regarding the privacy implications of Apple being able to do this.

There are no privacy implications, any more than any other license server has privacy implications.

The fact that there's some software bundled into macOS that enables Apple to hit a server side switch and suddenly users cannot install certain software is extremely disconcerting.

This is the same mechanism that is used to enforce all rights on App Store platforms.

The bottom line is that a user should be able to install any software they want and use their mac in any way they want without a connection to Apple being necessary.

The user can install any software he or she owns. There is no right to install pirated software (that is why it is called pirated).

Apple should not be a centralized authority that decides what we can and cannot do with our computers given how essential computers have become in 21st century life.

If you do not like the rules of this ecosystem, do not buy into it. These rules are clear upfront and have been for years. Apple’s enforcement of developers’ license is why the App Store is so much more profitable for developers and why, despite it being so much smaller, iOS/iPadOS/tvOS/WatchOS are better supported than their Android equivalents.

 

[Alan Wynn]

Pretending that customer wants/needs align with corporate wants/needs is naive so "looking elsewhere" is not an option in a monopolized marketplace exclusively dominated by Windows and macOS, both of which are proprietary operating systems that the customer has virtually no influence or control over due to a variety of factors.

There are many open source operating systems out there for desktop systems. That developers of general purpose consumer software do not think they are worth supporting is primarily based on the fact that people who run those systems on their desktops are rarely interested in paying for software. Some of the specialized and expensive, high-end software does run on those platforms and usually either requires a license server or a hardware lock. Again, demonstrating that if there is a market developers will fill it.

Apple, Microsoft, and the rest will continue to lock down their operating systems and will continue their mission to strip away any user freedom that gets in the way of their business dominance. Before long you won't own the machine either because what's the point in owning the machine if it's just the hardware portal to the software world that you're already leasing anyway.

Apple has between 7% and 15% of the desktop market place. I am not sure what your definition of “business dominance” but if 15% is covered by it, it makes little sense. If users wanted systems with more freedom and were willing to pay for software on them, desktop Linux (or FreeBSD, OpenBSD, DragonFlyBSD, etc.) would be well supported. Much of the most expensive CAD software has Linux versions, but consumer and general business applications do not exist because these environments are not interesting to average consumers (and those who like them will not pay for applications).

 

[Alan Wynn]

Prompt 2 works just about perfect on the M1. Now I can't use it. I paid 14.99 for it.

You paid for it for iOS/iPadOS, not for macOS.

The developer has been silent on officially adding M1 support. I will 100% not buy this app again.

Let me make sure I understand your argument. You purchased an app for iOS/iPadOS for $14.99. When you purchased it, there was no way to run it on your Macintosh. Now, you feel that the developer should do more work to support it on another platform but should not receive any additional compensation for that.

This is why developers have moved to subscription models, so that they can support ongoing development with ongoing revenue.

It already works. These are the developers that need to be review bombed until they comply.

Given that you have clearly not done extensive testing of this, I expect that you really mean: “In my limited testing, it seemed to mostly work.” Unfortunately, that lack of testing is most likely to result in issue with the software on the untested/unsupported platform. Your model just ensures that these developers get bad reviews either way. If they make the software available without testing or support, they will get bad reviews. If they do not, you want to make sure they get bad reviews.

 

[svanstrom]

There are many open source operating systems out there for desktop systems. That developers of general purpose consumer software do not think they are worth supporting is primarily based on the fact that people who run those systems on their desktops are rarely interested in paying for software. Some of the specialized and expensive, high-end software does run on those platforms and usually either requires a license server or a hardware lock. Again, demonstrating that if there is a market developers will fill it.

That's a truth with sort of a twist similar to how 🇺🇸 has become a de facto two party system, and how Facebook keeps having a lot of power…

People use what people use, and they don't want to waste resources on what people don't use; so people don't use what people don't use, because people don't use that.

So we've ended up with basically two camps, and once a user is invested in one of those two they tend to stay; making a switch only if something forces them to (equipment at work, wanting to get more of the ecosystem belonging to a stylish/lifestyle device they got).

My propensity for paying for desktop software is the same no matter if I'm running MacOS or Debian; and compared with what I'm spending within the iPhone/iPad ecosystem that is almost nothing.

 

[Alan Wynn]

I'm familiar with the process of working on huge software but it doesn't change my opinion as I automatically believe the consumer's rights should be optimized for before the company's. If a company has to deal with more tickets then that's simply the cost of business.

