6 ms·

I think Apple has adopted a denylist instead of permitlist approach. They let all iPad and iPhone apps run unless the developer puts their app on the denylist.

FootballMuse 5y ago
No, its a whitelist. There are plenty of abandoned apps that haven't been updated in years, which I would like to run on M1, but aren't available.
- DaiPlusPlus 5y ago
  Isn't that because the apps haven't been recompiled for ARM64 though?
  - gjsman-1000 5y ago
    No iPad has ever run intel, and Apple went 64 bit over half a decade ago.
    - larusso 5y ago
      Yes in 2014 they made the move. The first iPad is from 2010. So we have 4 years worth of old arm compiled apps. I don‘t understand the intel part though.
- KMnO4 5y ago
  It’s a whitelist, but it’s opt-out. You have to specifically check “do not let this app run on Mac” in the App Store Connect portal.
  - rightiousrob 5y ago
    Guys, an opt-out whitelist is per definition a blacklist. I.e what is done explicitly defines the color. Explicit Allow (blacklist opt out) -> whitelist Explicit Deny (whitelist opt out) -> blacklist
    - janaagaard 5y ago
      Except that old apps that aren’t updated, are not put on the whitelist. (This is what I understand from the comments above.)
  - IncRnd 5y ago
    > It’s a whitelist, but it’s opt-out. That's a blacklist.
    - Closi 5y ago
      If it's a whitelist or a blacklist is really just an implementation detail. The key here is that the developer can choose to opt-in/out when uploading to the mac store (defaulting to opt-in), however older apps will be opt-out by default (as the developer didn't have this choice when they uploaded).
      - IncRnd 5y ago
        What applies to this conversation, however, is the correct use of terms and to not use the opposite, incorrect term.
        Closi 5y ago
        Well if you want to get technical on terms, it’s probably not implemented as either a whitelist or a blacklist and is probably just a database field which was defaulted to false during the migration. And because it’s likely implemented like that, you can either generate a whitelist or blacklist if you want, but in reality it’s highly unlikely it’s implemented as either of these things. But regardless it seems like this whole thread is just about semantics anyway.
- swiley 5y ago
  Since you have root couldn't you just patch the runtime to whitelist the app you want to run?
  - FootballMuse 5y ago
    It does a server-side check.
DaiPlusPlus 5y ago
> They let all iPad and iPhone apps run unless the developer puts their app on the denylist. Can we all agree that any developer that decides to do that is doing something that can only be described in civilized culture as being a dick move?
- apetresc 5y ago
  There's legitimate reasons. Some iPhone applications simply don't work properly or at all on Big Sur.
  - DaiPlusPlus 5y ago
    That doesn't mean devs should actively block execution on a given platform just because it "doesn't work properly" - platforms change and back-compatibility fixes can always come along without the devs being aware - and users can also just find ways to make things work, or maybe they're happy with the limited functionality that does work? Otherwise, that's just a repeat of the "Sorry, our website only works in Internet Explorer" experience which we'd all rather leave behind. ---- Look: the M1 Mac is my hardware: I own it. I also possess a license to run your software on my own hardware. Who is in control here, exactly? Why do you think you (royal-you) know better than your own users?
- KMnO4 5y ago
  I excluded my company’s app from running on M1. It relies on iPhone hardware (specifically the microphone, and all our training data was recorded from iPhones), and we found the experience on M1 to be abysmal. So perhaps, many developers who exclude their app from running on M1 may be doing it for technical reasons.
  - DaiPlusPlus 5y ago
    > found the experience on M1 to be abysmal "It doesn't meet our standards, therefore we arrogantly decide it doesn't meet anyone else's standards either - especially not the standards of our users who paid money (or who signed-away their PII rights) to use the app."

FootballMuse 5y ago

No, its a whitelist. There are plenty of abandoned apps that haven't been updated in years, which I would like to run on M1, but aren't available.

DaiPlusPlus 5y ago
Isn't that because the apps haven't been recompiled for ARM64 though?
- gjsman-1000 5y ago
  No iPad has ever run intel, and Apple went 64 bit over half a decade ago.
  - larusso 5y ago
    Yes in 2014 they made the move. The first iPad is from 2010. So we have 4 years worth of old arm compiled apps. I don‘t understand the intel part though.
KMnO4 5y ago
It’s a whitelist, but it’s opt-out. You have to specifically check “do not let this app run on Mac” in the App Store Connect portal.
- rightiousrob 5y ago
  Guys, an opt-out whitelist is per definition a blacklist. I.e what is done explicitly defines the color. Explicit Allow (blacklist opt out) -> whitelist Explicit Deny (whitelist opt out) -> blacklist
  - janaagaard 5y ago
    Except that old apps that aren’t updated, are not put on the whitelist. (This is what I understand from the comments above.)
- IncRnd 5y ago
  > It’s a whitelist, but it’s opt-out. That's a blacklist.
  - Closi 5y ago
    If it's a whitelist or a blacklist is really just an implementation detail. The key here is that the developer can choose to opt-in/out when uploading to the mac store (defaulting to opt-in), however older apps will be opt-out by default (as the developer didn't have this choice when they uploaded).
    - IncRnd 5y ago
      What applies to this conversation, however, is the correct use of terms and to not use the opposite, incorrect term.
      - Closi 5y ago
        Well if you want to get technical on terms, it’s probably not implemented as either a whitelist or a blacklist and is probably just a database field which was defaulted to false during the migration. And because it’s likely implemented like that, you can either generate a whitelist or blacklist if you want, but in reality it’s highly unlikely it’s implemented as either of these things. But regardless it seems like this whole thread is just about semantics anyway.
swiley 5y ago
Since you have root couldn't you just patch the runtime to whitelist the app you want to run?
- FootballMuse 5y ago
  It does a server-side check.

DaiPlusPlus 5y ago

> They let all iPad and iPhone apps run unless the developer puts their app on the denylist. Can we all agree that any developer that decides to do that is doing something that can only be described in civilized culture as being a dick move?

apetresc 5y ago
There's legitimate reasons. Some iPhone applications simply don't work properly or at all on Big Sur.
- DaiPlusPlus 5y ago
  That doesn't mean devs should actively block execution on a given platform just because it "doesn't work properly" - platforms change and back-compatibility fixes can always come along without the devs being aware - and users can also just find ways to make things work, or maybe they're happy with the limited functionality that does work? Otherwise, that's just a repeat of the "Sorry, our website only works in Internet Explorer" experience which we'd all rather leave behind. ---- Look: the M1 Mac is my hardware: I own it. I also possess a license to run your software on my own hardware. Who is in control here, exactly? Why do you think you (royal-you) know better than your own users?
KMnO4 5y ago
I excluded my company’s app from running on M1. It relies on iPhone hardware (specifically the microphone, and all our training data was recorded from iPhones), and we found the experience on M1 to be abysmal. So perhaps, many developers who exclude their app from running on M1 may be doing it for technical reasons.
- DaiPlusPlus 5y ago
  > found the experience on M1 to be abysmal "It doesn't meet our standards, therefore we arrogantly decide it doesn't meet anyone else's standards either - especially not the standards of our users who paid money (or who signed-away their PII rights) to use the app."