Slashdot Mirror
Appocalypse Now - How iOS11 Will Kill Some Of Your Favourite iPhone Apps (independent.ie)
Ronan Price, writing for Independent: The app-ocalypse is coming and almost no one knows it. Apologies for the dreadful pun but, in about six to eight weeks' time, hundreds of thousands of older apps for iPhone and iPad will cease to work when Apple updates its iOS software to version 11. Businesses and consumers who rely on these elderly apps and update to iOS11 without knowing the consequences face a rude awakening. Their difficulty ranges from mere inconvenience that a useful app no longer functions to the complete loss of valuable data buried in a piece of obsolete software. Apple began signalling two years ago that it was signing the death warrant for older apps when it moved iOS to 64-bit software - essentially a more secure, faster and technologically advanced version that replaced the previous 32-bit code. First, Apple encouraged developers to rewrite their apps to 64-bit status but continued to allow 32-bit apps to function. Then it began to warn developers and customers that future iOS updates would experience compatibility issues. You may have seen -- and ignored -- the messages when launching apps in the last year telling you "App X needs up to be updated, the developer needs to update it to improve its compatibility." Finally, just this June, Apple confirmed that iOS11 would put the kibosh on 32-bit forever when it's released into the wild in late September. The announcement came and went with little fanfare from the public's perspective.
You don't have to rewrite shit.
You just have to update the SDK and compile. Done. It's not even fucking hard to do. These old apps are not supported or developed by anyone, that is to say they're unsupported by their developers. Get over it.
so what, iphone 5 and before (32 bit) is 5+ years old. past time the world moved away from 32 bit for general purpose OS powered devices, which includes smart phones
This sounds a lot like Firefox 57's WebExtensions transition, which will reportedly break compatibility with many older extensions. While Apple can probably get away with breaking compatibility, I don't know if Firefox will survive it.
DEATH TO APPS!
yeah what is wrong with people not replacing perfectly functional devices every couple of years for marginal improvements? they totally deserve to have their purchased apps bricked. this is what happens when you don't follow the Benevolent Corp upgrade cycle. serves them right, the damn fools!
Also, one would hope the upgrade process scans for 32-bit-only apps and informs the user "X App" will not function after this OS upgrade. Are you sure you want to proceed?
Undoubtedly, some idiots will still press "Yes" and proceed to bitch afterwards, but that's people for you.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
If the devices are "perfectly functional" then those owners don't need to upgrade to ios11, and their apps will continue to function. Problem solved.
Those 32-bit devices will continue to work just fine, they just wonâ(TM)t get OS upgrades or be able to use apps that need newer libraries. Theyâ(TM)re just at their end of support. Apple already supports their hardware much longer than any other mobile device vendor. The 5 and 5c are four and five years old respectively. You canâ(TM)t expect Apple to continue providing free upgrades for eternity.
The last couple iOS 11 beta's have been pretty solid on my iPad 10.5". Maybe they are buggier on the phone? I haven't had the nerve to upgrade my phone yet
Seriously, given the summary clearly Apple did everything they would reasonably be expected to do to 'warn' developers & consumers. I'm no Apple fan but what would anyone suggest they do otherwise? And there's an option I presume to not accept the upgrade & not run in to the issue. Potentially the complete lack of 'public fanfare' actually means 'no one cares' & this isn't going to actually affect anyone whether its their 'favorite' LoL Cat video app or whatever.
Sensationalizing this via using terms like 'kill' is well 'over kill' :-)
"Correct me if I'm wrong but..."
I'm correcting you. You're wrong.
Precisely! I had an iPod Touch that wouldn't upgrade beyond iOS 4.3. Every app in it was fine. Only problem: if I went to the app store, there was no app there that would still run on this device.
How do you not have control? Don't update to iOS 11. There's your control.