You could make that argument for software going forward, but not for apps that were already sold. They developed their product for a platform and should have taken those costs into account when they priced and released their app. If later people figured out how to install it on a platform which they have explicitly chosen not to support, it is absurd to argue that is: “just a cost of doing business.“

Besides, it's not like Apple's gargantuan resource pool of cash and brains couldn't come up with a better review and support system for iOS apps so as to maintain user freedom whilst making it easier for companies to deal with irrelevant support tickets and reviews.

Apple has an app store review system. Developer support systems are their own and not developed by Apple. In addition, where developers to automatically filter support tickets so that macOS ones were ignored, users would just file the bug with iOS/iPadOS as the OS and either note in their comments that they had falsely claimed it was on one of the supported platforms or just not acknowledge it at all, leaving the developer chasing bugs that might not exist on their supported platform.

 

[chucker23n1]

Prompt 2 works just about perfect on the M1. Now I can't use it. I paid 14.99 for it. The developer has been silent on officially adding M1 support. I will 100% not buy this app again. It already works. These are the developers that need to be review bombed until they comply.

The entitlement is astounding on this one.

(edit)

Just to expand on this a little: Prompt 2 was released in 2014. That means most people who bought it haven't made Panic a single dime in over six years. Apple transitioning the Mac to ARM was only announced in June 2020, almost six years after Prompt 2's release.

You really want to "review bomb" someone for not foreseeing something that happens half a decade later, and not getting any money for being able to adjust to that new reality?

 

[Alan Wynn]

I also paid for indefinite updates, and a lot of developers seem keen on abandoning their software as soon as it's profit's start to dwindle.

No, you paid for a version and whatever updates the developer chooses to release under that product ID. Is it your argument that developers should be forced to continue supporting an app forever for the one time payment you paid? Is that only for bug fixes for the version of the OS for which it was released, or should they be forced to port it to new platforms and add new features? When there is no new revenue, how should these developers continue to buy food and lodging while they support these old apps?

 

[Alan Wynn]

The issue is that many developers see that license as one sided. If you are not providing updates, bug fixes, refreshes, and new content than you abandoned the software and with it your claim of ownership.

Sorry, that is not how it works. You got a version that worked on the hardware and OS version for which you purchased it. That is all. You did not get a guarantee that it would be supported on future hardware and OS versions in perpetuity. If that is the model you want, all software would either have to be absurdly expensive or would have to be subscription based.

 

[Alan Wynn]

Apple updating the OS shouldn't absolve the developer from providing support. OS updates that break apps should allow me to refund the app, even if I purchased it 10 years ago. Or they could maintain support.

Why? The developer licensed you a product that worked on the system and OS version for which you purchased it. Given that they developers have no knowledge of what Apple’s future plans are, it would be impossible for them to budget that level of support into their products. What it seems you want is subscription software. You purchase a right to use it for some limited period (that you know upfront) and then when that period expires, you can choose to either purchase a new license or move on without it.

It is impossible to make a one time purchase cover an unlimited ongoing liability without the price being absurdly high.

 

[scaramoosh]

We all know Apple will remove being able to install apps away from the store, which for me kills the Mac. The question is when will they do it? Probably only when they have fully established ARM Macs and phase the Intel ones out. I have built a Windows PC (finally the 3080 took a long time to find) and I'm preparing for the full switch over myself. I like Mac OS, I find it pain having to have both Mojave and Catalina... but I like the day to day use better than Windows. However I won't be supporting it when they do stop installs away from their store. I also think it's a dangerous game because lots of developers won't support it either, I'm glad Epic made a stand against Apple though.

 

[Nitrogen]

After seeing the post about Apple allegedly blocked sideloading, I tried to look if some blocked-by-dev app through Apple Configurator 2 are able to be installed. I took Facebook iOS app for good measure.

To my surprise, It works like it didn't happen at all, I mean the whole download and installation process. It contradicts what's said by the OP and following sub-ops.

Just add an app to your iphone, find a folder after downloading, click on .ipa, install and add "sudo xattr -rd com.apple.quarantine [APP PATH]" exception in Terminal like you used to do before that mess.

Big Sur 11.1, current checksum.

 

[chucker23n1]

We all know Apple will remove being able to install apps away from the store, which for me kills the Mac.

They've had literally ten years to do that (the Mac App Store launched a little over ten years ago) and haven't.

 

[Abazigal]

I also paid for indefinite updates, and a lot of developers seem keen on abandoning their software as soon as it's profit's start to dwindle.

I think one has to be realistic about how much support your app will get based on the pittance that the developer likely charged for it.

