Sideloading iOS Apps No Longer Possible on M1 Macs

[4jasontv]

All modern iOS apps do not have to run on a Mac. The fact that many of them might run fine on a Mac is a happy coincidence. It just means those apps don't require certain hardware that is not available in a Mac. In that case, it's a no brainer to keep the box checked for the app to be available on the Mac. That is, it's a good idea. But it's not a requirement. And it should not be a requirement.

An iPad is more similar to an iPhone, so that's probably not an issue. A Mac is very different from an iPhone or iPad. It absolutely should be the developer's call to support or not support the Mac.

I know the analogy you intended. It doesn't work. If you'll read my post again, carefully, you'll see why.

How did you acquire such unreasonable ideas about how the App Store should work? You must have been burned bad at some point. If that's the case, I'm sorry that happened. But, that's no reason to punish everybody.

I have been burned many times by fly by night developers. Not just the little guys but also the big ones who would rather I pay again. Apps like DayOne, GoodReader, and Notabilty have abused their customers by braking promises and releasing half completed apps that bury essential fixes in paid updates. That's just on iOS. I can't tell you how much I cringe when I buy a desktop app only to discover it's the exact same thing as their mobile app.

Most developers do not appear to care about shipping a functional product. You might, but that makes you an exception. Every other industry expects to get what they paid for before they move on to something new. But software gets a pass because they have set the expectation that it's not going to work.

As far as hardware issues go, if there is any features that work it should be made available because it shipped with broken features to begin with.

 

[Alan Wynn]

All modern iOS apps do not have to run on a Mac.

I would say that most modern iOS/iPadOS apps will eventually run on macOS, but that is because they will be SwiftUI apps and making them work well on both platforms will be fairly straight forward. Some current iOS/iPadOS apps will be modified to work well on macOS and, for many reasons, many will not run on macOS. That is just fine.

The fact that many of them might run fine on a Mac is a happy coincidence.

Some will work well on macOS because they are already Swift UI apps and that makes it easier for them to work well. Others will work because they were iPadOS app (or apps that had iPadOS support) and should do OK in that case.

It just means those apps don't require certain hardware that is not available in a Mac. In that case, it's a no brainer to keep the box checked for the app to be available on the Mac. That is, it's a good idea. But it's not a requirement. And it should not be a requirement.

Agreed that it should not be a requirement, just as it should not be a requirement that iOS apps have to run on iPadOS. Developers should get to decide what work they want to do and should be able to release their apps with only what they want to support. If those limitations do not work for users, they should not purchase/install them.

An iPad is more similar to an iPhone, so that's probably not an issue.

Even there it is annoying for apps that do not handle landscape layout. If a developer does not want to support that, they should not have to do so.

A Mac is very different from an iPhone or iPad. It absolutely should be the developer's call to support or not support the Mac.

Yup. With SwiftUI supporting both platforms well will be easy, without it, it takes real work to ensure a good user experience. I think it should absolutely be up to the developer to decide it they want to do that or not.

I know the analogy you intended. It doesn't work. If you'll read my post again, carefully, you'll see why.

It does not work for even more reasons. It is not just the cost of the device, it is that checking the box to make apps available on macOS likely generates even more costs (support, bug fixes, redesigning UI, etc.) with no clear return for the developer. Customers who feel that a purchase at the prices of iOS/iPadOS app prices means commits the developer to upgrades and enhancements forever are delusional.

How did you acquire such unreasonable ideas about how the App Store should work? You must have been burned bad at some point. If that's the case, I'm sorry that happened. But, that's no reason to punish everybody.

I think that Apple’s lack of support for upgrade pricing has hurt the store and the ecosystem. It has made subscriptions the only viable option for long term support of apps and they have their own set of problems. At least allowing family sharing of subscriptions has made things somewhat better on that front.

I think Apple needs to go in the opposite direction as what he is suggesting. As developers can specify device limits, reviews should need to come from a supported device, and users found to be abusing the review process should be prevented from posting reviews/rating apps.

 

[alien3dx]

I have been burned many times by fly by night developers. Not just the little guys but also the big ones who would rather I pay again. Apps like DayOne, GoodReader, and Notabilty have abused their customers by braking promises and releasing half completed apps that bury essential fixes in paid updates. That's just on iOS. I can't tell you how much I cringe when I buy a desktop app only to discover it's the exact same thing as their mobile app.

