Will Apple switch to a model year-based macOS support cutoff?

[deluxeshredder]

Apple has inistiated a late-2009-or newer limit for macOS Sierra support, obviously for marketing puproses (to sell more Macs and to decrease second-hand prices on Macs), as Sierra does not have major architectural changes nor it is more resource-intenstive.

Do you think that Apple will continue this practice and do a 2010 cutoff for 10.13, 2011 cutoff for 10.14, etc.

 

[T'hain Esh Kelch]

Highly unlikely. Cutoffs are usually done on a hardware basis. For most models cut off now, it is because of their graphic cards.

 

[keysofanxiety]

It's 7 years OS support. That's pretty good. It's not to sell more Macs. Besides, they heavily patched El Cap so it would be stable for those older Macs.

As T'hain said, it's down to the graphics, mainly. People would be more disappointed if an update made their older Mac unusable.

 

[flyinmac]

Highlighting the problem with integrated graphics

Obsoleting an entire computer because of a graphics chip.

But then again, if that's the true cause, consider how few graphics chips Apple would really have to support if it included drivers for every card / chip it has ever used in an Intel system. It's really not that many.

Windows 10 can support thousands. Including ones Apple has stopped supporting.

But then again, maybe Apple just doesn't want to strain their brain. It's easier to give up and abandon your prior machines. Perhaps the customer will buy a newer Mac. Or, perhaps the customer has gone through the cycle enough times to realize their very capable machine is being artificially abandoned. Perhaps the customer will realize that the latest version of Windows will run quite well on hardware that Apple has forgotten about.

 

[hallux]

Windows 10 can support thousands. Including ones Apple has stopped supporting.

And yet I had to replace a 10 year-old GPU in my dad's desktop so he could run Windows 10. There were no drivers available for that GPU. Sure, Windows 10 will support a LOT of GPU's, but there's still a cutoff on age based on driver support from the manufacturer.

 

[KALLT]

And yet I had to replace a 10 year-old GPU in my dad's desktop so he could run Windows 10. There were no drivers available for that GPU. Sure, Windows 10 will support a LOT of GPU's, but there's still a cutoff on age based on driver support from the manufacturer.

10 years is still better than 7.

 

[hallux]

10 years is still better than 7.

But when you're talking that amount of time, the jump to newer hardware is HUGE. He was able to get a new card at Staples for under $100 and it's probably at least 2x faster. Even 7 years is a LONG time to keep a computer with as fast as technology was advancing just a couple years ago.

 

[KALLT]

But when you're talking that amount of time, the jump to newer hardware is HUGE. He was able to get a new card at Staples for under $100 and it's probably at least 2x faster. Even 7 years is a LONG time to keep a computer with as fast as technology was advancing just a couple years ago.

It does not solve the problem that a working computer needs to be disposed of, for no apparent reason other than self-imposed technical obsolescence. Even then, you can still replace the outdated component on that specific computer. That will not even be a reasonable option a few years from now as the first Retina MacBook Pros reach vintage status.

Some of the cut-off with Sierra has no apparent technical justification, given the triviality in which Sierra can be patched. It is a business decision, not a technical one. Apple is under no obligation to support computers that long, but compared to what Microsoft, Linux and BSD providers are offering, I would not necessarily call it ‘pretty good’.

 

[hallux]

Keep in mind - MICROSOFT isn't the one writing drivers for the devices in the computers Windows is installed on. That task largely falls on the manufacturer of the component. Microsoft is then not the one responsible for deciding when to stop supporting the device but the device manufacturer makes that decision. In the case of my dad's computer, nVidia stopped writing drivers for the video card, and paying to certify them with Microsoft, it was in no way Microsoft's fault that we couldn't get drivers for his video card.

Another thing to consider, other than RAM and storage, laptops have largely been "disposable" in that individual components are difficult to replace due to the nature of the parts inside each laptop being designed for THAT laptop.

I put this in EVERY thread like this that I respond to. Companies need to make a financial decision to cut off support for older devices. Supporting older devices costs money, they need to employ someone to write the drivers to support those old devices. Apple knows exactly how many people are using those old computers, and what OS they're using on those devices. If it's determined there are a small number of people using computers of a certain age and some of those people are not even using the current OS then there's a good chance they will not update to the NEXT OS and it's not worth the cost to pay someone to write the support software for those devices.

Take the 2007 MacBooks, if there are still 10,000 people using them (just throwing a number out as an example, the number could be higher but is it really?) and only 10% of those that are left ever upgraded after Leopard, does it really make sense financially for Apple to support the 2007 Macbook for the 1,000 people that might actually want it? Especially when you consider it could cost as much as $1,000 (again, guessing, the development cost could be even higher) PER MAC at that number to write that code. I don't know the exact numbers, my guesses could be low or high, but the point still stands, it could be VERY expensive on a per-device basis to keep those older computers supported in new versions of the OS. At some point, the cost/benefit numbers point to dropping support for the old devices, that point appears to have come for those older MacBooks.

 

[username:]

obviously for marketing puproses (to sell more Macs and to decrease second-hand prices on Macs)

To answer the question, it doesn't seem to be the pattern that they have followed in the past so no I don't think so