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

[The Chosen One]

Funny how people are calling Apple lazy but it are actually the developers that are lazy. They have had lots of times to update their apps.

At one point you do need to make choices for the future. I don't even know how many apps I got that may not be 'playable' anymore but I still think it's a good idea. But maybe thats because I use common sense and think beyond myself. ;p

 

[sudo1996]

Apple has always pushed its customers toward the latest OS version.

Since 2000, Apple has stopped supporting:
- System 7
- Mac OS 8
- Mac OS 9
- Mac OS 10.0
- Mac OS 10.1
- Mac OS 10.2
- Mac OS 10.3
- Mac OS 10.4
- Mac OS 10.5
- Mac OS 10.6
- Mac OS 10.7
- Mac OS 10.8
- Mac OS 10.9

Microsoft, as a contrast:
- windows 98
- Windows ME
- Windows XP
- Windows Vista
- Windows 7
- Windows 8

Backwards compatibility is a Microsoft strength, not Apple's.

Mac OS is updated more frequently, and the versions don't mean much. A better comparison is to look at Windows 7 support. MS still supports it (unless you downgrade a new machine to it), and it came out around the same time as Snow Leopard! And Win7 can still run almost all Windows software, even from 95.

Meanwhile, SL (the best OS) is totally obsolete and full of security bugs by now. And everything third-party tends to break after a few OS X updates, even ignoring the particularly painful PPC transition.

 

[RamGuy]

Anyone else find it annoying how quickly Apple obsoletes older software on their platforms?

Even annoying-as-hell Windows can often run 20 year old binaries. TWO DECADES ago.

Right now the oldest binaries MacOS can run are from the PowerPC -> Intel switch era, circa 2006. Whatever macOS comes after High Sierra will probably obsolete 32 bit x86 binaries, which will pull the date even more forward.

They don't seem to care about preserving the functionality of legacy software. Some apps will never be updated because the developers no longer care about it, went out of business, etc... This software is lost to time. This is even MORE the case on iOS where you can't even GET the software anymore. At least on macOS you can keep archives of old apps around.

And that's one of the biggest issues with Windows in general. If you let developers be lazy, they will be. It's a simple as that. That's why when you run a Windows notebook with this awesome 2160P display a lot of applications will look like crap because so many don't use any modern API's or code so they don't scale or support HiDPI at all.

Apple is on the complete opposite site of the spectrum. They tend to be overly aggressive. But come on, both macOS and iOS have been 64-bit only for several years and Apple has been warning developers for at least two years now so it's time for developers to just make the switch already.

 

[FrozenDarkness]

This is actually kind of interesting. Two points:

1. I'd imagine Apple wont' phase out 32-bit compatibility for quite a while. Didn't iOS start requiring all apps created to be in 64-bit like back in 2014? By this standard, it won't be until 2021 before Apple drops compatibility.

2. I've read online that moving to 64-bit is for performance reasons. I'm not a coder myself, but it makes sense for Apple to not support everything forever. Doing this will force developers to develop and optimize primarily for 64-bit processors. This is akin to Apple dropping all the ports and forcing people to switch to USB-C.

This is another case of the few. Apple most likely doesn't care that you can't use programs that are no longer supported because they want you to use new programs that are supported

 

[RamGuy]

To be fair, Mac OS is updated more frequently. A better comparison is to look at Windows 7 support. MS still supports it (unless you downgrade a new machine to it), and it came out around the same time as Snow Leopard! This is great because I refuse to use anything past Win7, but I have no choice but to go past OS X SL.

It's also a very mute comparison as Apple gives you the damn updates/upgrades for free. While Windows 7, Windows 8/8.1 and now Windows 10 are not free. Microsoft has also adopted a much more aggressive model with Windows 10 as it gets new updates every 6 months or so and they are all free.

The original release of Windows 10, Build 10240 is already considered end-of-life by Microsoft. It's currently only being supported in the LTSB (Long-Time-Service-Branch) which are special support cases where companies pay Microsoft extra for additional years of support.

 

[User 6502]

For what I am concerned they could do straight away without waiting so long. Legacy software is a burden for the whole OS, as it takes resources of any kind to be supported

 

[sudo1996]

And that's one of the biggest issues with Windows in general. If you let developers be lazy, they will be. It's a simple as that. That's why when you run a Windows notebook with this awesome 2160P display a lot of applications will look like crap because so many don't use any modern API's or code so they don't scale or support HiDPI at all.

Apple is on the complete opposite site of the spectrum. They tend to be overly aggressive. But come on, both macOS and iOS have been 64-bit only for several years and Apple has been warning developers for at least two years now so it's time for developers to just make the switch already.

Yeah, this is a fair assessment. I prefer Apple's way but have been hating how they do it with Swift. They keep changing basic things like iterating through a string in every minor version. Updating your Xcode shouldn't be a big change that the entire dev team has to be careful of. And we shouldn't have to resort to workarounds like directly downloading Xcode from Apple's site (instead of MAS) to avoid automatic updates.