Been running iOS 11 since dev release on my phone. Works fairly well on latest beta release. Only issue not fixed by, at most, a quick restart is that I can no longer stream videos from iTunes libraries using Home Sharing. It actually did work on previous beta releases. But if that's not an issue for you, do and iTunes backup and get the beta. It's doing alright for me. P.S. Biggest issue requiring restart is the phone will have trouble maintaining LTE connection and will drop down to 3G. Happens about once a week at most, and fixed by a restart, but be aware of it.
"32-bit apps don't surf!"
-Lt. Colonel Bill Kilgore
I never saw any of these warnings.
Then you haven't been paying attention.
It sucks that Apple make the late minute decision to just screw us and their users over like this.
By last minute do you mean since October 2014 when Apple said that after Feb 2015, all apps must support 64 bit. Also when Apple rejected 32 bit apps submitted after June 2015. And in Sept 2016 when Apple started removing apps that were not 64 bit. Now Apple never said for sure that iOS 11 would be 64 bit only but to say "it's a last minute decision" is disingenuous.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
I am a paid Apple dev as well and guess what...they have been announcing this shit for years. Hell I knew about it before I even switched to iOS/macOS. You are either trolling or not paying attention, becase you have not been able to upload 32bit apps to the appstore for 2 years.
P.S. Captcha: delirium
Shame on you Apple, you and your planned obsolescence.
So that's why the sleeves on my Apple costume are always too short?
How would you dynamically recompile a program written in C? Emulation on mobile platforms is likewise costly. On the other hand the apps could have various security bugs that later compilers pick up on.
It's mostly very old apps that nobody supports will stop working and for everyone of those there are a hundred different new ones. Nobody cares that your fart app will stop working, you'll find another one. Commercial apps have already gotten updates.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
I can think of one good reason off the top of my head: security. I don't want a bunch of legacy subsystems, emulators, and compatibility layers on my devices, that can eventually become vectors. This isn't theoretical either, the PS Vita comes to mind first. I believe when it was first rooted, it was done so via its PSP emulator. Besides, how far back do you mandate? More than five years?
Well, to be completely accurate Apple bugs the hell out of you until you upgrade. I have an old iPhone that I use to run a small radio station, and thanks to wifi sync I go months without ever looking at it in the equipment closet. But once there's a new version of the OS, that alert will pop up every chance it gets, whether I want to upgrade right now or not. And the upgrade choices on the alert are usually "Upgrade Now" or "Upgrade Tonight"
-- I'm old enough to have lived through six different meanings of the word "hacker."
What are end users supposed to do about it? Apple can warn all they like but if there's no replacement app from the developer and no way to migrate data to a different app then there's nothing that can be done but sit and wait for the clock of doom to strike down the apps.
What they should do is go "hey user, there's an iOS upgrade but we won't upgrade your iOS until you remove these offending apps: x, y, z. Would you like us to do it for you? yes/no".
Should be simple and completely under customer control. Apparently this is a very novel way of thinking.
Fuck'em all.
I say, disable anything 65-bit.
And, with iOS 4.3, you only have about 50 known remotely exploitable vulnerabilities, so it's probably completely safe to use, as long as the WiFi is disabled.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
It's not obvious, but you can skip the major update by deleting the downloaded update from storage. It won't bug you until the next update.
I have four apps that are impacted on my devices. Each solves a particular problem quite well, but hasn't been updated for years. I did try to track down two of the developers, but the app was just a side project and they have no interest in it anymore; their online presence is zero. The other two might have been sold to another company and simply atrophying.
I have looked for replacement solutions, but they all have serious compromises and paying $10-20 each to try out 6-7 alternatives is stupid. As it stands today, I won't be able to upgrade my iPad, and I will be stuck living with it when I have to get a new phone.
Just another thing that makes me think "maybe I should switch to Android."
Apple supports its devices far longer than anyone else does. It seems silly to complain about Appleâ(TM)s upgrade cycle when many Android devices donâ(TM)t get more than 1-2 major OS releases.
