Apple to Phase Out 32-Bit Mac Apps Starting in January 2018

[Tech198]

Crist ... I knew Apple would do this on iOS but Mac as well? It's the move to 32 and beyond i guess.

*waves bye-bye to apps"

I thought it would be goo to go in and see how many of my iPad apps are still 32-bit : 27 of of 31 need to updated,

which means 4 are ok .... Doesn't look good .. I was expecting a higher number..

 

[Dalavia]

Why don't you update pages and keynote ?

I can't update Pages and keynote without losing essential functionality for the work I do. For example, the newer versions of Pages don't have text box linking, among many other features, which makes layouts for books impossible. One of my my recent books was 824 pages with about 2,000 photos; anyone would be insane to do that using an app without text box linking. It's a pity, but so much of Apple's recent software updates have dropped pro-level functionality for the sake of Mac-iOS synchronisation, which reduces Mac apps to the level of tasks that can be done on an iPad - hardly the reason I bought a Mac!

 

[Juicy Box]

This sucks, but it was bound to happen at some point.
I find it a little odd that a few posters seem happy about this though. Even if you don't use 32 Bit apps, how would keeping support of them negatively affect you?

It kind of reminds me of when Apple ended the iTunes Radio for Match subscribers, many people were happy for the change.

Only if you upgrade your OS.

There are still users that are running Snow Leopard and PowerPC apps (all hail the great Rosetta) on their older Macs.

This is fine, as I was one of those people that held onto 10.6 for a long time. The problem with this is that some software will start to require a newer OS.

This happened to me with WoW. I liked 10.6, but then WoW required 10.7 or above. I then upgraded to 10.8, which I ended up liking, only for it to happen again, and WoW required 10.9. 10.9 really sucked compared to 10.6 and 10.8.

 

[theluggage]

It's the move to 32 and beyond i guess.

...or stick on High Sierra for a few years. (Still running Mavericks on one of my Macs and it's only just starting to be a problem). The pain is if you have to buy a new Mac that requires the latest OS.

Still, this "major new compatibility-breaking OS release every year" malarky is really getting old. Some stability would be nice - its not like Apple is making money selling OS upgrades any more.

 

[BornAgainMac]

I knew that High Sierra would be Snow Leopard and get rid of some legacy code. I am ok with this change, I can always create a VM with an older Mac OS and run any 32-bit apps I want. No big deal.

 

[nelsonammo]

People have been given years of warning, but it sucks that developers that don't really exist anymore or apps made by big companies that don't want to devote the resources won't get updated.

 

[BaltimoreMediaBlog]

Goodbye Microsoft Office 2011. Of course, I could pay to RE-BUY it, but the newer version doesn't really do anything I need that it doesn't do now. So what's the point of me spending more money just to continue using my Mac Pro?

Tim Cook thinks he's Steve Jobs, but Jobs was smart enough to know that if you take something away, you have to have not only a compelling reason, but a carrot to motivate people to make the switch or suffer the pain. Tim Cook does not have that magic. The average user is not going to see any benefit here, only pain.

Unlike the purists here, the reason for doing this will completely fly over the heads of most consumers.
I can see Microsoft starting a new ad campaign about Apple not even compatible with Apple let alone Windows.

 

[litmag01]

All the exact same disproven arguments against 64-bit conversion that were made when the Mac OS shifted over years ago and no longer supported legacy apps. Move on. You'll be better for it.

 

[Darryl.Jenks]

This upsets me about as much as the fact that my AppleTV won't play my old VHS cassettes. Want to use outdated software? Keep some outdated hardware around.

Now where's that 8-track player...

 

[KALLT]

I find it a little odd that a few posters seem happy about this though. Even if you don't use 32 Bit apps, how would keeping support of them negatively affect you?

