Apple Faces User Backlash After Dropping Support for iPhone 7 From iOS 16

[Abazigal]

I have iPhone 7 Plus and iPad Pro (9.7”, 2016).
Apple should not be drop the support for the iPad Pro 9.7”.
What a shameful iPadOS EVER!

Hmm, according to what I am reading online, the 9.7” iPad Pro will still get iOS 16.

iPadOS 16: Everything you need to know

Apple has revealed some massive updates to iPadOS 16 at WWDC 2022. Here's everything you need to know.

www.imore.com

 

[Lunasmisery 3680]

I have zero sympathy for people complaining about 6 year old phone not getting an update. The 5th, 6th, and 7th gen ipad are all newer.

Well I also disagree with you. Apple is damn well aware that the iPhone 7 and 7 plus are capable of running iOS 16, but they choose to not provide it to them because it'll get more ppl to upgrade their iPhones to newer ones. I have an iPhone 5s, and I'm really happy that i was able to get iOS 15 running on it, and I'm ok with it not getting iOS 16 because its alresady slow and its reasonable to not be adding the newest iOS to it because of its age.

 

[MowgliWolf]

Interesting backlash, more so given that the issue is most likely RAM requirements. So often overlooked when the processor/gpu are touted so much more these days

Unlikely that it’s RAM. The iPhone 8 has 2GB RAM same as iPhone 7.

It’s most likely chipset. They seem to have dropped support for all phones without neural engine.

Removing iPhone 7 would make sense if iOS 16 leans heavily on neural engine, though that doesn’t fully explain inclusion of 6th/7th gen iPad unless we look at thermal performance and relative size which may well be a deciding factor given that RAM is not the issue.

 

[MowgliWolf]

It's related to the disparity and the rather paltry iPad devices with nearly the exact same specs as 6s/7 models ..... that are getting iPadOS 16

Many would like to get iOS 16 if possible and have them simply disable/omit anything that's too taxing, which is fair.
Software is great at being that flexible -- one of its many advantages.

Maybe the features in question aren’t that simple to remove/omit - software can be flexible but not everywhere.
My only other thought here is that the iPads in question are considerably larger than iPhones so heat dissipation may well be a factor.

 

[MowgliWolf]

Well I also disagree with you. Apple is damn well aware that the iPhone 7 and 7 plus are capable of running iOS 16, but they choose to not provide it to them because it'll get more ppl to upgrade their iPhones to newer ones. I have an iPhone 5s, and I'm really happy that i was able to get iOS 15 running on it, and I'm ok with it not getting iOS 16 because its alresady slow and its reasonable to not be adding the newest iOS to it because of its age.

How did you get iPhone 5S to run iOS 15 when iPhone 6 can’t go beyond iOS 12?

 

[MowgliWolf]

2019

100% agree, especially since they were selling those iPhone 7's brand new to customers still in just 2019.

It is quite likely it would have changed at least some purchase decisions if there'd been much more up front clarity on actual support timelines.

was three years ago, that’s 3 iOS versions ago

When you walk in to the Apple Store and ask, they will tell you, oh this was last years model etc, then dont say its the brand new model. I know your trying hard because somehow you feel you where wronged here. Look the phone has been out for half a decade. At this point it's not even a good faith argument. 6 years, what you do honestly expect? Heck look at the completion for comparison, in that same time span a flagship Samsung phone would have lost support a year or two top in. You would have to buy 3 brand new phones to keep getting the latest software as a comparison.

If anyone should be mad here its the people with intel computers, that cut off was brutal. But to complain about a 6 year phone not getting the latest software is honestly not arguing in good faith.

true enough, my 2015 MBP is cutoff from Ventura which is a bugger, it’a almost 8 years old and kicking arse. That said I run music production on it and I’m still on Big Sur so there’s still some life in it

 

[Radeon85]

6yrs is long enough, you can't keep supporting loads of old devices forever.

 

[mnsportsgeek]

Well I also disagree with you. Apple is damn well aware that the iPhone 7 and 7 plus are capable of running iOS 16, but they choose to not provide it to them because it'll get more ppl to upgrade their iPhones to newer ones. I have an iPhone 5s, and I'm really happy that i was able to get iOS 15 running on it, and I'm ok with it not getting iOS 16 because its alresady slow and its reasonable to not be adding the newest iOS to it because of its age.

The iPhone 5s dropped support after iOS 12. It received 5 major updates. The 7 got 6 major updates.

 

[rui no onna]

Removing iPhone 7 would make sense if iOS 16 leans heavily on neural engine, though that doesn’t fully explain inclusion of 6th/7th gen iPad unless we look at thermal performance and relative size which may well be a deciding factor given that RAM is not the issue.

I have the iPadOS 16 beta installed on my iPad 7th gen (A10/3GB). Frankly, it feels just like iPadOS 15 + Weather app.