Apple has better first-party support, but once they stop shipping security updates then the device is a brick. Actually, it's worse: it's a network-enabled device with known remotely exploitable vulnerabilities that can be used as an entry point for attacking the rest of your network.
My mobile phone is a Moto G. It's a cheap piece of crap that I bought 3 years ago when Motorola was owned by Google and was expecting to get long-term support. Google sold Motorola shortly after. It got major updates for about a year and then security patches (often months after the vulnerability was publicly disclosed) for about another year. That sounds a lot worse than the Apple option, but there's a big difference: I can go over to LineageOS and get a version of Android that's based on the latest version.
The same is true with an old Mac: once it stops getting macOS updates, I can always install FreeBSD or something else on it. With an iOS device, the bootloader is locked and remains locked even when all it's doing is locking you to a known-insecure OS.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
What do you consider a commercial app? I have a few more expensive apps ($20 range) that are no longer maintained. I also have several from very large corporations in the same boat.
The bottom line is a number of apps were built and sat for the past five years in a perfectly functional state with no ongoing development. These will no longer function.
And, with iOS 4.3, you only have about 50 known remotely exploitable vulnerabilities, so it's probably completely safe to use, as long as the WiFi is disabled.
...Making this another excellent example of why essential updates for security should be provided separately from updates that change (or break or remove) functionality.
This is not the first time Apple has played this game: iOS7 had a similar kind of effect on users and the app ecosystem about four years ago, for example. Dumping responsibility for "keeping up" on developers who wrote working apps and users who already paid for them is hardly reasonable. Nor is artificially limiting the life of expensive devices through software hacks.
I suspect the time is fast approaching when we will need laws to protect the buyers of "platform" software that is essential to the functioning of a device. Too many vendors are now abusing their control over the related software and/or copyright and related laws to force in changes that are not in their customers' interests after the sale.
In many contexts we mandate certain minimum standards for purchased products and require by law that the vendor makes good any defects for a reasonable period afterwards. Despite frequent and sometimes serious bugs in software, developers have mostly had an easy ride on that one in the past, partly because a culture evolved that you released security updates free of charge to customers later. If the developers in the age of always-online, "evergreen" software are no longer going to do that without attaching strings, perhaps they no longer deserve so much special treatment under the law when their products don't work properly either.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Nope. I've got several devices on iOS7 that could upgrade to iOS8/9/10 just fine. I get no alert to upgrade at all. iTunes does prompt if you want to upgrade, but you can click "Never for this version" and it stays quiet.
It doesn't bug me to upgrade at all. Unless it's a recent change, I never get bugged to upgrade at all.
Undoubtedly, some idiots will still press "Yes" and proceed to bitch afterwards, but that's people for you.
Or maybe Apple could let people downgrade iOS if a newer version doesn't work? It's not as if that would be difficult for them, and it's not as if the upgrade ratchet hasn't caught out significant numbers of people and made their experience worse over the years.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
perfectly functional devices
I've been told in no uncertain terms that the lack of replaceable batteries means that iPhones cease being perfectly functional after even 2 years. I wish Slashdot would make up it's mind.
What are end users supposed to do about it? Apple can warn all they like but if there's no replacement app from the developer and no way to migrate data to a different app then there's nothing that can be done but sit and wait for the clock of doom to strike down the apps.
Rest on their laurels and lose all their data because they don't think ahead or don't think about support. That's what end users should do.
Or ... if anyone is affected by this they should already have plans in place to save them from what is inevitable loss of data from an unsupported app.
You canâ(TM)t expect Apple to continue providing free upgrades for eternity.
Perhaps not, but we're talking about expensive, connected devices where the hardware is still working fine. Expecting essential security updates for a reasonable working lifetime of the device isn't entirely unfair, given that by definition security problems were defects in the original product.
