More proof on how Apple is neglecting iPhone 4 users.

[Kyrra]

New hardware gets new features! I'm on a 3Gs and still surviving just fine. Sure, I don't have all the pretty new toys, but it's a phone that still works fairly well. I have maps, a browser, email, and other basic apps to do what I need to.

I may be slower, GPS may not be as accurate, the screen isn't as pretty.... but you know what, it still functions just great. If you have the money and you want to blow it on a new phone, go for it. Apple isn't forcing you to do anything, they are just enticing you with new features.

 

[lordofthereef]

You want to try your luck with android instead?

The fact that you don't believe the opposition is a better option does not mean you shouldn't expect better from your choice OS. What if there were no other mobile OS's? Would your argument be "would you like to try and dumb phone instead?" I sincerely hope not.

----------

New hardware gets new features!

This seems to be a relatively new way of thinking; smartphones need to be purchased yearly to get all the new software features (notice nobody is arguing about hardware differences such as processors, displays, ram, etc). Can you imagine if core2duo macs wouldn't get all of the same features in Lion as will the core i5/7 line of Macs? That would be preposterous, right? Well, what's the difference?

 

[BFizzzle]

All that video shows me is that the iPhone 4's gps capabilities are almost as good as a 4S. They're certainly not far apart.

If that guy was on his way to an Apple store, Apple could've reliably used the location from either phone to detect how close he was.

i agree, but its not %100 accurate. sometimes my 4 will take a while to even locate. better off just having people set appointments or call in as they have been doing for a while now. it works. , instead the possibility it MIGHT be inaccurate.

as mothers around the world say, "better safe than sorry... and having pissed off customers/and or wasting company time. "... i think thats how the saying goes...

 

[cyks]

Fragmentation typically refers to OS or screen sizes. It typically does not missing hardware functionality for if that was the case I could say that any platform is fragmented because some phones have a 3 megapixel camera versus 5 and 8.

If a phone has a 3Mpx camera vs. 5 or 8, a camera app would still work on any of them so that's a poor example.

Facetime would be a better one since it requires a front facing camera (hardware) to work.

Fragmentation in the Android can mean plenty of things... the wide spread of OS versions they're all running, the completely different hardware they all have (which severely limits what certain phones can and can't run), as well as screen sizes and the resolution they run.

Nobody ever said there wasn't any fragmentation with the iPhones, there is. There's just not nearly as much as there is on the other platforms.

 

[nuckinfutz]

If a phone has a 3Mpx camera vs. 5 or 8, a camera app would still work on any of them so that's a poor example.

Facetime would be a better one since it requires a front facing camera (hardware) to work.

Fragmentation in the Android can mean plenty of things... the wide spread of OS versions they're all running, the completely different hardware they all have (which severely limits what certain phones can and can't run), as well as screen sizes and the resolution they run.

Nobody ever said there wasn't any fragmentation with the iPhones, there is. There's just not nearly as much as there is on the other platforms.

Not if a particular app requires 8MP. The question here is "what hardware difference between the iPhone 4 and the 4S precipitates the difference in software?"

I can call any Fragmentation if my viewpoint goes to a pretty small granular level.

 

[BaldiMac]

I am actually quite shocked at how many people are arguing that these limitations are not "arbitrary". I challenge all of these people to show an ounce of proof that any of the features limited from the 4 (but we can just speak of this pickup feature since that is what the thread is about) are hardware related. Maps? Nope... we already have a dev that hacked that onto the iPhone 4 some 2 days after iOS6 beta launched. Now this? What about this feature screams hardware limitation to any of you?

Again, what motive could Apple possibly have to go through the trouble of adding code to disable this specific feature (that benefits Apple) on an iPhone 4?

 

[lordofthereef]

Again, what motive could Apple possibly have to go through the trouble of adding code to disable this specific feature (that benefits Apple) on an iPhone 4?

They have limited other things, as I mentioned, where there was clearly no (good) reason. Perhaps Apple is trying to show all the things that the newer phone "can do" that the older models "can not". Any single feature (such as this or lack of face time over 3G, for example) may not be a big deal. Once you lump them all together, "Well honey, it's time to upgrade".

 

[braddick]

You had me right up to your last line, "The point is... they're trying to piss us off".

That is a ridiculous notion.

 

[throAU]

The fact that you don't believe the opposition is a better option does not mean you shouldn't expect better from your choice OS. What if there were no other mobile OS's? Would your argument be "would you like to try and dumb phone instead?" I sincerely hope not.

Supporting old hardware costs money. Developing new software costs money. Development costs that are not re-couped by people continuing to use old devices.

The iphone 4 still does everything (and more) than it did when it was released.


Do you complain to GM/Honda/Toyota/etc that they aren't releasing new engine management software for your car after purchase to give you improvements to traction control, stability control, etc - let alone new features such as launch control? There's no reason any car with a rev limiter and a wheel speed sensor can't do launch control, but no one has bothered to update their car software to support it.

And car is a significantly more costly purchase/long term investment.

 

[lordofthereef]

Not if a particular app requires 8MP. The question here is "what hardware difference between the iPhone 4 and the 4S precipitates the difference in software?"

