iOS 10.3 Beta Says 32-Bit Legacy Apps Will Not Work With Future Versions of iOS

[Scottsoapbox]

Right, but all iOS users are affected by the continued inclusion of legacy 32-bit bloat in the OS. It's not like there's no reason to do this.

32-bit BLOAT? Really? That's the plague Apple is saving us from?

-looks at iPhone- Hmm 112 GB of space available even with the "bloat" of 32-bit... well I'm sure glad a bunch of games that I purchased will stop working so I can have 113 GB free. THAT sounds like a great trade.

 

[andy.ringwood]

Good. It's about time we abandon 32-bit. If developers can't be arsed to update their app, well, it's not worth investing in them.

 

[konqerror]

32-bit BLOAT? Really? That's the plague Apple is saving us from?

-looks at iPhone- Hmm 112 GB of space available even with the "bloat" of 32-bit... well I'm sure glad a bunch of games that I purchased will stop working so I can have 113 GB free. THAT sounds like a great trade.

Libraries have to be loaded to RAM when programs execute. How much RAM do you have?

The other issue is update sizes, I think somebody showed that Microsoft's updates for x64 are 50% larger than the i386 due to the compatibility versions.

 

[dannyyankou]

Sort of--that deadline was for (brand) new apps and the other deadline was for app updates. To my knowledge, there was never a time (until now) when they announced any sort of deadline for when existing 32-bit apps that were already in the store would be automatically purged.

I understand that, but obviously if Apple had a deadline for new apps to be 64 bit, they would've liked all other apps to be updated to 64 bit as well. While they didn't set a deadline for them to be updated, they were really generous allowing 32 bit apps to stay 2 years after their deadline for new app submissions.

 

[LordVic]

It's been covered. Huge benefits. You're not paying attention. Quick summary. OS becomes smaller (no need to ship 2 versions of libraries), uses less RAM (no need to load 2 versions of libraries into RAM), faster (no need for a step to bridge the 32 and 64 bit interfaces, thunking in Windows terms). Apple doesn't need to maintain and worse test the 32 bit versions of libraries and interfaces (better quality software, faster). The CPU can be made faster and use less power (no need for 32 bit compatibility hardware).

Thank you for actually giving me reasons. its all i've asked for.

now I will take these and start knowing where to look.

(i'm only being antagonistic about this because i'm getting sick and tired of everyone believing just because they have an opinion, they are allowed to believe that opinion as fact without actually providing backup). I maybe guilty of it at times too, but i'm willing to learn. But if all I get is 'you're wrong because you're wrong', thats not learning. thats closing your mind.

so again: Thank You for poitning me to the right direction.

any reading you recommend on the subject?

 

[Scottsoapbox]

Those apps haven't been updated since Feb 1, 2015. I'm totally fine with them going away.

If your app isn't worth the little bit of work involved in making it 64-bit (and it's not much work), then it's not worth having in the App Store.

I love all these people that have never programmed telling us how easy it is to update to a completely different API from Apple. Psst API is the Application Programming Interface that lets my code talk to Apple's libraries and Apple likes to change them CONSTANTLY.

It's not like one can just load their code and then press the huge button labeled "recompile to 64 bit"

 

[sracer]

Right, but all iOS users are affected by the continued inclusion of legacy 32-bit bloat in the OS. It's not like there's no reason to do this.

Has Apple stated that there is legacy 32-bit bloat currently in iOS? And have they indicated what the savings/improvements will be? Or is that just an assumption?

 

[konqerror]

any reading you recommend on the subject?

Most of these points and problems are covered here, though its intended for developers: https://developer.apple.com/library...ual/64bitPorting/indications/indications.html

 

[smash1]

I'd happily pay the developer an upgrade fee so it's worth their while (they have bills to pay too. I get it), but I don't think Apple provides a mechanism for me to do that. Do they? I can't remember seeing a simple upgrade fee in the App Store which "refreshes" their app but leaves my data in-situ.

Usually it's a whole new app and a clean slate (data wise).

Almost no user understands this and thinks charging for updates is immoral. Updating an app to 64 bit requires MUCH more than a simple recompile because Apple has also deprecated MANY api's and functions which require extensive rewrites, never mind the large effort to develop all new graphics for the larger displays. If Apple was at all concerned about keeping the AppStore current they would provide a mechanism for reimbursing app developers for the programming effort required to update the apps. Apple makes their money by selling new hardware, not software, so they have ZERO empathy for developers. When you complain about your legacy apps being abandoned you should ask Apple why they don't allow for upgrade fees instead of dinging the developers.

 

[Larry-K]

I completely agree with this decision. It's gonna push the app worth updating to more modern standards, and get rid of the rest which is probably of very little value.

