iPhone No, because it requires a newer version of iPhone software ...

[Eclipse538]

Lolz Look, I know both Android and iOS programming like the palm of my hand, including the latest 4.2 API's... stating iOS is superior is just ridiculous. In fact, programming-wise, you can do a LOT more in Android even on the API level. Actually, you can do a lot more using official Android API's than with jailbreaks on iOS

I'm not talking about ease though from a coders point, I'm talking about how it handles, how it runs. Yeah working on Hondas, Chevy's and even BMW's is not too hard, but I still ****ing love the Bugatti Veyron with its most complicated w-16 motor but I AS A TRAINED MECHANIC who works on cars would never venture to complain about such a modern advanced piece of art. I view iDevices in the same manner, my 3GS will SMOKE any android phone of the same age in release date and price range (that I paid for - 325$) any day of the week.. It may be harder to code, Impossible to fix, and the next best one will probably be faster, cooler and better and do the same thing to these androids.. And I'm also theoretically comparing unrooted/unjailbroken models and rooted/jailbroken versions with that statement, not in numbers but in hand performance, feel(software handling) and visual appeal.

 

[Drag'nGT]

Agreed with this post. Apple doesnt want things to be compatible with old hardware, pushing you to buy the latest stuff.

Granted this could be a simple app like a clock or whatever, but you really think that with the leaps and bounds in processing power an i5 has vs the first iPhone that it isn't reasonable to ask you to have a phone as old as a 3GS for the minimum phone? The whole iOS ecosystem started after the 2G iPhone and devs push for smaller installs, rational device support and how good there app runs.

Yup, pretty annoying, particularly given that Google allows for supporting even the earliest (e.g., Android 1.6) platforms in brand new apps - even in apps making use all of the new 4.2 features (API calls etc.).

No wonder power users are leaving iOS. Apple's restrictions and greed are REALLY annoying.

That's because Android is all over the place. $99 **** tablets in CVS run Android 2 on them and get away with it because Google doesn't care about the users. They care about numbers. Don't think that because Google is greedy and lawless and could care less about their consumers it means that this is a good thing. And power users are NOT leaving for Android because it lets the ****** old PS linger on allowing the fragmentation to grow because they leave the updating to their subleasers like Moto, LG and Samsung. That's not a "power user" AT ALL. Not by any sense of the idea. Power users are eager for the latest and greatest because the push what they have to its limit and want more.

 

[Menneisyys2]

I view iDevices in the same manner, my 3GS will SMOKE any android phone of the same age in release date and price range (that I paid for - 325$) any day of the week..

I agree Apple had a lead between 2007-2010 - after all, this is why I switched to iOS and not to Android back in 2007 However, we're discussing officially letting devs easily support if they choose to do it. Which doesn't force Apple to do any additional testing. (They don't test AppStore-submitted apps on all compatible hardware.)

I know old hardware can be slow - at least by today's standards. However, basic for example web browsers, video players relying on hardware acceleration (which is present even in the first-gen iDevices) etc. could still easily be made work with adequate speed for people that must stick with those models (not everybody earns $1000+ a month - see my Indian reference above). At least the iCab dev (Alexander Clauss) would still happily support 3.1.3 in the same app if he was allowed to (I often talk to him and he's explained it was always very important for him to support even the earliest models).

----------

Granted this could be a simple app like a clock or whatever, but you really think that with the leaps and bounds in processing power an i5 has vs the first iPhone that it isn't reasonable to ask you to have a phone as old as a 3GS for the minimum phone?

Not any more. The world has changed since the early AppStore days, Google have entered the scene and decided not to make devs unable to support old models, unlike Apple.

Apple should be more friendly to owners of old hardware and NOT force them to upgrade by, among other things, making it unable to run anything newly released after two years of purchasing. (The iPt2G example from above.)

 

[Giuly]

No wonder power users are leaving iOS. Apple's restrictions and greed are REALLY annoying.

Using an iPhone 2G in 2013 does not exactly constitute a power user in my book. Have you used one of those lately? It doesn't support 3G data (up to 236 kbit/s EDGE), doesn't have GPS and a $100 Nokia with a 1GHz CPU runs circles around it.

 

[Menneisyys2]

Using an iPhone 2G in 2013 does not exactly constitute a power user in my book.

Yawn... could you please read the rest of my posts and refer to them instead?

- why not letting devs support old hardware if they want to?

- why making hardware absolutely unable (see minimum deployment target = 4.3) to run anything new after only two years of stopping selling it?