I can call any Fragmentation if my viewpoint goes to a pretty small granular level.

I have never seen an app place any sort of limitation on what sort of camera was needed, let alone "requiring an 8mp". That requirement would be just as arbitrary as what we are talking about...

----------

Supporting old hardware costs money. Developing new software costs money. Development costs that are not re-couped by people continuing to use old devices.

The iphone 4 still does everything (and more) than it did when it was released.

Please see my OSX example above, which supports why I think this mentality is wrong. Unfortunately it seems to be a mentality that many people are OK with in the mobile OS world.

Do you complain to GM/Honda/Toyota/etc that they aren't releasing new engine management software for your car after you purchase to give you improvements to traction control, stability control, etc?

No, because frankly I don't care. I probably would if it was something I was passionate about, but I am not. There are probably plenty of other things that shouldn't be the way they are that I am simply unaware of, and therefore my voice is not heard on those matters.

 

[throAU]

OS X doesn't support old hardware past say 5 years either? The life cycle is longer, because laptops/desktops have a longer life expectancy than mobile devices and aren't sold on 2 year plans.

 

[lordofthereef]

OS X doesn't support old hardware past say 5 years either? The life cycle is longer, because laptops/desktops have a longer life expectancy than mobile devices and aren't sold on 2 year plans.

That has nothing to do with it... Unless we get a completely new chip architecture, I can almost guarantee you that newer version of OSX will be coming to older devices for years to come.

EDIT: The first Intel Based Macs were released January 2006. We are going on 7 years. Still supported fully.

 

[throAU]

That has nothing to do with it... Unless we get a completely new chip architecture, I can almost guarantee you that OSX will be coming to newer devices for years to come.

Go talk to the Mac Pro 1.1 users, the Mac Mini 2007 users, the Macbook users about Mountain Lion then.

Go ask the Core 2 users about Airplay.

----------

EDIT: The first Intel Based Macs were released January 2006. We are going on 7 years. Still supported fully.

You're wrong. machines that shipped in early 2009 (like my mid-2007 spec mini) are not supported in mountain lion - at all.

The core machines (pre core 2) aren't supported in Lion.

New features like airplay don't work on 2010 Macbook Airs, or 2010 Macbook pros.

Dictation only supported on the new retina macbook pro.

Network restore only supported in 2011 Macbook pro, I think 2010 MBA, not older machines.

Airdrop only supported on 2010 + machines.


etc

etc

 

[lordofthereef]

Go talk to the Mac Pro 1.1 users, the Mac Mini 2007 users, the Macbook users about Mountain Lion then.

Go ask the Core 2 users about Airplay.

----------



You're wrong. machines that shipped in early 2009 (like my mid-2007 spec mini) are not supported in mountain lion.

New features like airplay don't work on 2010 Macbook Airs, or 2010 Macbook pros.

Dictation only supported on the new retina macbook pro.


etc

etc

Airplay and dictation are pretty unfortunate then. I wasn't aware of that. I wonder if a third party will get those features rolling on these machines to prove that it was, again, and arbitrary limitation.

And correct me if I am wrong, these people are paying for their OSX updates, right? We aren't even talking about free updates (as in iPhones). Pretty disappointing.

I guess that is pretty proof positive that they are slapping down limitations to get people to upgrade.

 

[throAU]

I guess that is pretty proof positive that they are slapping down limitations to get people to upgrade.

well, that, and the fact that there are hardware features that make supporting those software features a lot easier and more efficient.

eg, the core I series does AES encryption and Quicksync in hardware. making it easy to do full disk encryption, encrypted airplay, etc.


Just because YOU or I can't see a hardware change that makes supporting a new feature on-viable on old hardware, doesn't mean it isn't there.

plus, also as you say - many of the services they provide and software features they develop are funded entirely by hardware sold. there's a reason OS X costs 29 bucks to upgrade (vs windows at much more $), and its not because it cost 29 bucks per copy to develop... it is subsidised by your hardware.

New hardware purchase = you get the new feature. no pay, no play.



Personally i have no issue with this as it means my services aren't riddled with ads.

 

[lordofthereef]

well, that, and the fact that there are hardware features that make supporting those software features a lot easier and more efficient.

eg, the core I series does AES encryption and Quicksync in hardware. making it easy to do full disk encryption, encrypted airplay, etc.


Just because YOU or I can't see a hardware change that makes supporting a new feature on-viable on old hardware, doesn't mean it isn't there.

plus, also as you say - many of the services they provide and software features they develop are funded entirely by hardware sold. there's a reason OS X costs 29 bucks to upgrade (vs windows at much more $), and its not because it cost 29 bucks per copy to develop... it is subsidised by your hardware.

New hardware purchase = you get the new feature. no pay, no play.



Personally i have no issue with this as it means my services aren't riddled with ads.

I agree, BUT, when a third party makes it viable in 20 seconds flat (ok, exaggerating, but you get it), it makes it a MUCH tougher pill to swallow. That is my only point.