Actually, I have old Apps that are worth more to me than a new version of iOS.

 

[Scottsoapbox]

So are games on the Atari 2600. Time moves on.
[doublepost=1485887948][/doublepost]Hopefully Apple does this on the macOS too.

A pure 64-Bit OS. No 32-Bit compatibility.

Mile ahead of Winblows and Android.

Whoa zinger! Old people don't get that just because something still completely solves the problem they purchased it for the newer one is NEWER.

Progress! I hope they break all my 64 bit apps next so we can FINALLY have the power of 128 bit OS. Yeah then Windows and Android can totally suck it.

I mean sure the ONLY difference is the length of the memory addresses and not any of the underlying code running the operating system, but come on it's a bigger number and that means it's marketable - I mean vital to the speed of all that is holy in technology.

 

[goosnarrggh]

It does make development in future easier, and frees memory resources. So I'm not in slightest surprised.

Presumably, major developers will evaluate their install base, and based on that data, they will decide to either:
1) Drop support for the app entirely rather than make the necessary changes to work natively with 64-bit
2) Drop 32-bit and focus exclusively on 64-bit
3) Maintain their app as fat binaries containing both 32-bit and 64-bit executable code

I strongly suspect, at least for now, developers will be free to choose for either (2) or (3) and still be welcome to distribute their apps compatible with this future iOS release.

For the time being, there will probably be enough of an installed base of users who still use older iOS devices that are unable to install a 64-bit iOS, to justify strategy (3) for quite a few developers. Gradually, as older equipment is finally retired, strategy (2) will become the dominant force.

And eventually (but not for a while) option (3) will probably become technically infeasible as mutually exclusive schisms begin to emerge in APIs between older and newer versions of iOS.

But for the short term, I'm not convinced this will actually make development "easier".

 

[truthertech]

Thank you for responding with some technical details.

Yes, I understand 64bit is faster and more efficient. As I've said, I'm not apposed to 64bit. i'm not trying to say "WE MUST KCIK AND SCREAM TO KEEP 32BIT APPLICATIONS!"

What I believe is that all new submissions to the App store should be in 64bit binaries only.

but completely cutting out 32bit legacy support doesn't benefit the end user for legacy apps. if anything, it removes the ability for users to run programs they may have been using and have paid for.

What I'm trying to clarify, and get answer to, is what benefit does cutting out this legacy support have for the end user? Does losing access to that 32bit application suddenly make iOS faster? other programs faster? Does it make the OS better in any way?

these are questions that nobody in this thread has answered outside of retorting with "FUTURE THINKING!" and "because it's 2017". these are not technical reasons. I want technical reasons why 32bit legacy app support is a bad thing if people are going to claim it as such.

I want evidence based decisions, not emotional ones.

Well, I think you've provided all the evidence needed. You concede the enormous benefits of 64 bit, so by making it clear that the platform is moving to 64 bit only, many developers who have been putting off the upgrade will be pressured into getting it done, thus creating a clearly greater overall benefit to the maximum number of users, notwithstanding that some users who have older legacy apps will be inconvenienced and have to switch to newer ones.

 

[rp2011]

Actually, I have old Apps that are worth more to me than a new version of iOS.

That's great. Keep your old device till it dies. That's the way it should be. Nothing lasts forever.

 

[Black Magic]

Sounds like iPhone 5 and below are done. Certain iPads are done now as well.

 

[smacrumon]

They are doing you a favor here and trying to forestall complaints in the future. Frankly I'm not sure if you are ignorant of reality or just a Snowflake but you do realize that iOS updates have broken many apps over the years. Even on my old iPhone 4 apps stopped working because of updates.

The other thing i find distressing is people trying to make DRM look bad because of this. DRM may be bad but you end up with the same problem on Linux, libraries or apps don't ge updated and stop working.

"Needs to be updated". Please tell Apple, by who? Me the user, the app maker, and how do I get the update, when is it available? It's a rather ambiguous message. That's the point. It's not graceful. The message is giving stupid feedback with one option "OK". Pointless from the user perspective. This should be a silent thing, the developer is notified about the issue to either get their house in order or not.

 

[macduke]

To think of it from a DRM perspective, all those 32 bit apps you purchased... you will have no access to them because Apple axed 32 bit all together. That's DRM. Your purchases are not yours after all. You are at the mercy of the company who enforces the DRM.

Developers being lazy is not a valid reason. Not everyone has to be like Facebook to routinely update their app with junk lines of code and keep on bloating it till it explodes.

I will have to upgrade my 5 year old CCTV camera system which will cost me $1000 because their remote app is 32bit and very old. It may stop working in iOS 11.