Which is why I feel that ultimately, subscriptions may be the way to go, unpalatable as they are. It basically creates a win-win scenario for both the consumer and the business. The developer is assured a steady revenue stream which allows him to focus on updating his app in a timely manner (for all platforms ideally), while the consumer benefits from an app that's constantly being updated and receiving new features.

 

[svanstrom]

I think one has to be realistic about how much support your app will get based on the pittance that the developer likely charged for it.

Which is why I feel that ultimately, subscriptions may be the way to go, unpalatable as they are. It basically creates a win-win scenario for both the consumer and the business. The developer is assured a steady revenue stream which allows him to focus on updating his app in a timely manner (for all platforms ideally), while the consumer benefits from an app that's constantly being updated and receiving new features.

Most people understand that if they drastically change the hardware or OS some software will stop working; in many professional environments you even find legacy hardware or OS still in use simply because they're required for certain legacy software.

Extremely few people think that just because they paid $9.95 ten years ago they're owed a rewritten piece of software for their brand new hardware/OS. And those that think like that can be 100% ignored.

 

[chucker23n1]

I think one has to be realistic about how much support your app will get based on the pittance that the developer likely charged for it.

Which is why I feel that ultimately, subscriptions may be the way to go, unpalatable as they are. It basically creates a win-win scenario for both the consumer and the business. The developer is assured a steady revenue stream which allows him to focus on updating his app in a timely manner (for all platforms ideally), while the consumer benefits from an app that's constantly being updated and receiving new features.

Leaving aside that App Stores don't have upgrade pricing (I don't really understand why not — is this a case of hubris on Apple's part? Given that they offer things like bundles, presumably it isn't a technical limitation), I think a fairer approach would be a hybrid one: buy for, say, $10 upfront, then $2/yr. This gives the developer some amount of recurring revenue to finance ongoing maintenance (such as to make it compatible with newer iOS versions*) while not feeling too pricey for the customer.

However, it seems a lot of customers still balk at any subscription no matter the cost, and there's just not much that can be done about that.

*) or, as the case may be, to appease people who suddenly want to run it on an entirely different OS

 

[Frantisekj]

Cultured Code will be sighing relief.

Now there's no choice but to spend £50 on their Mac App Things, which conveniently is identical to their £10 iOS app.

If you are right and app is identical then it is time to bomb developer to update app for Mac OS or level the prices. Or just leave it alone.

 

[chucker23n1]

Cultured Code will be sighing relief.

Now there's no choice but to spend £50 on their Mac App Things, which conveniently is identical to their £10 iOS app.

Developer's perspective, if Apple hadn't allowed for the opt out: "guess we'll have no choice but to increase iOS pricing".

 

[MrDerby01]

Eh.. Don't really like it but the decision makes sense in a way.. Proper ad revenues... proper mouse\keyboard support.. I'm waiting around for the """ M3 version"" my goal is to not have to carrier an iPad around.

 

[Abazigal]

Leaving aside that App Stores don't have upgrade pricing (I don't really understand why not — is this a case of hubris on Apple's part? Given that they offer things like bundles, presumably it isn't a technical limitation), I think a fairer approach would be a hybrid one: buy for, say, $10 upfront, then $2/yr. This gives the developer some amount of recurring revenue to finance ongoing maintenance (such as to make it compatible with newer iOS versions*) while not feeling too pricey for the customer.

However, it seems a lot of customers still balk at any subscription no matter the cost, and there's just not much that can be done about that.

*) or, as the case may be, to appease people who suddenly want to run it on an entirely different OS

I guess with upgrade pricing, there’s always that question of when do you keep a feature for the next paid update, vs pushing it down to your existing app for free. It doesn’t seem any different from when fantastical was releasing a new version of its app every year (essentially making it an annual subscription of sorts), except not everybody upgraded, and there’s always that one guy who just so happened to buy the app just as the developer released the next upgrade, and then complains that his app is now outdated.

Subscriptions tend to cost more, but also resolve a lot of the tension by removing the decision of whether to upgrade or not. The customer is assumed to always be on the latest version of the software, and the developer has no incentive to withhold any additional functionality.

Personally, I am still coming to terms of subscription-based apps, especially when it comes to software that I don’t use heavily. For example, I guess I am reliant enough on the calendar app that I am willing to subscribe to Fantastical just so I don’t have to deal with the problems inherent in the stock calendar app. And since I am all in on the Apple ecosystem, paying to have the app on my iphone, ipad, Apple Watch, imac and MBA (and regularly updated across all platforms to boot) is actually a pretty good deal overall.

