That seems backwards. Why would you be against people using an iOS app when there’s no substitute on Mac? I would genuinely understand if sideloading was restricted to iOS only apps so as not to undercut Mac OS app sales. But you’re saying it’s especially bad if there’s no Mac app ? I don’t follow that train of logic.
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
You paid for the app to work on iOS, not macOS.
As a developer myself, I am shocked how people treating Apps they "paid for".
When we "sell" our software, we sell the "right to use", we don't sell the "ownership" unless explicitly intended to.
In other words, we developers own the apps, not the user, and we will write the copyright documents inside the apps.
If we don't want to include "right to use" on a specific platform in a sale, the we should have the right to.
But I personally is NOT against the sideloading approach even as a developer: I will not encourage that, but I will not implement blocking mechanisms either (it is easy to detect M1 devices and make your app not run).
The reason behind Apple doing such might come from the complaints of major developers.
When we "sell" our software, we sell the "right to use", we don't sell the "ownership" unless explicitly intended to.
In other words, we developers own the apps, not the user, and we will write the copyright documents inside the apps.
If we don't want to include "right to use" on a specific platform in a sale, the we should have the right to.
But I personally is NOT against the sideloading approach even as a developer: I will not encourage that, but I will not implement blocking mechanisms either (it is easy to detect M1 devices and make your app not run).
The reason behind Apple doing such might come from the complaints of major developers.
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.
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.
i agree developers should have that right but I also believe Apple has the right to not offer that right if you catch what I’m saying lol. I don’t have a problem with developers opting out but it’s apples store and if you want to market your product through them you should have to make concessions and making an app work/accessible on all Apple devices is not a huge ask IMO.
Where in the App Store Terms and Conditions did Apple or the developer guarantee you "indefinite updates"?
I hate to say it, and there was a day when I'd deny it, but not any more.... this is a ploy by Apple to generate more revenue through the App Store. Guaranteed.
Not trying to be an ******* I’m genuinely curious , is that really what the license says? Because I thought it was just license to use said app with OS being assumed considering the ecosystem it’s in.
You don't follow that train of logic because unfortunately there isn't one in regards to the topic of whether sideloading is acceptable or not. Unless I'm missing something, he starts by saying he doesn't believe it's acceptable but if Apple says it's fine then he's fine with it too. His opinion is based entirely on the legal rights of the company. I don't think that's a very healthy relationship between a customer and a business because it forfeits the customer's influence/power over the business (how markets are supposed to work lol).
Updates also takes time, especially on Apple platform and it updates frequently and you app will not run if you don't update the code at some point. Which means, to continuously provide the update for an app will eventually cost the same amount of work as writing a new one.
Therefore IMO it is unfair to a developer to provide all updates for free. My strategy is, all users have free updates until next major version, and if the next major version is out less than one year of your purchase, you will receive a discount based on the time of purchase if you want to pay for the next major version. The old major version will not receive functional updates but I will update to make sure it will run unless something out of my control happened, like changing hardware platform (switch from x86 to arm for example). You can keep using your old version up until Apple introduces some major change that breaks it and is not easy to adapt.
Here is where it gets tricky. I paid for an app and I expect it to work before I pay more. If you sell an app before it's done than that's on you as the developer to fix the app at no additional cost. If your app works perfectly and you want to charge for new features than sure, but I shouldn't have to pay again to make it do what the developer initially claimed it could do.
So your strategy is to get mad enough on the internet that every developer, for every app, provides you indefinite updates? Forever.
If it doesn't work, you get a refund, within the T&C criteria that you previously agreed to. This happens for things you buy at Walmart, too
No. Of course not. I will push for legislation that regulates those developers into a career better suited for them. Starting with reducing software IP to 2 years max and holding developers personally accountable for the sale of software that doesn't function as expected.
They will if they're still around, which they might not be. A niche group of sideloading users isn't going to discourage them from it.
I believe I should be able to install Windows on my Playstation 5 and use it like a PC, but here we are.
That particular cost of business would get passed onto all consumers in some way. That'll piss of more people than it serves.
I rather have Apple's resources spent on things that actually matter for most users and not for the 1% of people who think sideloading iPad apps on M1 should be a consumer right.
When a new major version is out the old version will no longer available for purchase, so the app is always guaranteed to work at the time of purchase.
If it is not, contact Apple and they will have your money back.
That's fine so long as it applies to any App I ever purchased and the developer provides the full refund without cutting into Apple's fair share. It should cost the developer money to sell a defective product. As a deterrent for launching incomplete software.If it doesn't work, you get a refund, within the T&C criteria that you previously agreed to. This happens for things you buy at Walmart, too
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.
It's a real problem that probably has led to free (plus paid junk) apps dominating, but what's Apple going to do, margin call the devs who have long since ceased to exist?