It bothers me as a matter of principle. Developers have been able since Tiger (2004) to distribute universal apps with 64-bit support, Snow Leopard (2008) completed the transition with a 64-bit kernel. Developers who at this point still do not support 64-bit will probably never support it. This is not just about unmaintained software, for which I can sympathise. At some point though, I want someone to step up and say: enough. 32-bit support has costs; it costs Apple development resources, it puts more data on the network when updates are released, users have to spend more storage and there is some performance penalty too in terms of memory and CPU usage.

To give you some examples: Steam and GOG Galaxy are 32-bit only. Many current games are still 32-bit only. I just do not accept this anymore. I suspect on Windows it is much worse.

 

[BaltimoreMediaBlog]

I knew that High Sierra would be Snow Leopard and get rid of some legacy code. I am ok with this change, I can always create a VM with an older Mac OS and run any 32-bit apps I want. No big deal.

I've already done this too, but the average computer user thinks this is brain surgery.

This will be a marketing DISASTER for Apple and Macs and iPhone. Tim Cook bit off more than he can chew this time.
What will he market as the upside for the average user?

I can see the Android commercials too saying iPhone does even run iPhone apps anymore!

I do not think Tim Cook has the marketing skills to pull this off.

 

[dogslobber]

Because Windows, and Android for that matter, would be far better for someone with your specific set of complaints. Apple will never be the company you want them to be. Ever.

I still don't understand. You introduce an artificial fork by referring me as being worthy of only these alien OS versions when all that's required is for Apple to do the decent and correct thing? Again, just what the heck has Windows got to do with the Apple OS discussion?

 

[jeh72]

I don't know...I'm still not 100% convinced that this is an OS-wide removal of 32-bit app capability. It seems much more likely that they want both app stores (iOS and macOS) to be 64bit but not remove 32-bit capability (or cripple it with "compromises") for the rest of the OS partway through High Sierra's release cycle.

Starting in January of 2018, all new apps submitted to the Mac App Store must be 64-bit, and all apps and app updates submitted must be 64-bit by June 2018.

 

[BeatCrazy]

Goodbye Microsoft Office 2011. Of course, I could pay to RE-BUY it, but the newer version doesn't really do anything I need that it doesn't do now. So what's the point of me spending more money just to continue using my Mac Pro?

Ugh. I was struggling to think of any apps I use which are 32-bit, and Office 2011 is one I suppose. But I guess we still have until Fall 2018 to transition. At that point my version of Office will be 7+ years old, so I'll probably need to bite the bullet and update, regardless.

 

[bkkcanuck8]

I've already done this too, but the average computer user thinks this is brain surgery.

This will be a marketing DISASTER for Apple and Macs and iPhone. Tim Cook bit off more than he can chew this time.
What will he market as the upside for the average user?

I can see the Android commercials too saying iPhone does even run iPhone apps anymore!

I do not think Tim Cook has the marketing skills to pull this off.

Your average user uses the operating system that came with the computer until they run into a problem that forces them to move. Both sisters were on older versions of the OS last year (I upgraded one sister last November -- probably a 3 version jump).

 

[dogslobber]

You license software, which sends a limited amount of funds to the developer. It is entirely up to the developer to decide whether there is money in supporting the software after a certain number of licenses have been paid for.
Obviously, if there is limited sales, then there will be limited support.

Stop being pedantic here. This is about me paying $$$ upfront and having support cut off because the developer can't be bothered. Just what type of shoddy development practices are you advocating here? You take my money? You sure as hell better support it when I use it, regardless of your excuses.

As for "licenses", call it what pretend method you want but that copy I bought belongs to me and is for me to decide what I do with it and how long *I* want to use it. Not some cowboy developer.

 

[BeatCrazy]

I don't know...I'm still not 100% convinced that this is an OS-wide removal of 32-bit app capability. It seems much more likely that they want both app stores (iOS and macOS) to be 64bit but not remove 32-bit capability (or cripple it with "compromises") for the rest of the OS partway through High Sierra's release cycle.