That said, I don’t think I would use another app like say, LumaFusion enough to justify a subscription if they were to ever move to that. I will use the app from time to time as my job as a teacher calls for it, but I haven’t really explored the more advanced features, plus there will be occasions when I go for months without opening said app, and that’s when I feel like I am wasting my money.

It’s...complicated.

 

[Apple Knowledge Navigator]

Developer's perspective, if Apple hadn't allowed for the opt out: "guess we'll have no choice but to increase iOS pricing".

Fair point 👍🏻

 

[chucker23n1]

I guess with upgrade pricing, there’s always that question of when do you keep a feature for the next paid update, vs pushing it down to your existing app for free.

Yes, definitely. Upgrade pricing can give developers the incentive of "well, guess we'll move this feature to the next major upgrade". OTOH, subscription pricing can give them the incentive of "why add features at all? We have recurring revenues regardless".

At a glance, upgrade pricing seems fairer to the user: the developer adds a feature; the user then decides if they find it worth paying money for. In reality, that isn't how modern apps work; they need to be maintained regardless.

It's complicated.

Personally, I am still coming to terms of subscription-based apps, especially when it comes to software that I don’t use heavily. For example, I guess I am reliant enough on the calendar app that I am willing to subscribe to Fantastical just so I don’t have to deal with the problems inherent in the stock calendar app. And since I am all in on the Apple ecosystem, paying to have the app on my iphone, ipad, Apple Watch, imac and MBA (and regularly updated across all platforms to boot) is actually a pretty good deal overall.

I think that's fair.

I'll also note that subscription pricing tends to be a lot higher, largely because so few people will subscribe: the developer has to offset what they won't make up in volume.

 

[4743913]

Just to expand on this a little: Prompt 2 was released in 2014. That means most people who bought it haven't made Panic a single dime in over six years. Apple transitioning the Mac to ARM was only announced in June 2020, almost six years after Prompt 2's release.

Well, since your brought that up, that is Panic's fault. I am a huge Panic fan and I know I am not the only one who has spent the last 6 years asking them for a mac version of Prompt. They have chosen to spend their time in other ways, like making handheld toys (that I am buying of course). Well as Dr. Malcom said, "Life will find a way". One of the first apps I sideloaded was Prompt. Now, Panic can release a mac version for $20-$50 and get my money or not. but nature abhors a vaccum and prompt is superior to iTerm2 so its going to get used on my m1.

 

[svanstrom]

Well, since your brought that up, that is Panic's fault. I am a huge Panic fan and I know I am not the only one who has spent the last 6 years asking them for a mac version of Prompt. They have chosen to spend their time in other ways, like making handheld toys (that I am buying of course). Well as Dr. Malcom said, "Life will find a way". One of the first apps I sideloaded was Prompt. Now, Panic can release a mac version for $20-$50 and get my money or not. but nature abhors a vaccum and prompt is superior to iTerm2 so its going to get used on my m1.

I'd recommend you to have a look at http://mosh.org.

Disclaimer: I'm more of a terminal type of a person, so I don't get the need for Prompt at all; in fact, without mosh-support I'd find it absolutely useless. So… hey… maybe you'll like mosh, and maybe not.

 

[seek3r]

Sorry, that is not how it works. You got a version that worked on the hardware and OS version for which you purchased it. That is all. You did not get a guarantee that it would be supported on future hardware and OS versions in perpetuity. If that is the model you want, all software would either have to be absurdly expensive or would have to be subscription based.

You realize emulators, virtualization, and translation layers are a thing, right?

To turn this around for a sec, software written for x86 macs now automatically runs on M1 Macs, devs didnt plan for that. Is that, to you, a violation of the original developer’s prerogative to choose platforms? What about emulation of old game systems? That’s been consistently held as legal in court, and while pirating game roms is against copyright law backing up a rom you already own (the equivalent of an iOS app you already own) and using it in the emulator is perfectly legal. Tons of software runs on Macs just fine under WINE, are you complaining about that?

The developer doesnt have to actively support using an unsupported config, but there’s no reason to be anti-consumer by deliberately *blocking* using a configuration not supported by the developer. The developer’s rights on how the consumer uses their software is not and shouldnt be all that all powerful

 

[4743913]

I'd recommend you to have a look at http://mosh.org.

Disclaimer: I'm more of a terminal type of a person, so I don't get the need for Prompt at all; in fact, without mosh-support I'd find it absolutely useless. So… hey… maybe you'll like mosh, and maybe not.

that looks nice. I am a terminal person also but have never looked beyond iTerm 2 on my mac. I will definitely check it out.