Most developers do not appear to care about shipping a functional product. You might, but that makes you an exception. Every other industry expects to get what they paid for before they move on to something new. But software gets a pass because they have set the expectation that it's not going to work.

As far as hardware issues go, if there is any features that work it should be made available because it shipped with broken features to begin with.

diff topic ,the problem is choice is cost . They cannot specialize for you only. if not work as refund via apple . Apple less hassle

 

[mi7chy]

Your voice was heard and Apple apparently backtracked for the time being.

 

[4jasontv]

diff topic ,the problem is choice is cost . They cannot specialize for you only. if not work as refund via apple . Apple less hassle

I don't follow. I paid for the app. Both the cost and choice are mine.

 

[seek3r]

Sometimes programmers build security based on how hard it would be for someone without certain technical expertise to run it on certain hardware (or in an emulator); and by then having it run on a "real" and open computer like a Mac all kinds of malware might have new attack vectors to exploit. Timing attacks and analysing memory usage and whatnot, that never was an issue in that shape and form on an iDevice.

You dont base your security assumptions when writing code on what a non-technical user would do, you base it on what a more technical bad actor might do (then you get some to try it so you arent just relying in assumptions). It doesnt take much expertise to jailbreak an iOS device. In a world where jailbreaking exists if the dev is relying on people not being able to get a more detailed look at their runtime app because it’s iOS they’re relying on security through obscurity at best - which is not security and may even be worse than simply insecure, it may give a false sense of security.

And yes, there may be a different or bigger attack surface on a mac, but I will point out that the changes in low level API implementation and less of a locked down sandbox pale in comparison to the attack surface of a modern browser on a general purpose computer, which is the primary alternative to the apps in question

 

[Alan Wynn]

I have been burned many times by fly by night developers. Not just the little guys but also the big ones who would rather I pay again. Apps like DayOne,

DayOne is a free app that has additional features as part of a subscription.

GoodReader,

This is $6, and has some features that cost extra. They have continued to support it, adding features and porting to new devices and OS versions since 2009 (about $0.54 a year and falling). Which of the Pro Pack features do you feel were “essential fixes”?

and Notabilty

Ranging in price from $0.99 to $11.99 depending on when it was purchased, the current pricing has it at a lower price upfront with add-ons for handwriting recognition and math recognition. For anyone who purchased the app before 1 Jan 2020, those features are still included. Again, what “essential fixes” cost extra?

have abused their customers by braking promises and releasing half completed apps that bury essential fixes in paid updates.

Does not track with my reading of their update logs, please provide specific examples.

That's just on iOS. I can't tell you how much I cringe when I buy a desktop app only to discover it's the exact same thing as their mobile app.

Before Apple released Catalyst, the apps might have been similar, but could not have been the same. Before Apple allowed companies to offer universal apps, they had to charge separately for macOS and iOS/iPadOS/tvOS/watchOS versions.

Most developers do not appear to care about shipping a functional product.

Wow, your experience is radically different than mine. Just to be clear, I own all three of the apps you listed above, and I have had no problems, nor have I purchased their in-app upgrades.

Every other industry expects to get what they paid for before they move on to something new.

By “every other industry” you mean physical products? I am pretty sure that the TV you bought before DolbyVision was released did not get that added. Nor did your car stereo that shipped before CarPlay was a product magically upgrade to support it. This, however, seems to be what you expect from software developers. Someone who sold a product in 2014 (Prompt 2) is being criticized for not adding support for a platform that only came into existence 6 years later.

But software gets a pass because they have set the expectation that it's not going to work.

Up until the App Store, apps were sold and upgrades provided for as long as the company felt they wanted to call something the same version. Then they released a new version that required a new purchase (and sometimes offered upgrade or loyalty pricing for existing customers). Sometimes they required that users purchase a maintenance contract to receive any upgrades (similar to today’s subscription pricing trend). If the application does not do what it claims to do in the description, file a complaint with Apple and ask for a refund.

Your view that every new feature they develop has to be included with no additional cost, and that they must support every new release and platform from Apple is simply unsustainable and is bad for us as customers as it prevents development and support for any serious apps.