Also, let's be fair. New versions of OSX are nothing like new versions of windows. Buy a new version of Windows, it is built basically from the ground up. Not true with the last handful of OSX revamps. So, while I agree developement time is a factor, OSX Lion to Mountain Lion is nothing like WIndows XP to Windows 7. Not saying it should be, but in the amount of time you have hopped from XP to 7, you have seen 3-4 versions of OSX. Assuming you bought every single one (OSX), we are talking ~$120. That's the price of an entry level Windows 7 license.

 

[throAU]

I agree, BUT, when a third party makes it viable in 20 seconds flat (ok, exaggerating, but you get it), it makes it a MUCH tougher pill to swallow. That is my only point.

Well, lets take the siri example. Apple's definition of working is likely different to the guy(s) who hacked it to work on the 4.

The 4s has a noise cancelling mic to improve voice recognition. Maybe they deemed the results on the 4 to be "not good enough" standard to support?



As to OS X - it looks the same, but under the covers there's a HELL of a lot of development re-writing going on there.

Much more than with Windows, in fact.

The windows NT kernel hasn't changed all that much since the days of Windows NT 4. They had a big jump with Vista but that's it. Scheduler tweaks, etc. Its mostly UI fluff.

OS X has had massive internal changes, new APIs developed for sandboxing, multithreading, etc.



It just looks the same, but that is becaue in apple's eyes they got the UI mostly right the first time. Much the same as IOS looking mostly the same back to version 1.

 

[cynics]

It's partly hardware and partly marketing.

Its unfortunate but most other manufactures will not support a phone that Will be two revisions of hardware behind when 6.0 is released.

Think of all those android devices that are stuck at 2.x and never saw 3.x much less 4.x

Microsoft just reported that Windows phone 8 will not run on any 7.0 phones including that brand spanking new Lumina 900.

Some say it can, but can is not will, and just like 6.0 iOS we will have to wait and see.

I just hope 6.0 won't trash the other 3Gs in our family.

Not to nitpick but Android 3.x was purely a tablet OS. No phone ran it....

 

[cynics]

Me and about 10 of my friends use Google Latitude. Most of them are iPhone 4 users, and I never once found the 4 to be less accurate then my or my other friends with 4S's.

 

[BaldiMac]

They have limited other things

That's not what I asked. I was asking about this specific feature. As you said, "we can just speak of this pickup feature since that is what the thread is about."

as I mentioned, where there was clearly no (good) reason.

Clearly? Or just that you are unaware of Apple's reasons? I don't claim to have any inside knowledge. Maybe Apple does just throw features at a dart board. But the reasons for their decision are hardly clear.

People went on and on about how Apple withheld Siri from older devices for the same reason. Personally, I think it's a reasonable assumption based on Siri's performance issues over the last year that maybe the backend support wasn't there yet. Maybe the same thing is going on with maps.

Perhaps Apple is trying to show all the things that the newer phone "can do" that the older models "can not". Any single feature (such as this or lack of face time over 3G, for example) may not be a big deal. Once you lump them all together, "Well honey, it's time to upgrade".

Again, you are speaking in generalities. We are talking about the Apple Store app. One that helps customers buy stuff more conveniently. Your theory seems counterproductive.

 

[Kyrra]

Again, what motive could Apple possibly have to go through the trouble of adding code to disable this specific feature (that benefits Apple) on an iPhone 4?

As someone that does software development for a company that releases hardware... it is cheaper for the company to block new features on old hardware than to allow the new features on old hardware.

When you release new features on old hardware, you have to spent the time of the test department to validate the implementation on the old hardware. That costs time and money.

 

[BaldiMac]

As someone that does software development for a company that releases hardware... it is cheaper for the company to block new features on old hardware than to allow the new features on old hardware.

When you release new features on old hardware, you have to spent the time of the test department to validate the implementation on the old hardware. That costs time and money.

Except the argument that I disagree with is that there are no hardware limitations on the old hardware. It's an app. It uses APIs available in iOS 5.1. There should not be any need for additional programming if the older hardware supports the feature in question.

 

[canucksfan88]

its 95% marketing 5% hardware

siri is a prime example of it. siri was the killer application for the 4S. outside of Siri, the differences between the 4 and 4S were minimal. the casual user cares more about the "siri assistance" rather than faster graphics.

they are artificially phasing out the iPhone 4.

 

[throAU]

Except the argument that I disagree with is that there are no hardware limitations on the old hardware. It's an app. It uses APIs available in iOS 5.1. There should not be any need for additional programming if the older hardware supports the feature in question.

it still needs testing for what is a device that has already been sold and had its profits used for at least 1-2 OS revisisions for that particular device.

a device that is coming around to end of sale in the very near future, most of which will have dying batteries and expired telco contracts...

 

[ixodes]

Apple is a mass market retailer that sells hardware & the OS it runs on. In addition their closed proprietary system assures they've got total control over their user base.

Having a captive, easily influenced, cult like group of advocates, only furthers Apples power.

Supported by the masses, Apple flaunts the concept that they are superior & know better than the commoners, and they eat it up. So Apple dictates.

What a racket ... It's good to be Apple.