 

[gpsouza]

Well, some low-end models indeed have problems with the latest cooked ROM's. FOr example, the HTC Wildfire a3333 with jordfaz's MiniCM9 Rom ( http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1967851 ) offering 4.0.3 is indeed sluggish. But that's a VERY old and restricted model.

On the otehr hand, my Galaxy S1 runs just GREAT with the xda-devs 4.1.2, without any sluggishness or other restrictions.

I bet it runs great, but why the hell Samsung doesn't support it?

 

[Drag'nGT]

I agree Apple had a lead between 2007-2010 - after all, this is why I switched to iOS and not to Android back in 2007 However, we're discussing officially letting devs easily support if they choose to do it. Which doesn't force Apple to do any additional testing. (They don't test AppStore-submitted apps on all compatible hardware.)

I know old hardware can be slow - at least by today's standards. However, basic for example web browsers, video players relying on hardware acceleration (which is present even in the first-gen iDevices) etc. could still easily be made work with adequate speed for people that must stick with those models (not everybody earns $1000+ a month - see my Indian reference above). At least the iCab dev (Alexander Clauss) would still happily support 3.1.3 in the same app if he was allowed to (I often talk to him and he's explained it was always very important for him to support even the earliest models).

----------



Not any more. The world has changed since the early AppStore days, Google have entered the scene and decided not to make devs unable to support old models, unlike Apple.

Apple should be more friendly to owners of old hardware and NOT force them to upgrade by, among other things, making it unable to run anything newly released after two years of purchasing. (The iPt2G example from above.)

I added more to my post. It actually addresses why Google supports old Android OS'. They want the numbers to say they are growing. They don't care about the consumer or how the numbers grow. If Coby makes a $79 5" Android 2.0 tablet to sell at Big Lots then Google is okay with that. They just want to whore out their OS. The old OS works on the old crappy hardware found in the Coby tablet and therefor Google says "hey, we'll let you code for that old outdated stuff if you (the dev) want to." This way you guys sit here and think "oh, see how nice" but completely miss why they do this. It's not for you, it's for them.

 

[Menneisyys2]

Using an iPhone 2G in 2013 does not exactly constitute a power user in my book. Have you used one of those lately? It doesn't support 3G data (up to 236 kbit/s EDGE), doesn't have GPS and a $100 Nokia with a 1GHz CPU runs circles around it.

My main phone is an iPhone 5 (see for example the JB tweaks I've written for it). I'm, however, angry because of Apple's not letting developers support old hardware. Unlike Google or even, when it comes to the desktop world, Microsoft (you can still easily write Windows XP-compliant apps).

----------

I bet it runs great, but why the hell Samsung doesn't support it?

This has nothing to do with letting developers support old platforms - something Apple refuses to do.

----------

Guys, have to switch back to writing my latest MKV / Hi10P playback-specific article. Will be back later.

 

[Giuly]

Yawn... could you please read the rest of my posts and refer to them instead?

- why not letting devs support old hardware if they want to?

- why making hardware absolutely unable (see minimum deployment target = 4.3) to run anything new after only two years of stopping selling it?

Yes, yawn. It your App makes use of GPS, it won't work on an iPhone 2G. In the case of Viber, which is the app the OP stated, EDGE is probably not sufficient to make VoIP calls, maybe unless you have perfect reception.

4.3 runs on the iPhone 3G from 2008, that's 5 years. The iPhone 3G uses the same CPU as the original iPhone - it's creeping slow. Ergo, if you are writing an App in 2013 and limit yourself to the capabilities to the iPhone 3G, it won't be cutting edge, or at least waste time to make it work properly that could be used to implement features. And I want cutting edge Apps with cool features on my iPhone 5 rather than compatibility with the iPhone 3G that I've had in a drawer for nearly 3 years now. Don't you?

 

[tymaster50]

There are some people that can't afford purchasing a new model. There was a post of an Indian guy the other day here telling he needs to stick with the 3G as the salaries in India are very low.

Again, Apple could have been friendlier to those people by NOT raising the minimal deployment target to 4.3 in the iOS6-compliant Xcode versions. It wouldn't have cost Apple anything. But not, they're far too greedy and want to force people upgrade their hardware by deliberately making all new apps / games incompatible.

Well if you're on a tight budget why would you have an iPhone? Apple is a company for people on medium-high budgets it's not their fault someone can't upgrade, they made it easier for the developers to code, why should they have to code 2 separate versions for the 200 something that still have the original iPhone and use it?