If Apple wants to define that working lifetime so it ends artificially before the hardware stops working, it also seems appropriate for them to disclose this up-front. "The New iPad, 2017 edition: WARNING: This device will cease to function on 1 September 2021". If customers are still willing to buy the product on that basis, that's fair enough, but requiring transparency about what they're getting for their money is reasonable.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
It's funny how Apple's model assumes that small developers will support their $5 apps indefinitely, but not that a huge business will provide essential security updates for their $500 devices and operating systems (without breaking anything else) for the same period.
I mean funny-weird not funny-amusing, obviously.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Just don't connect your device to anything afterwards...
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
...somebody will either update the app or somebody else will duplicate its functions in a new app.
No need to get suicidal.
I bought an ASUS gamer laptop I.e expensive, the driver updates is zero, the trackpad bug hasn't been fixed and the sound drivers are not compatible with windows 10
I am sure the Android owners have it worst, I understand it's the version is frozen at whatever it is when you buy.
Two wrongs don't make a right, and IOS is better than the others.
In all fairness your comparison isn't right, apple and google ... etc update their product to intice new buyers.
Same for app developers, update your app to get new users
both types of vendors, have been paid for the existing users.
In other words, both need to update their app to get new users
And no one in that period has developed a competing app, with new features. Lucky you.
The silliest apps get an immediate clone, yet your $20 app 2 3 4 year old app is untouchable.
Hell yes. Exactly the post we needed for this topic.
HELL YES APPS!
Some apps are supported but have gotten worse, sometimes because the business model (or owner) changes, e.g., AppBox Pro 1.8.4, Facebook 6.9.1, Foursquare 7.0.7, GoodReader 3.21.7, iStanford 5.9.1, Pulse News 2.9.4.
yeah what is wrong with people not replacing perfectly functional devices every couple of years for marginal improvements?
If they are perfectly functional devices - why would they need the new OS to stay that way? Why not just keep them like they are - first-world problem solved.
But that would get in the way of your little Anti-Apple rant.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
No, both have been paid for a specific product. That product should be fit for purpose and of a reasonable standard. This is basic honesty in sales, and there are laws with similar effect in many places as well.
Any of these vendors are free to update their products to attract new business, but that doesn't mean they get to just abandon everyone whose money they already took if they supplied something substandard that stops working unreasonably quickly.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Big difference - Windows XP didn't delete your applications when Windows 10 came out. A user should be able to run their old software for as long as they want. They paid for it and it may be the only way to access their data. If you think you can throw money at any developer and they will magically upgrade the software you're misinformed.
No point in using ASLR when your flagship phone doesn't even come with half the RAM necessary to necessitate its use (2GB RAM on the iPhone 7.)
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Moving to 64-bit doesn't exactly improve security when you don't even have enough RAM installed in the phone to even reach the 32-bit memory limit in the first place.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
we're talking of a 5+ year timespan, not a couple years, on a device that commands a premium price.
People who want to have robust 10+ year old phone can buy something else for a LOT less money.
so yes, they are damn fools for buying Apple.
iTunes will be killed in a few weeks.
Really? You sure?
This is the best news I've heard in months. I feel better already.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
What are end users supposed to do about it?
The same thing they have to do whenever applications don't work on Windows, Android, or whatever OS after an update: Either don't upgrade to the latest version and keep the application or update the OS and wait for the developer to release a new version. If the developer never releases a new version, sorry.
What they should do is go "hey user, there's an iOS upgrade but we won't upgrade your iOS until you remove these offending apps: x, y, z. Would you like us to do it for you? yes/no". Should be simple and completely under customer control. Apparently this is a very novel way of thinking.
Have you used software within the last 30 years? Every major update of Windows suffers from this problem. Some major updates of Linux suffer the same problem. Every OS has the chance of wrecking applications so they no longer work including MacOS and iOS. However in cases not involving iOS, there are almost never any warnings about application incompatibility. And the fact of the matter is that iOS users aren't "force updated" like you imply. Users can choose not to update or auto-update.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Not a bad idea. Of course there will be a small usage fee involved.
> Apple could let people downgrade iOS if a newer version doesn't work?
That would make too much sense -- thus Apple will NEVER do it.