Yeah, but given the regularity that some 32-bits apps get updated for bugs/security fixes (I'm looking at you Office 2011), no updates is going to mean effectively dead.

 

[WannaGoMac]

Goodbye Microsoft Office 2011. Of course, I could pay to RE-BUY it, but the newer version doesn't really do anything I need that it doesn't do now. So what's the point of me spending more money just to continue using my Mac Pro?

Tim Cook thinks he's Steve Jobs, but Jobs was smart enough to know that if you take something away, you have to have not only a compelling reason, but a carrot to motivate people to make the switch or suffer the pain. Tim Cook does not have that magic. The average user is not going to see any benefit here, only pain.

Unlike the purists here, the reason for doing this will completely fly over the heads of most consumers.
I can see Microsoft starting a new ad campaign about Apple not even compatible with Apple let alone Windows.

The new version of MS Office is really worth it, much better interface and features compared to 2011. Surprises me folks want to keep running 2011, it was such turd.
[doublepost=1496840085][/doublepost]

Stop being pedantic here. This is about me paying $$$ upfront and having support cut off because the developer can't be bothered. Just what type of shoddy development practices are you advocating here? You take my money? You sure as hell better support it when I use it, regardless of your excuses.

As for "licenses", call it what pretend method you want but that copy I bought belongs to me and is for me to decide what I do with it and how long *I* want to use it. Not some cowboy developer.

So run old OS X in a VM if you cant find a replacement you like...or just use old computers and software natively. Problem solved.

 

[pianoman88]

Apple is already putting an end to 32-bit apps on iOS devices with iOS 11, and soon the company will make the same changes on its macOS operating system.

During its Platform State of the Union keynote at the Worldwide Developers Conference, Apple told developers that macOS High Sierra will be the "last macOS release to support 32-bit apps without compromises."

Starting in January of 2018, all new apps submitted to the Mac App Store must be 64-bit, and all apps and app updates submitted must be 64-bit by June 2018. With the next version of macOS after High Sierra, Apple will begin "aggressively" warning users about 32-bit apps before eventually phasing them out all together.

In iOS 11, 32-bit apps cannot be installed or launched. Attempting to open a non-supported 32-bit app gives a message notifying users that the app needs to be updated before it can run on iOS 11.

Prior to phasing out 32-bit apps on iOS 11, Apple gave both end users and developers several warnings, and the company says it will follow the same path for the macOS operating system.

(Thanks, Cameron!)

Article Link: Apple to Phase Out 32-Bit Mac Apps Starting in January 2018

Apple is already putting an end to 32-bit apps on iOS devices with iOS 11, and soon the company will make the same changes on its macOS operating system.

During its Platform State of the Union keynote at the Worldwide Developers Conference, Apple told developers that macOS High Sierra will be the "last macOS release to support 32-bit apps without compromises."

Starting in January of 2018, all new apps submitted to the Mac App Store must be 64-bit, and all apps and app updates submitted must be 64-bit by June 2018. With the next version of macOS after High Sierra, Apple will begin "aggressively" warning users about 32-bit apps before eventually phasing them out all together.

In iOS 11, 32-bit apps cannot be installed or launched. Attempting to open a non-supported 32-bit app gives a message notifying users that the app needs to be updated before it can run on iOS 11.

Prior to phasing out 32-bit apps on iOS 11, Apple gave both end users and developers several warnings, and the company says it will follow the same path for the macOS operating system.

(Thanks, Cameron!)

Article Link: Apple to Phase Out 32-Bit Mac Apps Starting in January 2018

Microsoft Office is a 32-bit app.

 

[H1Supreme]

Windoze broke 16-bit app compatibility fairly recently. Breaking 32-bit compatibility is not even on the horizon for them.

