Well well well, this is server side meaning there definitely exist in the system another way to Sideload them, even if that means the creation of a new app that installs ipa files and skips that new verification
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
I think it verified them remotely before installing them to begin with. I'm just glad I got FF7 and FF9 installed prior to this being shut down.
Kind of dumb, the iPad and iPhone was marketed for people not tech-savvy and more to consume media...but why would they limit what the Mac can do? The Mac should be open to everything as it's for people to create. I'm not liking this rabbit hole Apple is taking us in.
Why do people keep insisting the average sideloader has any sort of clue? *YOU* may have clue. But the average sideloader googles for a solution he can use without understanding it, whines when he's expected to pay for iMazing, and then whines on Twitter about how bad the developer is for the sub-optimal UI.
Years ago here, I was told that I should do everything for free. However, no one was ready to supply me housing or food or transportation for free. They had to live.
That's like the average user who wants to use the beta test version and 10 minutes after things break, wants to go back to the safe version.
That’s all it is but I have used it heavily the last couple years and it has all my lab gear and things configured and saved. I was shocked it worked sideloading but it was a relief to have all my sessions set up and not go hunting for an alternative to manually recreate everything. I may still try to compile Putty if it’s possible to dump my sessions from one of my windows systems to it. I really don’t have a problem spending money with developers and paying 14.99 for a decent ssh client was a no brainer it’s the time and effort of switching and adapting to something else when I already know it works. I’m still hoping I can push the developer to just flip the flag for the AppStore. I looked at alternatives but anything decent is subscription based. SSH is SSH too many devs adding unnessasary bells and whistles to justify $100 a year so I can save SSH sessions and use it across devices.
Been using terminal hoping I’m not backed into buying into something new that may or may not last. Prompt hasn’t had many updates (not needed). Hoping they just taking their time doing a QA. However, they have been dropping other apps so I could totally see them just putting out something new.
If anyone knows the magic SSH app that’s cross device and maybe has an import feature let me know. I’ll gladly drop some cash if it’s not a subscription.
Bombard the developers. Developers have the choice to allow the license to be available on both iOS and macs, by some chose not to. This is probably an answer to their complaints to Apple to prevent people skipping purchasing the mac version of their apps.
It isn't up to the developer to decide how I use the software they wrote software any more than it's up to Craftsman how I use the wrench they built or Ford how I use their truck they assembled.
A more accurate comparison is the same way you are licensed to use a automobile within certain limits (laws) your licensed to use MacOS within certain restrictions.
Wrong. This is Apple enforcing the developer's decision regarding where you can run their app. Which is great because now I don't have to worry about supporting and/or trouble shooting a feature that I can't fully test since I don't have an M1 Mac.
No. The logical solution is to allow developers to decide what kind of product they want to build and which devices it makes sense to support.
For instance, a location based app that makes heavy use of the GPS and compass is not going to be able to work as designed on a Mac which does not have such hardware.
Development can be challenging, and that's all fine and good, but why do you want to make it more difficult than it needs to be?
since when has Apple listened to message boards on MacRumors? it would take a butterfly switch catastrophe (or so I've been told) for Apple to change their minds about anything.
regardless, even if they did, I rather have a variety of operating systems to choose from. if I wanted the ultimate customization and do-whatever-i-want, I'd go for a PC. if i wanted the ultimate curated experience where a company has end to end control of the entire user flow, I'd go to Apple. why would I want Apple to turn into Microsoft when I can just go to Microsoft? what, because Apple makes marginally better hardware?
i want to experience what a company with "insane level of control" has to offer. and so far, it seems to be damn working well with AirPods, AirPlay, AirDrop, Apple Watch, etc...if it doesn't work, I'd go to Microsoft.
asking macOS to be more like Windows is what is insane.
Exactly. And back in the day, using a machine as the user saw fit was the expectation. Apple is forcing devs to sell through their store. It is all about $. But more chilling is the potential to cut the legs off someone they disagree with. Imagine Parler develops an app.... oh wait, that already happened.
This idea of it being ‘illegal’ or similar is complete and utter nonsense. You have paid for the app, and as such you should be able to use it on a platform of your choice, especially given the experience is identical to the IOS version.
Secondly anyone going to the effort of side loading an app, is in effect jumping through hoops to make it work. No one doing this is going to expect support if the app doesn’t run properly.
I’ve used perpetual licenses on software for years, on modern OS it was never designed or intended for. It had its quirks but often it was abandoned or similar, and I made it work. This is no different. On my own iPhone I refuse to update many apps because they add or remove features, this choice should be down to me and me alone what version and how I use the software I’ve paid for.
Secondly anyone going to the effort of side loading an app, is in effect jumping through hoops to make it work. No one doing this is going to expect support if the app doesn’t run properly.
I’ve used perpetual licenses on software for years, on modern OS it was never designed or intended for. It had its quirks but often it was abandoned or similar, and I made it work. This is no different. On my own iPhone I refuse to update many apps because they add or remove features, this choice should be down to me and me alone what version and how I use the software I’ve paid for.
How is that the same? Ford didn’t set the rules of the road. Developers have no rights beyond first sale.
I have no issue with letting developers want to build apps the way they want, so long as the concede some of these undeserved ‘rights’ they were somehow granted. Telling me what devices I can install software on, adding DRM that breaks the app if the servers are shut off, not fixing bugs, and using IP rules to block other apps from adding features.
Ohh yeah I bet people that are able to extract an .ipa and copy it to an M1 will be sooo confused.
This will probably be hacked in short order. And then people will be more likely to just load .ipa they don't own.
If these companies choose to not allow their apps to run on Macs, then they need to make a solution for the Mac. Isn't it easier than ever to do this? And they better hurry because more people working from home are going to be using Macs and especially now that Apple Silicon is lightyears ahead.
If these companies choose to not allow their apps to run on Macs, then they need to make a solution for the Mac. Isn't it easier than ever to do this? And they better hurry because more people working from home are going to be using Macs and especially now that Apple Silicon is lightyears ahead.
They're not the ones breaking the code, though. Apple is. And sometimes the company doesn't even exist anymore by the time that happens. If Apple held devs to that kind of standard, those devs would've gone to Google or Microsoft's platforms instead. And if all of them did that, there'd be fewer devs. There's no free lunch.
Last edited:
Call me crazy, but if I ship a Mac app, I want it to be a good Mac app, not a Mac app that inspires users to deliver the glowing praise: “eh, it’s fine.” There are myriad reasons why many iOS apps aren’t currently available on macOS and why some never will be. Same story for why Catalyst apps didn’t suddenly flood the Mac App Store upon release: It’s just not “there” yet for so many use cases.
If the developer doesn’t want to accept the compromises to the experience they want to deliver, or if they’re unwilling (or unable) to support it, that’s their prerogative. Maybe you just love using software that the developer doesn’t care about, though?