Forced Upgrades keeps the market less fragmented is their excuse.
See that date? June 2016! How many normal people do know that the 4S was OK on June 12, 2016 but is as good as dead from June 13, 2016? I expect to be scorned for picking a wrong date. What slimy bullshit.
iPhone 4s: Released October 14, 2011. Originally OS: iOS 5.0. Max OS: 9.3.5. First discontinued: Sept 2014. So you're complaining that you assumed on June 12, 2016 that a phone that had already been announced as discontinued almost 2 years prior would get iOS10. Note that Apple never said it would support iOS 10. And your entire world was destroyed one day later when Apple officially said it would not.
iPhone 5S? they'll likely find some lame excuse to deprecate it.
You mean besides the lame excuse that the model almost 4 years old now and was discontinued Sept 2016?
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
HAAAAHAAAAAAHAAAAA!!! The vast majority of iPhone owners are going to see an OS update notification and conditioned as they are by Apple they will ssume that it is in their interest to upgrade, if not mandatory. .
Yeah, one less problem Android users will never have!!! Hahahah. When is your next stand-up gig?
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
It's funny how Apple's model assumes that small developers will support their $5 apps indefinitely, but not that a huge business will provide essential security updates for their $500 devices and operating systems (without breaking anything else) for the same period.
And what do you mean by essential security updates? iOS support generally lasts years after the device is no longer sold. I can't say the same for Android where you have to figure out which phone, carrier, version, subversion, etc. to figure out if you can get an update 6 months after you bought it.
Also so do you expect ever single Windows application that worked on XP to work on 7. How about on 8, 8.1, or 10? Every single Windows version breaks some application applications but do you hold MS accountable for the same standard? What about Linux? While minor versions don't normally break older applications, major revisions can especially with kernel changes.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
No, both have been paid for a specific product. That product should be fit for purpose and of a reasonable standard. This is basic honesty in sales, and there are laws with similar effect in many places as well.
And what is that standard? iOS has been 32 bit for years. Developers were notified in advance for years. If you don't update to iOS11, you're fine with the old apps.
Any of these vendors are free to update their products to attract new business, but that doesn't mean they get to just abandon everyone whose money they already took if they supplied something substandard that stops working unreasonably quickly.
So you can use Office 2003 with Windows 8? No. And they're from the same company.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Doesn't sound that bad, I might give it a try. Thanks for the info!
Big difference - Windows XP didn't delete your applications when Windows 10 came out. A user should be able to run their old software for as long as they want. They paid for it and it may be the only way to access their data. If you think you can throw money at any developer and they will magically upgrade the software you're misinformed.
So you can run Office 2003 with Windows 10?
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Unless you're doing things that benefit from having a 64 bit word size
One benefit is immunity to return-oriented programming (ROP) and other exploits of vulnerabilities caused by inadvertent programming defects. Address space layout randomization (ASLR), a common mitigation against ROP, is more effective with 64-bit pointers than with 32-bit pointers.
HAAAAHAAAAAAHAAAAA!!! The vast majority of people making posts about the vast majority of iPhone owners are idiots
The difference is that new GNU/Linux or new Windows can run old GNU/Linux or old Windows isolated in a virtual machine. By contrast, iOS is locked down so hard that this isn't possible.
Then how do you plan to work around the developer's problem in order to preserve data that you have created?
If you value your data, never install an app in the first place unless it allows migrating data to another app.
Well, my UK iPhone 5s is about three years old, and I am pissed with Apple, it's the last IPhone I shall buy. My iPad isn't much younger, and when that refuses to update, I look for an alternative elsewhere. I have used Macs and other Apple products for decades, but the current money grabbing bunch can whistle for my custom in future. No wonder iPhone sales are dropping.
What I wrote was essential security updates without breaking anything else.