As far as hardware issues go, if there is any features that work it should be made available because it shipped with broken features to begin with.

Sorry, I am not clear how you can argue that a product released before a new platform came into existence was broken because it did not support them.

 

[4jasontv]

DayOne is a free app that has additional features as part of a subscription.

DayOne was $5 for iOS and $10 for Mac. After users paid for the app they decided they wanted to switch to a subscription because they thought it was easier to get customers who were using their app to pay more than to attract new users. They made a name for themselves for building a good app that was adding features, and once their user base was large enough they took the biggest value of the app away: updates.

This is $6, and has some features that cost extra. They have continued to support it, adding features and porting to new devices and OS versions since 2009 (about $0.54 a year and falling). Which of the Pro Pack features do you feel were “essential fixes”?

GoodReader did the same thing as DayOne but they had the galls to charge for the app itself and for additional features. Allowing old versions to flounder with updates never seeing fixes for bugs and issues in the app.

Ranging in price from $0.99 to $11.99 depending on when it was purchased, the current pricing has it at a lower price upfront with add-ons for handwriting recognition and math recognition. For anyone who purchased the app before 1 Jan 2020, those features are still included. Again, what “essential fixes” cost extra?

The Notability app straight up doesn't work because it frequently crashes, has editing issues. Can't handle multiple page documents. And their claim that it syncs with the Mac version is a straight up lie. It simply doesn't work.

Does not track with my reading of their update logs, please provide specific examples.

Provided.

Before Apple released Catalyst, the apps might have been similar, but could not have been the same. Before Apple allowed companies to offer universal apps, they had to charge separately for macOS and iOS/iPadOS/tvOS/watchOS versions.

The UI was nearly identical for many apps. Look at all the iOS games with on screen 'controllers' and Mobile games that were barely ported to the desktop OSs by replacing the screen touch with trackpad touch.

Wow, your experience is radically different than mine. Just to be clear, I own all three of the apps you listed above, and I have had no problems, nor have I purchased their in-app upgrades.

I have paid for their IAP and it was a mistake. I gave them the benefit of the doubt because when I got them everyone was talking about how great a developer they were. Sadly, they chose the quick buck over doing the right thing.

By “every other industry” you mean physical products? I am pretty sure that the TV you bought before DolbyVision was released did not get that added. Nor did your car stereo that shipped before CarPlay was a product magically upgrade to support it. This, however, seems to be what you expect from software developers. Someone who sold a product in 2014 (Prompt 2) is being criticized for not adding support for a platform that only came into existence 6 years later.

There is also no distribution cost for updates, and R&D is close to zero for most apps, as is piracy. Consider how cheap support is to provide it's to be expected.

Up until the App Store, apps were sold and upgrades provided for as long as the company felt they wanted to call something the same version. Then they released a new version that required a new purchase (and sometimes offered upgrade or loyalty pricing for existing customers). Sometimes they required that users purchase a maintenance contract to receive any upgrades (similar to today’s subscription pricing trend). If the application does not do what it claims to do in the description, file a complaint with Apple and ask for a refund.

Your view that every new feature they develop has to be included with no additional cost, and that they must support every new release and platform from Apple is simply unsustainable and is bad for us as customers as it prevents development and support for any serious apps.

The app store was supposed to fix the broken state of software, not embrace it and come up with new ways to pull money out of people.

Sorry, I am not clear how you can argue that a product released before a new platform came into existence was broken because it did not support them.

Take Goodreader as an example because it crashes like an asymmetric paper plane. Instead of fixing it so it can properly handle PDFs they came out with a new version... which of course they have to pay for. They shouldn't be selling new features when they haven't given their existing customers a product that works.

 

[svanstrom]

You dont base your security assumptions when writing code on what a non-technical user would do, you base it on what a more technical bad actor might do (then you get some to try it so you arent just relying in assumptions). It doesnt take much expertise to jailbreak an iOS device. In a world where jailbreaking exists if the dev is relying on people not being able to get a more detailed look at their runtime app because it’s iOS they’re relying on security through obscurity at best - which is not security and may even be worse than simply insecure, it may give a false sense of security.

