5 ms·

Apparently this is intentional since macOS 11.3 I found more in-depth info by following the GitHub link, then YouTube description: https://www.applegamingwiki.

by irae 5y ago

Apparently this is intentional since macOS 11.3 I found more in-depth info by following the GitHub link, then YouTube description: https://www.applegamingwiki.com/wiki/Sideload_apps_not_on_App_Store https://www.applegamingwiki.com/wiki/Sideload_apps_not_on_Ap... Looks like a lot of trouble just to use software you payed for, the way you prefer.

codetrotter 5y ago
> Looks like a lot of trouble just to use software you payed for, the way you prefer. I use a lot of proprietary software too, but I don't see any point or reason to demand that I should be able to use the proprietary software the way that I want. If you want freedom to use software the way you prefer, use open source software. I write open source software because I think open source is both important, and because it is beneficial both to myself and others. I run proprietary and open source software side by side. And software that lives forever is the exception not the rule in either case. Whether you pay with your money or your time, almost all software has an end of life at some point. For any number of reasons. Sometimes it's an open source developer that stops maintaining the software and noone has the time nor capacity to pick up the work. Sometimes it's the company behind a proprietary piece of software that goes bankrupt, or the company is acquired and the developers put to work on something else. Or... any number of reasons. About the only thing that you can really do in the end, if you want ultimate control, is to develop the software yourself. But that has a huge cost too, which is the amount of your time that you put into it. Or, we can use the software that others make and admit to ourselves that we are not in control of the future of that software nor how we will be able to use it. And in the end we all have to do so with a lot of software that we use, because no one single person is able to maintain all of the software that they rely on, from the OS to the apps and across devices – it's just way too much code and way too much of everything. And this brings me to the point which is to say, factor this into the consideration when making decisions. Buy a piece of software because it provides value given the current state of things. And be wary of to what extend you allow yourself to be locked into any one app or platform. Don't keep your data on their platform only. Export data to a neutral format and neutral storage medium regularly, so that you have access to it in the future. And if the software makes this impractical, decide which is worth more, the immediate benefit, or the future. Sometimes the answer is immediate benefit, but I think we are susceptible to appreciate immediate benefit even in cases where we should be considering the future more. I use a MacBook Pro M1 and an iPhone because they provide value to me. They provide a platform that is comfortable to use and which suits me. But my files and my life is not tied too strongly to Apple, and my desktop computer runs Linux and my servers run FreeBSD. And if a piece of software does not fulfill what I need it to, I find an alternative piece of software or I find a different way of doing things.
- bsaul 5y ago
  buying something usually makes you the owner of that thing. And as such to use it the way you want, even if that means breaking it ( you may just loose the waranty, which is perfectly acceptable). If you buy a mac and an iOS app, i don't see any reason why you couldn't try to have the two work together if that's technically possible. Apple may add additional code to prevent that, and then you should be allowed to remove it. It's the regular way things work with ownership.
  - viktorcode 5y ago
    Apple simply allowed developers to decide whether their software will be available on M1. By default it is, so they have to opt-out if they don't want to. You may dislike the way it works, but developers clearly want to control the deployment platforms.
  - codetrotter 5y ago
    > If you buy a mac and an iOS app, i don't see any reason why you couldn't try to have the two work together if that's technically possible. Apple may add additional code to prevent that, and then you should be allowed to remove it. From the point of view of Apple I can see at least three reasons why they'd want to prevent arbitrary iOS apps from running on macOS. - The developer of the iOS app may not want people to use the iOS version on macOS, because they already have a version of the software made for macOS that they want people to buy instead. - Software made for iOS does not necessarily work all that well on macOS. Both because of the difference between touch screen and mouse paradigms, and because of iOS apps being made to run in a more constrained environment. - Beyond the above point being harmful both to end-users and to Apple, it's also harmful to the developers of the app because they have to deal with support requests and negative reviews from people running the software in a way it was not designed to be run. Similar to the way that it was with Linux users for this one game developer: "Game dev: Linux users were only 0.1% of sales but 20% of crashes and tickets", https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18845205 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18845205 And what I am saying is, if you want the freedom, why invest into proprietary software in the first place? Or if you want the proprietary software, why insist on being able to do whatever you want with it? And as for ownership, when you license proprietary software you are almost never being sold ownership of the software. You are paying for a license to use it. And if you think that this is bad, again, open source is much better in line with your desires.