Your analogy fails because someone who was running XP enjoyed security updates for many years without needing to upgrade to 7 if they didn't want the other changes, such as those that would break important applications or device drivers for them. You weren't forced from XP to 7, along with everything else that involved, just to keep your connected system secure. An application might have worked on XP but not on 7, but you could still use it on XP while remaining safely patched against vulnerabilities.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
And what is that standard?
If it's not sufficiently obvious then that's what we have courts and tribunals to decide. However, selling a high-end electronic product for hundreds of bucks with hardware that could last a decade and then nerfing it artificially through software after a couple of years surely wouldn't qualify.
Developers were notified in advance for years.
How many years, exactly? We've got iThings here that are 5-6 years old and still going strong, but we've lost the use of some apps on them purely because of the way Apple has driven iOS updates and what's allowed in the App Store in the intervening period. Were the developers of those apps given sufficient notice to avoid this problem?
If you don't update to iOS11, you're fine with the old apps.
And if we don't update to iOS11 so we can keep using software that currently works, will we still be safe and secure connecting our iPhones and iPads to the Internet?
So you can use Office 2003 with Windows 8? No. And they're from the same company.
I wouldn't know, because we're still running Windows 7, in our view the last acceptable version of Windows. That's an option we have because Microsoft still issues Windows 7 security fixes without requiring updates to later Windows versions that might break application compatibility, by the way.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
"I can go over to LineageOS [lineageos.org] and get a version of Android that's based on the latest version. "
That's great for you and the 0.1% off Android users who'll install a custom version of Android.
In the real world, I dumped Android for iOS because the Android phone I had got one update after I got it, then became a cancerous mass of remote vulnerabilities to the point where I only ever even turned on wi-fi when I absolutely had to.
It would be nice if iOS v11 can tell users which 32-bit apps will be unsupported and removed.
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
Your analogy fails because someone who was running XP enjoyed security updates for many years without needing to upgrade to 7 if they didn't want the other changes, such as those that would break important applications or device drivers for them.
Your analogy fails because XP is no longer updated and thus suffers from security holes.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Have you considered the disastrous economic consequences of not constantly updating everything? The software business would end up like the unix GNU utilities -- stable, functional, boring, and -- above all -- unprofitable.
Rule of thumb: Moving from 32 bits to 64 bits will double the bandwidth, quadruple the bugs, and increase complexity by a factor of eight.
The Red Queen races on. You all better get cracking if you hope to keep up.
Me? I'm retired and I'm still trying to figure out stuff that was released 30 years ago.
You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
The difference is that new GNU/Linux or new Windows can run old GNU/Linux or old Windows isolated in a virtual machine. By contrast, iOS is locked down so hard that this isn't possible.
VMs are irrelevant to the discussion. The fact of the matter is if upgrading Windows breaks your app, you can't do anything about it except wait for an update.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
If it's not sufficiently obvious then that's what we have courts and tribunals to decide. However, selling a high-end electronic product for hundreds of bucks with hardware that could last a decade and then nerfing it artificially through software after a couple of years surely wouldn't qualify.
You didn't answer the question. You just rambled. What standard do you expect Apple to follow? Please be specific.
How many years, exactly?
At least 2 years for iOS. Starting Sept 2014, the migration to 64 bit was noted by Apple.
We've got iThings here that are 5-6 years old and still going strong, but we've lost the use of some apps on them purely because of the way Apple has driven iOS updates and what's allowed in the App Store in the intervening period.
You've made multiple assertions in that claim. What do you mean specifically "the way Apple has driven iOS updates"?
Were the developers of those apps given sufficient notice to avoid this problem?
At least 2 years. It might be 3 years by the time iOS 11 is launched.
And if we don't update to iOS11 so we can keep using software that currently works, will we still be safe and secure connecting our iPhones and iPads to the Internet?
And why woudn't you?
I wouldn't know, because we're still running Windows 7, in our view the last acceptable version of Windows. That's an option we have because Microsoft still issues Windows 7 security fixes without requiring updates to later Windows versions that might break application compatibility, by the way.