 

[rui no onna]

That thing has a better chip than my sill supported iPad 5... Bewildering... I'm guessing they made some agreement with a school districts to support the cheap iPads for x number of years.

Ah, true. I expect the requirement is probably 4-5 years and the iPad 5 was sold until early 2018.

 

[lartola]

Apple should not be drop the support for the iPad Pro 9.7”.
What a shameful iPadOS EVER!

They aren’t. According to Apple’s website, iOS 16 is supported on ALL iPad Pro models. You just won’t get the best features such as the full external display support and stage manager (both reserved only for M1 powered ipads), but you do get iOS 16 on the 9.7” iPad Pro.

 

[goobot]

There was no reason for the 2016 mbp to be dropped. Apple really being anti consumer rn.

 

[Lounge vibes 05]

There was no reason for the 2016 mbp to be dropped. Apple really being anti consumer rn.

Agree that dropping the 2016 MacBook Pro was a dumb decision that I absolutely don’t agree with, but I have to say that when I had my 2016 MacBook Pro that thing very quickly got slowwwwwwwwwwww.
Skylake was apparently the Intel version that caused Apple to finally pull the trigger on beginning the plans for the Apple Silicon transition, and I have to say that after using that computer for four years I absolutely understand why

 

[Doc_dee]

i’m not sure what the issue is here. The iphone 7 will still work and still has all the current functionality. Nothing has been removed

MagSafe accessories don’t work on my iPhone 11. My wife’s iPhone 12 does not support dual eSims. or Face ID with a face mask. My old iPod touch does not even support HD audio or spatial sound. All my old devices still used on a regular basis and still meet the requirements they were initially purchased for.

I would understand the issue if the phone suddenly became crippled all features removed but this is not the case

 

[webkit]

i’m not sure what the issue is here. The iphone 7 will still work and still has all the current functionality. Nothing has been removed

This is not about the iPhone not being able to work or still not being better than Android. Some people simply feel they are being "cheated" by not getting as many years of iOS updates as they expected. Maybe if Apple put some sort of iOS update guarantee in writing (like other companies), there would be less backlash as customers would know what to expect at least as far as a minimum.

 

[Abazigal]

This is not about the iPhone not being able to work or still not being better than Android. Some people simply feel they are being "cheated" by not getting as many years of iOS updates as they expected. Maybe if Apple put some sort of iOS update guarantee in writing (like other companies), there would be less backlash as customers would know what to expect at least as far as a minimum.

Apple could just as easily put out a dummy iOS update that showed you were getting iOS 16 on paper, but zero new features in reality.

Right now, the unwritten rule seems to be at least 4 years of guaranteed software updates. Anything after that is a bonus. Nice if you get it, don’t complain if you don’t.

I would use that as a rough guideline.

 

[rui no onna]

Apple could just as easily put out a dummy iOS update that showed you were getting iOS 16 on paper, but zero new features in reality.

Right now, the unwritten rule seems to be at least 4 years of guaranteed software updates. Anything after that is a bonus. Nice if you get it, don’t complain if you don’t.

I would use that as a rough guideline.

Lol, kinda what's happening on the iPad side. Even A9 and A10 iPads are getting iPadOS 16 but all they pretty much get is weather and sharing.

 

[webkit]

Apple could just as easily put out a dummy iOS update that showed you were getting iOS 16 on paper, but zero new features in reality.

Right now, the unwritten rule seems to be at least 4 years of guaranteed software updates. Anything after that is a bonus. Nice if you get it, don’t complain if you don’t.

I would use that as a rough guideline.

Part of the problem is simply that some see iOS devices getting 7 years of iOS updates and are disappointed or feel cheated if their device receives less. if Apple put something in writing, it would better manage customer expectations.

 

[Abazigal]

Part of the problem is simply that some see iOS devices getting 7 years of iOS updates and are disappointed or feel cheated if their device receives less. if Apple put something in writing, it would better manage customer expectations.

I see Apple simply being more conservative in their estimates and lowballing the number of years (eg: like the 4 years I quoted). This might actually make things worse because then, Apple wouldn't feel obligated to support said devices any longer than they were contractually obligated to. If they said 4, do you really want Apple cutting support off prematurely, even if said device were capable of supporting even more?

I feel that at the end of the day, there really isn't a formula or rule for this, and it would be counterproductive to insist that Apple come up with one. If the problem here is literally that Apple gave people unrealistic expectations by supporting their current batch of devices longer than they should have, then the issue here is people having unrealistic expectations of how long their devices should receive (useful) software updates. They should be recalibrating their own expectations, not kicking up a ruckus here online.

It's a sucky feeling, go run it off or something.

So I go back to my previous estimates, which I feel are pretty reasonable. Min 4 years, anything afterwards should be treated as a bonus.

