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

[SarahKirschbaum]

so glad that Apple finally got the courage to
drain the swamp of old 32-bit apps...

those old apps had more than enough time
to make the necessary update. those who
chose not to have basically abandoned the
apps.

 

[hfletcher]

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?

I know someone who uses Lotus 1-2-3. It runs absolutely fine on Windows 10 x64 (natively).

On topic: Do Apple have the source code for the apps that are submitted to the store? Could they not re-compile it to ensure there is a 64-bit binary?

 

[smacrumon]

Apple has already informed devs of this. Way back in October of 2014.

And they’ve even published a guide to help devs do it. It looks easy enough, and that’s coming from someone who only took a few computer programming classes back in college all the way back in the early 90s.​

I don’t necessarily agree with a lot of things Apple does, but this is one thing I’m totally on board with.

Don’t expect Apple to personally place a phone call to every single dev out there who needs to update their app. I would assume they’ve contacted them via e-mail, but I can’t know this for sure.

If there’s an app you really like, and if it’s from a worthy developers, I’m sure you can easily find their contact info on the app itself or on the app’s website. And if they have a Twitter account, even better. Just Tweet to them telling them to get off their lazy asses and update their apps. If the developer can’t be bothered to make the changes to update their app to 64-bit almost 3 years after iOS went 64-bit, why should they be allowed to keep their apps on the App Store?

PS: The vast majority of us have invested in the newer iPhones. If we’ve paid for a (or, in many cases, more than one) iPhone/iDevice with a 64-bit architecture, why shouldn’t the apps we use fully take advantage of them? How many of you actually use an iPhone 5 or older as your daily driver?

Lots of a5 and a6 processors still in the mix. In fact some were still on sale up until a few years ago. iPhone 4s was discontinued in some countries only earlier last year.

 

[Scottsoapbox]

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.

I have the perfect amount of RAM because Apple said I don't need any more.

Libraries load when a program calls them. So it will load one or the other - not both. You don't think your iPhone is holding every 32 bit library and every 64 bit library all the time do you? Oh wait you do.

 

[goosnarrggh]

Lots of a5 and a6 processors still in the mix. In fact some were still on sale up until a few years ago. iPhone 4s was discontinued in some countries only earlier last year.

Hence, Apple probably isn't prohibiting developers from continuing to publish apps which still contain 32-bit code, but rather making it mandatory that they must, at a minimum, also include equivalent 64-bit code.

Including one does not necessarily force you to exclude the other.

 

[IvanX]

On topic: Do Apple have the source code for the apps that are submitted to the store? Could they not re-compile it to ensure there is a 64-bit binary?

It's not that simple

 

[thekeyring]

Before people are too critical of Apple-

https://www.macrumors.com/2014/12/17/apple-64-bit-support-reminder/

They're being generous for letting 32 bit apps work 2 years after the deadline.

Thanks for bringing this up - well worth knowing that Apple have given developers a fair warning of this.

 

[Scottsoapbox]

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).

Except you have NO IDEA what you are talking about. OK the OS is smaller. The rest of this is utter bollox.

 

[goosnarrggh]

On topic: Do Apple have the source code for the apps that are submitted to the store? Could they not re-compile it to ensure there is a 64-bit binary?

Apple isn't interested in doing the necessary manual inspection of other people's source code to ensure that developers aren't doing any funny business making assumptions about the underlying layout of data in memory - which would necessarily change if any data structures contain references or pointers which would suddenly double in size.

And they are not in the business of running regression tests on that 3rd party code to make sure that the compiled software still runs correctly.

And they definitely are not in the business of modifying that 3rd party code to resolve any problems discovered in the previous two steps.

 

[Scottsoapbox]

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

Sure one can stop at 10.2.1 and all you have to do is put up with Apple nagging you 19 times a day and not accidentally dismiss a random popup message the wrong way when in a hurry and authorize it to update the next night...

 

[Rafagon]

I have the perfect amount of RAM because Apple said I don't need any more.

Libraries load when a program calls them. So it will load one or the other - not both. You don't think your iPhone is holding every 32 bit library and every 64 bit library all the time do you? Oh wait you do.

Not in RAM, but they’re taking up my storage space. It’s not going to affect my life too much, since I have 128 GB iPhone 7 Plus, but I really don’t want -any- of it going towards 32-bit code because some dev has been to lazy to update his or her app.

 

[Thunderhawks]

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.

I guess we'll have to disagree. There are options people have.

When Apple went from Motorola to Intel it left apps behind (actually entire computers)
Snow Leopard to Sierra same. Always casualties.

To me the apps are the developer's kids. You have to watch them and if you want them to grow you have to buy them new clothes (invest in them) every once in a while.