MS says you cannot run Office 2003 on Windowws 8 or newer. Those two pieces of software are from the same company. By the way Windows 7 is EOL but MS will continue to create security updates until 2020. Then you'll need OS and possible all new productivity software.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
They would will fine if you spend two days penetrating the packaging and can manage to glue everything back together afterwards. So they are perfectly functional.
Does anyone ever stop to think how loud and long our descendants (if any) a century from now are going to laugh at how we did things in the early 21st century?. Not that they won't have their own set of completely demented approaches to managing things.
You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
My mobile phone is a Moto G. It's a cheap piece of crap that I bought 3 years ago when Motorola was owned by Google and was expecting to get long-term support. Google sold Motorola shortly after. It got major updates for about a year and then security patches (often months after the vulnerability was publicly disclosed) for about another year. That sounds a lot worse than the Apple option, but there's a big difference: I can go over to LineageOS and get a version of Android that's based on the latest version.
Lucky you don't have a Moto Maxx (only unofficial support for over 6 months now) or even a Moto M ("Boot it at your own risk as flashing Lineage OS for Motorola Moto M is not safe" . "we strongly recommend not to install Lineage OS for Motorola Moto M")
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
What standard do you expect Apple to follow? Please be specific.
No. I'm sorry, I understand you wish it were otherwise, but typically the law does not work like that. What is reasonable is going to depend on context, so the best you can do speaking generally is give some obvious out-of-bounds cases, which I did.
At least 2 years for iOS.
So not exactly close to the likely working lifetime of a typical iPad, then.
What do you mean specifically "the way Apple has driven iOS updates"?
Most obviously, if you want security fixes, you have to update to the latest available version of iOS for your device. That typically brings many other changes as well, from completely redesigned UIs to app compatibility issues.
Moreover, Apple has used its control of the App Store to limit availability of apps compatible with older versions of iOS. When iOS7 was released, apps were required to work with it and you could only get iOS7-based apps from the App Store from that point on.
Also, did you notice the subject of today's Slashdot discussion at all?
And why woudn't you?
Because Apple doesn't issue separate security updates for older versions of iOS.
MS says you cannot run Office 2003 on Windowws 8 or newer.
One person apparently from MS in an unspecified capacity said that, citing an article that apparently no longer exists in Microsoft's knowledge base.
Lots more people said they had actually tried it and it worked fine, or pointed to an incompatibility involving Windows Update if you upgraded from 7 to 8 with Office 2003 installed.
By the way Windows 7 is EOL but MS will continue to create security updates until 2020.
Right. So even with its extremely aggressive promotion of Windows 10, MS is still providing more than a decade of security fixes for Windows 7, including several years after the last new computer was sold (supposedly) with 7 preinstalled, and according to a clear timetable published many years in advance of any cut-off dates. This is far more in line with typical working lifetimes of Windows PCs than Apple's approach with iOS and iSomethings.
Then you'll need OS and possible all new productivity software.
And here's the thing: We know that. As it happens, we are actively investigating alternative platforms, precisely because we aren't willing to sign up for Microsoft's rolling updates and whatever else they feel like throwing in on a whim with Windows 10. But the important thing is that we can make that choice, because Microsoft have at least been transparent about what they are and aren't going to support with Windows. Where do I find anything resembling that sort of clarity or commitment from Apple in the context of iOS devices?
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Microsoft provided security updates for XP without any other strings attached for well over a decade.
Apple typically provides security updates for iOS devices without any other strings attached... well, not really ever, because any updates can have non-essential changes you might or might not want mixed in with the security fixes.
Can you really not see the fundamental difference between these two situations, and why one is far more reasonable than the other in terms of after-sales support?
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
VMs are irrelevant to the discussion. The fact of the matter is if upgrading Windows breaks your app, you can't do anything about it except wait for an update.
I disagree with you that "VMs are irrelevant to the discussion" because they are they means by which you can do something about it in the case of an application for (desktop) Windows. What do you think "XP Mode" in Windows 7 Professional was?