And yes, there may be a different or bigger attack surface on a mac, but I will point out that the changes in low level API implementation and less of a locked down sandbox pale in comparison to the attack surface of a modern browser on a general purpose computer, which is the primary alternative to the apps in question

I will somewhat disagree here. You have some valid points; and we could sort of lazily keep disagreeing with each other without either of us being completely right or wrong, but…

In the best of worlds something that needs to remain secure stays secure no matter what's done to the device running it.

But we don't live in a best of worlds; and the users can't be completely protected from themselves.

If you intentionally turn off the security of your device (jailbreak them, turn off SIP etc) then you are intentionally entering more dangerous waters; intentionally going out of your way to enter a situation where you've given a bad actor new ways of breaking your security. Just like it doesn't take much expertise (but is still a stupid thing to do) to leave the doors to your home open before you go on vacation.

Then bad things could happen; and the risk of bad things happening has increased as compared with before.

I bet you that the more security aware a developer is, the more worried they were about their apps potentially being used on Macs; and that they had a serious look at what the implications were.

 

[alien3dx]

I don't follow. I paid for the app. Both the cost and choice are mine.

not .you paid as it not customize it. you only can afford diesel car but dont imagine as tesla . Apps developer no obligation to entertain your request unless it was customize system which normally company charge 300 to 500 dollar per day

 

[chucker23n1]

I have been burned many times by fly by night developers. Not just the little guys but also the big ones who would rather I pay again. Apps like DayOne, GoodReader, and Notabilty have abused their customers by braking promises and releasing half completed apps that bury essential fixes in paid updates. That's just on iOS. I can't tell you how much I cringe when I buy a desktop app only to discover it's the exact same thing as their mobile app.

Yeah man. How dare developers try to make a living.

 

[svanstrom]

not .you paid as it not customize it. you only can afford diesel car but dont imagine as tesla . Apps developer no obligation to entertain your request unless it was customize system which normally company charge 300 to 500 dollar per day

That's actually a bit at the lower end; depending on the developer, and where in the world he is, and so on.

As a professional consultant you often have to base your calculations on only half your hours being billable; meaning that the other half of your work time is spent networking to get clients, negotiating with clients, doing bookkeeping, and all the other things needed to run a professional business.

Someone might do the math as 300 * 22 days in a month, and think that 6'600 USD sounds like a lot; and it can be, but for a developer the math might be more like… Half is lost in non-billable hours, another 1000/mo. is lost in regular business expenses, and then another half is lost in local taxes and a basic set aside for retirement; ending them with 1150/mo. to personally live on. Which for many developers wouldn't even be enough to cover their rent.

 

[alien3dx]

That's actually a bit at the lower end; depending on the developer, and where in the world he is, and so on.

As a professional consultant you often have to base your calculations on only half your hours being billable; meaning that the other half of your work time is spent networking to get clients, negotiating with clients, doing bookkeeping, and all the other things needed to run a professional business.

Someone might do the math as 300 * 22 days in a month, and think that 6'600 USD sounds like a lot; and it can be, but for a developer the math might be more like… Half is lost in non-billable hours, another 1000/mo. is lost in regular business expenses, and then another half is lost in local taxes and a basic set aside for retirement; ending them with 1150/mo. to personally live on. Which for many developers wouldn't even be enough to cover their rent.

just pure example short project which some would prefer big but even for me a bit low , we here charge base on project complexity not per hour or by day. . chears man

 

[4jasontv]

Yeah man. How dare developers try to make a living.

We need to protect the grifters! /s

 

[iBluetooth]

Same as I thought when I bought it
Instead most of those developers are just bunch of weird *******s to opt out and don’t even let you run the app on macOS

they want me to keep holding my phone like a retardés in my home ?

As usual it's the managers that get the high salary to take these decisions. We the developers would like to support it.

 

[nameste]

My machine came with 11.0 if I update to 11.1.I won’t be able to use side load?

 

[nicfle]

Sorry for being stupid, but can you tell me what iOS apps are not available for M1 at the moment. I read popular ones are Instagram, Hulu, Ps, Xbox and Netflix? I can live without them on my Mac. Anything that is worth all this fuzz?