It's all about money anyway. (Apple as well as developers)

If the 32 bit apps don't make enough money (as in not being popular enough) , they will not be rewritten by the developers. That means they should no longer be in the store.

I consider the purge a spring cleaning and am actually pretty sure that some of my older apps will bite the dust in the process.

Can't image a lot of expensive apps will fall into this category anyway.

Say, a $ 4.99 app over 2 years cost 0.007 cents a day. So one more year would be worth $ 2.49 a year!

I can't consider that a loss.

 

[Rafagon]

I know someone who uses Lotus 1-2-3. It runs absolutely fine on Windows 10 x64 (natively).

On topic: Do Apple have the source code for the apps that are submitted to the store? Could they not re-compile it to ensure there is a 64-bit binary?

Even if they could—do you realistically believe they would?

If you do, then you're grossly overestimating their generosity.

 

[willmtaylor]

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.

Could you explain further, please?

 

[halfapie]

Will this brick my iPhone 5C? Or does this mean iOS 11 is most likely not compatible with iPhone 5c?

 

[Santiago]

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.

This has nothing to do with DRM. It's just dropping support for apps built to old standards in order to keep maintenance costs for the OS itself manageable. There's no DRM for apps on macOS, but let's see you try to run a PowerPC app or one built for Mac OS 9 on a modern Mac.

 

[gaximus]

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.

Thats a different problem than Apple not allowing 32bit apps to be downloaded. I thoughts thats what you were talking about.

 

[blackcrayon]

Uh, what? I used to distribute through the app stores. Pretty much every app cost me more money than I ever made from it, thus why I stopped. The financial performance of my apps were pretty typical, from my understanding. Most developers make next to nothing. The best most people get is they get their $100 annual developer fee that Apple charges back. Divide the income over the hours they work and you find they were effectively paid $0/hour.

----

Is there any way for me to find out which apps installed on my iPhone are still 32 bit?

Sure. Instruments. It'll tell you which processes running are 32 vs 64 bit.
(Or you could just launch them on a recent version of iOS 10 and see if it warns you).

 

[Glassed Silver]

I play several games that haven't been updated. They're 'worth' it to me.

And THAT is why I will never trust Apple with games.

Their philosophy of ******** on backwards compatibility is detrimental to what a good system for gaming needs to have.

It's just one of the issues I have with Apple in terms of gaming, but this is quite the biggie.

Glassed Silver:win

 

[KALLT]

Will this brick my iPhone 5C? Or does this mean iOS 11 is most likely not compatible with iPhone 5c?

It won’t ‘brick’ your device, but whether or not this means that the 5C will no longer be supported is not clear. Technically, Apple can choose to remove the universal support for devices with 64-bit CPUs, which supports both 32-bit and 64-bit applications, but still compile iOS in 32-bit and 64-bit variants. However, given that the iPhone 5C is reaching the end of the line, I suspect that Apple will not do that.

 

[briloronmacrumo]

Since Xcode compiles both the 32-bit and 64-bit binaries, any app that isn't "64-bit" means it hasn't really been updated since 2013...

I get your meaning and maybe true on iOS, but not true for macOS ( depending on your definition of "really" ). On macOS developers can make significant changes to their 32-bit apps and re-deploy. Of course, the frameworks available on macOS, while similar to those on iOS, are not the same, so not all general statements about iOS apps apply to macOS apps.

 

[Scottsoapbox]

Could you explain further, please?

For example, an app that tracks sales in the app store was fine when released and then Apple decided that such apps were a "store within a store" and therefore "bad". So an update won't be approved.

 

[Cougarcat]

Could you explain further, please?

For example, an app that tracks sales in the app store was fine when released and then Apple decided that such apps were a "store within a store" and therefore "bad". So an update won't be approved.

I'm not sure if this is strictly true. I've been looking up other app tracker apps. AppZapp does the same thing as AppShopper and was updated in June.

And I remember AppShopper having to change the way it worked in order to get reapproval after the rule.

 

[KALLT]

Since Xcode compiles both the 32-bit and 64-bit binaries, any app that isn't "64-bit" means it hasn't really been updated since 2013...

That is not necessarily true. Xcode compiles universal apps by default, but the developer can still change the build configuration and drop 64-bit support. It is a choice and Apple even allowed this until February 2015.

The same is true for 64-bit support. Even though it was possible to compile an app for 64-bit only since 2013, Apple did not accept these apps in the App Store until iOS 9. Since then, you can have 64-bit only apps.

 

[mlody]

While they are at this, they should also allow us to permanently delete purchased history. Also would be nice to have an ability to sort apps by rating, last update date, kind/genre etc.