There are alternatives... maybe 10-20 of them, all paid, and all $10+. Finding the one that works for you is non-trivial and can quickly become very expensive for a reasonably trivial application you paid for already.
You can tell in iOS 10 - go to System Settings, General, About. Under Applications, it will say how many are installed. If any have not been updated to 64 bit, there will be a > reveal.
Tap that if it appears and it'll tell you which apps will be disabled under iOS 11.
eh? the 5s is a 64 bit phone and can run ios 11
came out in Sept 2013 too
Installing LineageOS requires a certain level of technical competence, but that's true for pretty much any OS. That's a one-off thing though, and once it's installed the updates come over the air and just require you to tap on the notification and agree to install them. I wouldn't recommend a nontechnical user installs it, but I've had no problem installing it for nontechnical users and then letting them use the device without any additional support.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Well, I'll have to rethink then. I thought I had read that the 5 was not suitable for iOS 11. It did make me very disappointed in Apple, but if you are right then I went off half-cocked.
I just hope that they don't bug us with alerts multiple times a day if we don't upgrade. I waited for a while to upgrade to iOS 10 because I didn't see anything worthwhile in it but after getting bugged multiple times a day on my phone and iPad I finally gave it. If there's and app that I can't upgrade I don't really want to be bugged with this every day.
Starting with iOS 10 it did start to bring up alerts multiple times a day prompting you to update though. It was a pain in the ass.
5s really is a different phone than the 5 or 5c, both of those CAN'T run it.
Thanks for reminding me of that.
Microsoft provided security updates for XP without any other strings attached for well over a decade.
The only reason they did for so long was because the successor for XP was almost a decade late and then didn't sell.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
64-bit on ARM was never about memory. It was about speed - AArch64 had to divest itself of a lot of AArch32 legacy crap that was holding it back. Like conditional execution of instructions, a mainstay of ARM since the very beginning. (It unfortunately does not work in today's world of superscalar architectures where there may be a dozen instructions in flight - imagine having to do a branch predictor for every single instruction).
By dropping a lot of legacy stuff, AArch64 can run code significantly faster - the 2x speedups weren't a joke on ARMv8 running 64-bit code over 32-bit code. (Most of the legacy stuff dropped doesn't significantly bloat the code, so you're not doubling the number of instructions to go 64-bit).
And memory is all virtual - ASLR and other techniques work just fine even if you don't have more than 4 gigs of RAM. Only the lowest of the low-level code ever deals with physical RAM addresses anymore - every modern OS is like this.
No. I'm sorry, I understand you wish it were otherwise, but typically the law does not work like that. What is reasonable is going to depend on context, so the best you can do speaking generally is give some obvious out-of-bounds cases, which I did.
No you said Apple should follow a standard. I asked which standard. Now you're refusing to name anything but again ramble on about something else.
So not exactly close to the likely working lifetime of a typical iPad, then.
What are you talking about? The working lifetime of a typical iPad is not 2 years.
Most obviously, if you want security fixes, you have to update to the latest available version of iOS for your device. That typically brings many other changes as well, from completely redesigned UIs to app compatibility issues.
The rollup security model is also present in Arch Linux and other OS. It's not a new approach.
Moreover, Apple has used its control of the App Store to limit availability of apps compatible with older versions of iOS. When iOS7 was released, apps were required to work with it and you could only get iOS7-based apps from the App Store from that point on.
And? Do you want security patches or not? It seems what you want is to apply only patches that you want to apply and ignore if security is a problem. If an older app might have security problems, you want to use regardless or not.
But the important thing is that we can make that choice, because Microsoft have at least been transparent about what they are and aren't going to support with Windows. Where do I find anything resembling that sort of clarity or commitment from Apple in the context of iOS devices?
The key difference is you're paying MS for Windows. You're not paying Apple for iOS. You're paying Apple for the hardware. If that is too onerous for you, then don't buy Apple's hardware.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.