by irae 5y ago

codetrotter 5y ago

> Looks like a lot of trouble just to use software you payed for, the way you prefer. I use a lot of proprietary software too, but I don't see any point or reason to demand that I should be able to use the proprietary software the way that I want. If you want freedom to use software the way you prefer, use open source software. I write open source software because I think open source is both important, and because it is beneficial both to myself and others. I run proprietary and open source software side by side. And software that lives forever is the exception not the rule in either case. Whether you pay with your money or your time, almost all software has an end of life at some point. For any number of reasons. Sometimes it's an open source developer that stops maintaining the software and noone has the time nor capacity to pick up the work. Sometimes it's the company behind a proprietary piece of software that goes bankrupt, or the company is acquired and the developers put to work on something else. Or... any number of reasons. About the only thing that you can really do in the end, if you want ultimate control, is to develop the software yourself. But that has a huge cost too, which is the amount of your time that you put into it. Or, we can use the software that others make and admit to ourselves that we are not in control of the future of that software nor how we will be able to use it. And in the end we all have to do so with a lot of software that we use, because no one single person is able to maintain all of the software that they rely on, from the OS to the apps and across devices – it's just way too much code and way too much of everything. And this brings me to the point which is to say, factor this into the consideration when making decisions. Buy a piece of software because it provides value given the current state of things. And be wary of to what extend you allow yourself to be locked into any one app or platform. Don't keep your data on their platform only. Export data to a neutral format and neutral storage medium regularly, so that you have access to it in the future. And if the software makes this impractical, decide which is worth more, the immediate benefit, or the future. Sometimes the answer is immediate benefit, but I think we are susceptible to appreciate immediate benefit even in cases where we should be considering the future more. I use a MacBook Pro M1 and an iPhone because they provide value to me. They provide a platform that is comfortable to use and which suits me. But my files and my life is not tied too strongly to Apple, and my desktop computer runs Linux and my servers run FreeBSD. And if a piece of software does not fulfill what I need it to, I find an alternative piece of software or I find a different way of doing things.

bsaul 5y ago
buying something usually makes you the owner of that thing. And as such to use it the way you want, even if that means breaking it ( you may just loose the waranty, which is perfectly acceptable). If you buy a mac and an iOS app, i don't see any reason why you couldn't try to have the two work together if that's technically possible. Apple may add additional code to prevent that, and then you should be allowed to remove it. It's the regular way things work with ownership.
- viktorcode 5y ago
  Apple simply allowed developers to decide whether their software will be available on M1. By default it is, so they have to opt-out if they don't want to. You may dislike the way it works, but developers clearly want to control the deployment platforms.
- codetrotter 5y ago
  > If you buy a mac and an iOS app, i don't see any reason why you couldn't try to have the two work together if that's technically possible. Apple may add additional code to prevent that, and then you should be allowed to remove it. From the point of view of Apple I can see at least three reasons why they'd want to prevent arbitrary iOS apps from running on macOS. - The developer of the iOS app may not want people to use the iOS version on macOS, because they already have a version of the software made for macOS that they want people to buy instead. - Software made for iOS does not necessarily work all that well on macOS. Both because of the difference between touch screen and mouse paradigms, and because of iOS apps being made to run in a more constrained environment. - Beyond the above point being harmful both to end-users and to Apple, it's also harmful to the developers of the app because they have to deal with support requests and negative reviews from people running the software in a way it was not designed to be run. Similar to the way that it was with Linux users for this one game developer: "Game dev: Linux users were only 0.1% of sales but 20% of crashes and tickets", https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18845205 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18845205 And what I am saying is, if you want the freedom, why invest into proprietary software in the first place? Or if you want the proprietary software, why insist on being able to do whatever you want with it? And as for ownership, when you license proprietary software you are almost never being sold ownership of the software. You are paying for a license to use it. And if you think that this is bad, again, open source is much better in line with your desires.