 

[Menneisyys2]

Yes, yawn. It your App makes use of GPS, it won't work on an iPhone 2G. In the case of Viber, which is the app the OP stated, EDGE is probably not sufficient to make VoIP calls, maybe unless you have perfect reception.

4.3 runs on the iPhone 3G from 2008, that's 5 years. The iPhone 3G uses the same CPU as the original iPhone - it's creeping slow. Ergo, if you are writing an App in 2013 and limit yourself to the capabilities to the iPhone 3G, it won't be cutting edge, or at least waste time to make it work properly that could be used to implement features. And I want cutting edge Apps with cool features on my iPhone 5 rather than compatibility with the iPhone 3G that I've had in a drawer for nearly 3 years now. Don't you?

Again, let me refer to iCab, the dev of which has always tried to make his app work on the oldest hardware - in this case, 3.1.3. Why not support it (even with somewhat reduced features) if possible?

Of course, no sensible person would want to write a GPS app for the iP2G. An app like iCab (a Web browser), however, would adequately run on even such an old model. If only Apple allowed devs to support it easily...

(Really have to go - I've spent too much time in this # today, instead of finishing my new article. BBL.)

 

[kodeman53]

Again, let me refer to iCab, the dev of which has always tried to make his app work on the oldest hardware - in this case, 3.1.3. Why not support it (even with somewhat reduced features) if possible?

Of course, no sensible person would want to write a GPS app for the iP2G. An app like iCab (a Web browser), however, would adequately run on even such an old model. If only Apple allowed devs to support it easily...

(Really have to go - I've spent too much time in this # today, instead of finishing my new article. BBL.)

If the probability is low that devs would support old hardware, for economic reasons, why should Apple?

 

[Menneisyys2]

If the probability is low that devs would support old hardware, for economic reasons, why should Apple?

1, Apple's part: it's not SUPPORTING the old platforms. It's LETTING developers develop for them without having to maintain another Xcode version and another, fully independent AppStore app.

2, the devs' part: it's the need for the maintainance of an entirely separate app that makes devs - even ones that would support old platforms - not bother. Should Apple let devs target old platforms in the same app, many devs would support them - e.g., the above-mentioned iCab Mobile dev.

3, it wouldn't cost Apple anything to let devs support old iOS versions as Apple has never tested AppStore-submitted apps on every single compatible iDevice model (hence the rampant e.g. iPad 1 crashing issues in the Appstore making people wonder if Apple has ever started the app on the iPad 1) - it's just a darn switch in Xcode. Oh yes, it would cost indeed - the devices of end users wouldn't be rendered useless - in cases - no more than two years after purchasing them, forcing the hapless customers upgrade the hardware.

4, let me again point out that other mobile players don't render old hardware THIS fast: devs can support even the oldest Android models in the same app that may use even the latest 4.2 features if they choose to do so. Google don't try to making this impossible, as opposed to Apple, which do. And the question of the OS upgrade (for how many years Apple / Google issue firmware upgrades), which several posters have referred to, has nothing to do with this question - they're completely different ones.

 

[kodeman53]

IOW, there is nothing Apple would have to maintain in their development tools to support old hardware?

 

[Menneisyys2]

IOW, there is nothing Apple would have to maintain in their development tools to support old hardware?

Prolly only the ARM6 compiler to be able to produce machine / object code for the pre-3GS hardware / CPU's. It may be completely missing from Xcode versions starting with the iOS6-compliant Sept/2012 one. Dunno if the current one is able to compile for ARM6 and if it isn't, then, how much effort it'd take to make it do so. I bet not much - after all, they're standard compilers.

EDIT: nevertheless, apart from the ARM6 vs. ARM7 question, back in the Xcode 4.2 (4.3? Should check it...) times when 3.1.3 was already phased out (not possible to select a deployment target prior to 4.0), you could still compile for ARM6 (all 2nd-gen ARM6 devices upgraded to 4.x). That is, it's not a question of whether it's not possible to support ARM6 at all but Apple's phasing out old platforms - with Xcode 4.2 (3?), 3.1.3 and before.

EDIT 2, reflecting to EDIT 1: that is, phasing out 3.1.3 in 2011 surely wasn't because of a technical issue (e.g., having to maintain two different compilers / linkers / sets of object libraries for ARM6/7 CPU's) but simple greed. Apple may have done the same now in Sept/2012 by phasing out everything prior to 4.3 - without gaining any real maintenance advantage. (They surely didn't gain anything maintenance-wise with phasing out pre-4.0 iOS versions as they still had to support ARM6.)