 

[webkit]

I see Apple simply being more conservative in their estimates and lowballing the number of years (eg: like the 4 years I quoted). This might actually make things worse because then, Apple wouldn't feel obligated to support said devices any longer than they were contractually obligated to. If they said 4, do you really want Apple cutting support off prematurely, even if said device were capable of supporting even more?

I feel that at the end of the day, there really isn't a formula or rule for this, and it would be counterproductive to insist that Apple come up with one. If the problem here is literally that Apple gave people unrealistic expectations by supporting their current batch of devices longer than they should have, then the issue here is people having unrealistic expectations of how long their devices should receive (useful) software updates. They should be recalibrating their own expectations, not kicking up a ruckus here online.

Part of the appeal of iPhones is that Apple typically provides iOS updates for 5 years or more. If Apple were to drop that down to 4 years, they risk losing customers and would lose their "longer support than anyone" reputation. Putting something in writing should not make them feel less obligated to update as long as they have been. Their update policy should remain based on what they feel is good for business, regardless of what minimum they commit to.

I think the main reason for Apple to put something in writing is simply to better manage customer expectations. Other companies do it and I don't see why Apple couldn't do the same. They apparently seem to feel that dealing with potential backlash/disappointments is better than having to put anything in writing and that's certainly their choice. That is, unless some law comes along that requires companies to document OS and security update terms similar to how warranty terms are done. We're not there yet, though.

 

[lartola]

I see Apple simply being more conservative in their estimates and lowballing the number of years (eg: like the 4 years I quoted). This might actually make things worse because then, Apple wouldn't feel obligated to support said devices any longer than they were contractually obligated to. If they said 4, do you really want Apple cutting support off prematurely, even if said device were capable of supporting even more?

I feel that at the end of the day, there really isn't a formula or rule for this, and it would be counterproductive to insist that Apple come up with one. If the problem here is literally that Apple gave people unrealistic expectations by supporting their current batch of devices longer than they should have, then the issue here is people having unrealistic expectations of how long their devices should receive (useful) software updates. They should be recalibrating their own expectations, not kicking up a ruckus here online.

It's a sucky feeling, go run it off or something.

So I go back to my previous estimates, which I feel are pretty reasonable. Min 4 years, anything afterwards should be treated as a bonus.

While your estimates sound ok, it’s still guesswork and not enough. Apple needs to be more transparent about it. Why is that so hard to understand? I agree they should put it in writing.

 

[Bobby Smallwood]

Well I also disagree with you. Apple is damn well aware that the iPhone 7 and 7 plus are capable of running iOS 16, but they choose to not provide it to them because it'll get more ppl to upgrade their iPhones to newer ones. I have an iPhone 5s, and I'm really happy that i was able to get iOS 15 running on it, and I'm ok with it not getting iOS 16 because its alresady slow and its reasonable to not be adding the newest iOS to it because of its age.

If someone is still using a iPhone 7 I don't think they will upgrade because they can't install iOS 16. My 17 year old son has 4 iPhones, 2 SE (Gen 1), 1 iPhone 7, and an iPhone 13 mini. He still uses his old 8 year old 64GB SE on iOS 14, the 13 Mini is still in the box and has not been used since I bought it on black friday

 

[lartola]

Well I also disagree with you. Apple is damn well aware that the iPhone 7 and 7 plus are capable of running iOS 16, but they choose to not provide it to them because it'll get more ppl to upgrade their iPhones to newer ones. I have an iPhone 5s, and I'm really happy that i was able to get iOS 15 running on it, and I'm ok with it not getting iOS 16 because its alresady slow and its reasonable to not be adding the newest iOS to it because of its age.

You mean 6s don’t you? the iphone 5s didn’t even get past iOS 12 along with the iphone 6/6 plus. Or maybe the first-gen iphone SE, which looks the same as the 5s on the outside but had the same internals as the 6s so it did keep getting updates until now that it was left out of iOS 16 along with the 6s and 7.

 

[lartola]

If someone is still using a iPhone 7 I don't think they will upgrade because they can't install iOS 16. My 17 year old son has 4 iPhones, 2 SE (Gen 1), 1 iPhone 7, and an iPhone 13 mini. He still uses his old 8 year old 64GB SE on iOS 14, the 13 Mini is still in the box and has not been used since I bought it on black friday

He’ll probably be unboxing the 13 mini when iOS 16 comes out. Maybe sooner if he wants to try the public beta.

 

[danny842003]

Spoken like a true Apple executive! Why? If the phone still works, and is capable, why should anyone be forced to upgrade? Not everyone needs the greatest and latest.

If the iPhone 7 still allows these users to text, review their social media, etc, then that's great.

Nobody is forced to upgrade though. It’s such hyperbole. People maybe be encouraged to upgrade but nobody is holding a gun to anyones head and the phone is still going to work.