Memory? 32-bit apps use less. Storage? 32-bit apps use less. Bandwidth? Same. Your ONLY valid case is QC, and that's almost trivial compared to the resources needed to intentionally break compatibility. We're not talking about the problems that existed back when the transition to 32-bit clean apps happened, there were very valid reasons why it was hard to maintain compatibility with apps that used 24-bit addressing back in those days. Now? We sandbox everything anyway, because security is taken a bit more seriously, it has to be.

If you're Apple, you could even spin up a 32-bit virtual environment that would look to an app like it was running on 10.4, with so little extra resource utilization that you'd never notice on a modern machine. Take a look at some of what's going on with Docker, apps can be containerized so that they get the environment they expect, and you can run a fully modern OS.

Here's the correct answer. Apple is doing it, just to do it. While 64 bit applications have been the norm for a little while, making the transition was (painfully) slow. Many companies shipped 32 bit apps for years after 64 bit OS's came into the picture. Further more, most of the apps they'll be "targeting" will be legacy apps that work just fine for users. Now, they'll be forced to upgrade for no good reason.

 

[bkkcanuck8]

The new version of MS Office is really worth it, much better interface and features compared to 2011. Surprises me folks want to keep running 2011, it was such turd.
[doublepost=1496840085][/doublepost]

So run old OS X in a VM if you cant find a replacement you like...or just use old computers and software natively. Problem solved.

The same logic should apply here .... if people expect that Apple should "support" old versions of stuff really old even if new versions exist.... then Office 2011 should be given the same treatment.... Microsoft should update it to work on the new version of the OS even if they have a new version that already does

 

[tnesmith]

Totally fine with dropping 32-bit compatibility. I write software. Backwards compatibility for ancient software consumes a lot of time and money that can better be spent for new functionality.

 

[JohnnyGo]

Apple's engineering reason for dropping 32-bit app support is that it will free them from having to continue to ship fat binaries for every framework 32-bit apps link against and many subsystems 32-bit apps communicate with.

There are improvements and optimizations that can only occur in those frameworks and subsystems once they are x86_64-only. There are also the freebie benefits like lowering resident memory and freeing up disk space.

There are still a huge number of users on Microsoft Office 2008, because everybody bought it to be Intel compatible and didn't see a good reason to "upgrade" to newer versions, which sacrificed functionality in some areas.

Another ugly part of the problem is that for years after 64-bit came around, even developers who shipped fat binaries for their main apps frequently continued shipping 32-bit auxiliary bits like Spotlight importers, small faceless helper tools, and so forth. The failure modes for these lingering auxiliary pieces won't be nearly as clean as an "This app isn't compatible" dialog.

It's going to be a painful transition for long-time Mac users. But Apple knows there really aren't many of those left relative to today's user base. They also know exactly how many 32-bit binaries are in use on users' systems today. The breakage will be a calculated trade-off at user expense for a handful of engineers' gain. Lots of teams have been demanding this for many years.

Oh, and it's another checklist item on the road to the ARM transition.

Thanks for your input!

I'm curious: Can you explain your last bit about the ARM transition? I'm looking forward to a Macbook with Apple SOC (sans Intel).

 

[mkeeley]

This upsets me about as much as the fact that my AppleTV won't play my old VHS cassettes. Want to use outdated software? Keep some outdated hardware around.

Now where's that 8-track player...

Such a useful comment.

 

[JohnnyGo]

If that happens, it may be the last straw for me.

And yeah, I'm small potatoes, I'm probably only good for pushing a million or so in new Mac and iPhone sales every year. But I'm not the only tech who does this, and I'm not the only one who has to make things work after Apple breaks something else.

i86 made my life much easier. I could convince somebody to switch to Mac, with the assurance that their old Windoze apps would run on the new hardware via the magic of virtualization. An ARM switch would kill that easy virtualization option, and as we rapidly approach the end of Moore's Law, emulation isn't going to cut it.

I can imagine Apple continuing to sell side-by-side ARM laptops (very light) with Intel desktops (very powerful) for a long time (4-6 years). If windows 10 can have an optional ARM version why MacOS has to be intel only ???