 

[e1me5]

I only worry if Steam games are 64 bit. For the rest of them, let them rot.

 

[The Chosen One]

What I do want to know, if possible at all, is there a way to see which apps I have have not been updated yet? Or are not 64 bit yet right now? Or seperately?

 

[jeremiah256]

A better comparison is to look at Windows 7 support. MS still supports it (unless you downgrade a new machine to it), and it came out around the same time as Snow Leopard!

I didn't think it would be fair to include Windows 7 because, while yes, you can still get support for it, you have to pay for this extended support. But, yes, your point is taken. It's still possible to get support for Windows 7, out in 2009, meanwhile Apple in that same time period has stopped updating Snow Leopard, Lion, Mountain Lion, and Mavericks,

 

[adib]

Anyone else find it annoying how quickly Apple obsoletes older software on their platforms?

Even annoying-as-hell Windows can often run 20 year old binaries. TWO DECADES ago.

Right now the oldest binaries MacOS can run are from the PowerPC -> Intel switch era, circa 2006. Whatever macOS comes after High Sierra will probably obsolete 32 bit x86 binaries, which will pull the date even more forward.

They don't seem to care about preserving the functionality of legacy software. Some apps will never be updated because the developers no longer care about it, went out of business, etc... This software is lost to time. This is even MORE the case on iOS where you can't even GET the software anymore. At least on macOS you can keep archives of old apps around.

The more reasons for developers to switch to subscription model? Updating an app takes time, effort, and calories. Those are not free.

 

[M2M]

Because Apple ruined iWork for many by removing key features. iWork '2013' was a huge step back for many.

If Apple ruined iWork and people choose to stay with the old version AND if Apple will ruin OSX by removing 32bit support, then I think the only solution is to not update. Security-wise you may be fine in using the most recent Chrome and Firefox (as probably Safari won't be updated on the old OS).

 

[tw.morgan]

Why?
I'm still running a 10.6 VM so I can use some PowerPC apps that will never be upgraded.

I'm still running SheepShaver so I can use Classic apps that will never be upgraded.

Curious... which apps are you referring to? I’m struggling to think of any Classic app which has some decent usage in any real world scenario in 2017. Happy to be proven wrong though.

 

[badNameErr]

If they drop support for 32-bit binaries, it makes it easier for them to start moving parts of the OS frameworks to Swift code.

That's the reason why they are doing it.

 

[adib]

I'm also not seeing an issue here. You can't expect them to support things forever. 10 years since they moved to 64bit seems good to me.

Presumably the reason they are doing this is so that they don't have to keep writing 32bit support into the OS. THat probably takes a lot of manpower each time you update the OS.

Programmer-power that was devoted to maintaining an Intel version of OS X (during the PowerPC era), now going to be directed to maintain an ARM version of macOS "just in case" ?

 

[SoulCloud]

A little bit bold move when it comes to Mac. On the one hand, this move can lead to a huge leap in terms of performance, especially if they are going to move to 64bit only processors. Since Intel is in charge of that, it's quite unknown what kind of benefits we would get. Clarity? Sure! Sense of locomotion? Same tingling sensation when you jumped in all-USB-C! On the other hand, MacOS isn't just an App-Nanny like iOS. You may push Snapchat to be snappier or Instagram to follow the bandwagon, but for a fully-blown OS that it also runs important applications, you may not be able to force massive scale software developers! The Progress in most of them happens based on needs. A newborn enters the scene with better features and the old guy gradually dies. We will see what this move is going to cost us.

 

[sudo1996]

>>High Sierra will be the "last macOS release to support 32-bit apps without compromises."<<

It doesn't say that future OS updates won't support 32-bit apps at all, it says that that future OS updates won't support 32-bit apps without compromises. That implies they will continue to run, but not efficiently.

Yeah, I'm thinking maybe there's going to be a software emulation layer that'll slow them down. Either that or missing libraries.

 

[kiwipeso1]

Do we get our money back for our old apps that don't run ?

This is about as unrealistic as expecting 15 year support for windows XP, and unless you are paying a subscription for software from 2006 then I suggest it won't happen at all.
[doublepost=1496823131][/doublepost]

A little bit bold move when it comes to Mac. On the one hand, this move can lead to a huge leap in terms of performance, especially if they are going to move to 64bit only processors. Since Intel is in charge of that, it's quite unknown what kind of benefits we would get. Clarity? Sure! Sense of locomotion? Same tingling sensation when you jumped in all-USB-C! On the other hand, MacOS isn't just an App-Nanny like iOS. You may push Snapchat to be snappier or Instagram to follow the bandwagon, but for a fully-blown OS that it also runs important applications, you may not be able to force massive scale software developers! The Progress in most of them happens based on needs. A newborn enters the scene with better features and the old guy gradually dies. We will see what this move is going to cost us.