Now I will lose $1000 because of DRM.

That is really awful. Have you reached out to the company?

 

[smacrumon]

Not bad design at all. Apple has already contacted the app developers.

The purpose here is to notify the end-user that their app is reaching end-of-life if the developer doesn't update it. This way, it shouldn't be a surprise when the customer buys a new phone or updates their OS. Many will still grumble (watch macrumors for that...) but it's not like there hasn't been warning for it. The developers have been notified. The end-user has been notified twice, first that the app will slow down their device, and then this warning, that the app won't work in the future if it isn't updated.

It's not an acceptable situation and any apps that ios breaks I'd ask for a refund. It's giving information but it's rather odd and not graceful. Errr err iM gonna break soon. Ok?? Prompt. Computes??

 

[jayducharme]

They won't be deleted from your phone. You'll just have to back up your phone in iTunes, which is a pain.

It's not that my apps were deleted; they simply ceased to function. They'd crash immediately upon launching and the developers couldn't be bothered fixing them. And it wasn't just small developers either; one was Zen. I wrote to them, but they never responded. So that's why I'm hesitant to spend "big" money on apps. A dollar here or there doesn't bother me.

 

[Tycho24]

Which app did you pay $1000 for? Looks like you’ve been had.

Oh, do you mean the iPhone? You’re not suggesting that Apple should “perform a simple recompile for their customers,” are you?

As far as the “accompanying apps," all of the apps that Apple bundled with your iPhone have been updated to 64-bit.

Flappy Bird was not an “accompanying app."

I apologize for any muddiness.
The $1,000 comment was in reference to the OP saying that they had bought a $1,000 CCTV & that the accompanying app would probably not be updated, and thus- cost him another $1k.
My stance is that: just as Apple recompiled their apps, in support of their expensive hardware.... so should the CCTV company. Especially since they're selling a high dollar product; they owe it to their customers to update their app.
It seemed like blame-shifting to complain that Apple is dropping support for 32-bit code, when in actuality, it is incumbent on the CCTV company to update their app! (they've had PLENTY of time)

 

[Cougarcat]

You do know the only reason it's not been updated is that any update that retains it's functionality can't be released, due to changes in app store regs, right? Not sure if post was serious or not.

I had forgotten about that.

Unfortunate. It was the best way to wishlist/keep track of app prices. At least the website will still work.

 

[Larry-K]

That's great. Keep your old device till it dies. That's the way it should be. Nothing lasts forever.

Some of us can actually distinguish between the "New" and the "Useful".

 

[smacrumon]

A


Apple wants to make sure you do not call them or go to a genius bar and waste their time when the app stops working. There is nothing they can do!

It is a "friendly" announcement, which gives you the option to replace your apps (if they are replaceable) or change what you do.

Who says they didn't let the developers know, if they can even contact them? Not even Apple's responsibility.

The customer can still enjoy the old apps if it is that important:

a) By not upgrading iOS
b) Keeping their old i-device just for those old apps

and

c) buy a new i - device to come into this century

Inconvenient = Wah!

Expecting electronics and their system software to last forever for every device and app ever made is unrealistic.

Hope people aren't crying over a 99 cents fart app.

The thing is this not about forever. It's about 3 or so years. Not acceptable. Customers should expect a durable system and software for a reasonable period of time. Friendly prompt it isn't in my opinion. It's a badly thought out behind the scenes process being played out publicly.

 

[Scottsoapbox]

I’m curious—did any of you people crying about this upcoming change buy software a few years back? Did you ever purchase Windows 98? Lotus 1-2-3? Can you use those now, on current-generation hardware? Did you ask Microsoft or Lotus Software for your money back?

Well, technically, you can still use Lotus 1-2-3, but that’s because third parties created DOS emulators, like DOSBox—not because the original companies went out of their way to ensure their apps still work

You consider Windows 98 "a couple of years back"? Try 19.

But yes most 20 year old games and apps would still run on a current 64-bit PC, because the trade off of breaking a bunch of otherwise functional apps to save a bit of space is a poor one.


BTW your examples are poor because Microsoft still supports 32 bit and a developer going out of business isn't what is happening here.

 

[manu chao]

To think of it from a DRM perspective, all those 32 bit apps you purchased... you will have no access to them because Apple axed 32 bit all together. That's DRM. Your purchases are not yours after all. You are at the mercy of the company who enforces the DRM.

There is no need to use DRM. It sufficient for Apple to not include the 32-bit libraries. Something similar could happen with macOS or Windows as well. And in fact is has happened multiple times. Classic Mac OS apps have long stopped working, so have PowerPC apps.