 

[alien3dx]

Sorry for being stupid, but can you tell me what iOS apps are not available for M1 at the moment. I read popular ones are Instagram, Hulu, Ps, Xbox and Netflix? I can live without them on my Mac. Anything that is worth make all this fuzz?

not sure my apps not in also maybe i not compile to universal before. I want to try genshin impact in m1 since normal apple store doesnt have.

 

[ericwn]

DayOne is a free app that has additional features as part of a subscription.

This is $6, and has some features that cost extra. They have continued to support it, adding features and porting to new devices and OS versions since 2009 (about $0.54 a year and falling). Which of the Pro Pack features do you feel were “essential fixes”?

Ranging in price from $0.99 to $11.99 depending on when it was purchased, the current pricing has it at a lower price upfront with add-ons for handwriting recognition and math recognition. For anyone who purchased the app before 1 Jan 2020, those features are still included. Again, what “essential fixes” cost extra?

Does not track with my reading of their update logs, please provide specific examples.

Before Apple released Catalyst, the apps might have been similar, but could not have been the same. Before Apple allowed companies to offer universal apps, they had to charge separately for macOS and iOS/iPadOS/tvOS/watchOS versions.

Wow, your experience is radically different than mine. Just to be clear, I own all three of the apps you listed above, and I have had no problems, nor have I purchased their in-app upgrades.

By “every other industry” you mean physical products? I am pretty sure that the TV you bought before DolbyVision was released did not get that added. Nor did your car stereo that shipped before CarPlay was a product magically upgrade to support it. This, however, seems to be what you expect from software developers. Someone who sold a product in 2014 (Prompt 2) is being criticized for not adding support for a platform that only came into existence 6 years later.

Up until the App Store, apps were sold and upgrades provided for as long as the company felt they wanted to call something the same version. Then they released a new version that required a new purchase (and sometimes offered upgrade or loyalty pricing for existing customers). Sometimes they required that users purchase a maintenance contract to receive any upgrades (similar to today’s subscription pricing trend). If the application does not do what it claims to do in the description, file a complaint with Apple and ask for a refund.

Your view that every new feature they develop has to be included with no additional cost, and that they must support every new release and platform from Apple is simply unsustainable and is bad for us as customers as it prevents development and support for any serious apps.

Sorry, I am not clear how you can argue that a product released before a new platform came into existence was broken because it did not support them.

The entire post you’re working with is a head shaker. I have used Day One from Day One and it’s been nothing but spectacular. The other apps in question here are also highly regarded. That one person didn’t like them in this discussion is no surprise at all though.

 

[4743913]

Sorry for being stupid, but can you tell me what iOS apps are not available for M1 at the moment. I read popular ones are Instagram, Hulu, Ps, Xbox and Netflix? I can live without them on my Mac. Anything that is worth all this fuzz?

its all subjective. what do you like on your iDevice? put it on my your mac.

notability for iPad is 100x better than the crippled mac version.

 

[Philip_S]

Well this sucks. One of the things I loved most about the M1 Mini. It's been fantastic - absolutely no reason I see to gimp it up this way.

DRM. If you can load up, say, Netflix you could record your screen and audio.

 

[Philip_S]

certain options benefit the overall experience. this option doesn't. it can generate confusion.

There’s no risk of confusion when you have to go out of your way to use an unsupported third party tool. It’s just about helping make sure Netflix etc’s DRM isn’t too easy to circumvent.

 

[4743913]

DRM. If you can load up, say, Netflix you could record your screen and audio.

lol.. this ridiculous argument still going strong after 40 years..

 

[ericwn]

lol.. this ridiculous argument still going strong after 40 years..

Neither Netflix nor DRM are 40 years old - what are you referring to?

 

[4jasontv]

The entire post you’re working with is a head shaker. I have used Day One from Day One and it’s been nothing but spectacular. The other apps in question here are also highly regarded. That one person didn’t like them in this discussion is no surprise at all though.

I didn’t say Day One had issues with the app. I said they made a name for their app by adding features for free setting the expectation that was how they did business. Then they decided to start charging a subscription after they paid the app price of $15. Then they lied and said existing customers would keep everything they paid for which was a lie. Truth was, if you wanted to keep using day one as you had then you needed to subscribe.