64 bit processors have been in mac since 2007, if you haven't moved to that yet you are probably going to have your mac die soon anyway. OS X has been 64 bit since Lion, all that is changing is that it is going to be mandatory the next system after high sierra, whether it is called MacOS 10.14 or MacOS 11 is merely a question of how big an update it is.

 

[oldmacs]

If Apple ruined iWork and people choose to stay with the old version AND if Apple will ruin OSX by removing 32bit support, then I think the only solution is to not update. Security-wise you may be fine in using the most recent Chrome and Firefox (as probably Safari won't be updated on the old OS).

Again not a proper solution. Security holes in the OS after a while and lack of compatibly as Apple is terrible with regards to support for oder operating systems.

The solution is Apple not stuffing people around by removing the support or offering a good emulation service that is streamlined. I have NO issue with them demanding 64bit apps on the App Store and possibly even removing existing 32 bit apps, but there are apps and games which will NEVER be updated that people depend on.
[doublepost=1496823445][/doublepost]

This is about as unrealistic as expecting 15 year support for windows XP, and unless you are paying a subscription for software from 2006 then I suggest it won't happen at all.
[doublepost=1496823131][/doublepost]

64 bit processors have been in mac since 2007, if you haven't moved to that yet you are probably going to have your mac die soon anyway. OS X has been 64 bit since Lion, all that is changing is that it is going to be mandatory the next system after high sierra, whether it is called MacOS 10.14 or MacOS 11 is merely a question of how big an update it is.

I've got App Store bought games that are 32bit. Some bought recently. It is not that unrealistic.
[doublepost=1496823707][/doublepost]

I didn't think it would be fair to include Windows 7 because, while yes, you can still get support for it, you have to pay for this extended support. But, yes, your point is taken. It's still possible to get support for Windows 7, out in 2009, meanwhile Apple in that same time period has stopped updating Snow Leopard, Lion, Mountain Lion, and Mavericks,

Windows 7 is still receiving security patches and updates to 2020. Apple abandoned Snow Leopard a while back. They don't even support Mavericks. in 2020, Sierra won't have support yet 7 will still.

 

[kiwipeso1]

Well, let me think a moment. When I BUY software I'm making a front-loaded purchase of a production which doesn't have a "best-before" date. You got all my $$$ on Day One so support me forever more.

No, I don't rent software. I buy software and it's mine and forever.

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.

 

[christian_koehler]

It possibly just means new functionality will be 64 bits only.
Maybe on a 2025 MacBook you can still use 32 bit Adobe CS4. But any app that remotely controls your new self driving car using the latest iKnightRiderKit framework needs to be 64 bits.

>>High Sierra will be the "last macOS release to support 32-bit apps without compromises."<<

It doesn't say that future OS updates won't support 32-bit apps at all, it says that that future OS updates won't support 32-bit apps without compromises. That implies they will continue to run, but not efficiently.

 

[MacsRuleOthersDrool]

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.

Even though this article is about ending support for 32 bit Applications, NOT a switch to ARM, I will answer this as if you were commenting about that, for the edification of others...

If you are talking about Windows on Mac, then it is up to the GUEST OS (Windows) to decide what the GUEST OS will Support.

So, as long as Windows keeps supporting 32 bit Applications, then so should a Mac running Windows under BootCamp or a VM environment.

Emulation has nothing to do with it.

By the way, there IS another way: It is LEGAL to run OS X Server 10.6.8 under Virtualization. If you don't have access to the proper Installation DVD, you can actually CALL Apple Support at 1-800-CALL-APPLE and tell them you want to Order the 10.6.8 SERVER Installation Disc. Part Number for the US version is MC588Z/A

MC588 is the important part of the part number. Different countries have different suffixes after that part of the part number.

They will not know what you are talking about, but keep spouting the "magic" Part number MC588Z/A, and eventually, they will ask their Supervisor, and $20 and a few days later, you will have a nice, shiny Snow Leopard Server Install DVD in your hot little hands, ready for you to install in your favorite Virtualization environment.

There is even a way to get it to install Rosetta (normally not installed with OS X Server). There are a bunch of installation guides about this on the web.

I'm actually surprised that a Technician familiar with Apple wouldn't have heard of this...

 

[where is it]

This will certainly reduce the number of apps on the store by 80% I imagine.

All those games and utility ideas that never caught on bar small niches.

Good in one respect but sad in others.

If the developers of old classic games and apps have moved onto pastures new or just given up then some classic apps I or anyone else have enjoyed from the beginning will be lost.

I hope Apple have thought this through.

 

[jeremiah256]

Windows 7 is still receiving security patches and updates to 2020. Apple abandoned Snow Leopard a while back. They don't even support Mavericks. in 2020, Sierra won't have support yet 7 will still.

I think that is only for paid Extended Support.

 

[827538]

I think this is a good thing. It needs to happen at some point.

X64 apps/binaries might be the last we need to end up using.