Apple hasn't been shy about dropping support for older hardware and software in recent years, and it looks like the iPhone and iPod touch are no exception: according to a short note on the iPhone developer site encouraging devs to get ready for
iOS 4, the App Store will no longer affect apps that target iOS 2. That doesn't really mean much right now -- apart from a few iPod touch owners who didn't pay the
$10 iOS 3 upgrade fee, we doubt there are many people out there still running iOS 2 -- but we can see Apple dropping support for iOS 3 apps next year when iOS 5 and a new iPhone are announced, and that'll effectively be the end of the original iPhone and touch, which can't be upgraded to iOS 4. That's a four-year shelf life, which isn't too bad considering the insane pace of mobile development, but we can still shed a tear -- especially since
we paid $599 for the damn thing
on contract way back when.
posted June 30th 2010 12:33PM
Well that sucks...
@Ahmedz
Yeah, but it's great if it means it can get rid of Fart Apps. (unless the developers of such apps "update" those apps for iOS4 to include multi-tasking... say for those needing to play a streaming fart sound while surfing the web)
@Ahmedz More ways to screw the users and developers.. I love android's Open approach.
@BerkleyBerkley2011
yeah but it you don't have 1.6 you can't use some stuff
if you don't have 2.1 and above you miss out also using Android
@BerkleyBerkley2011
Yah.. 4 years support compared to Android's "open" approach where your 6 months phone may already be outdated and won't get any more updates. I think I prefer Apples approach when it comes to legacy support.
@Ahmedz
I don't like this decision personally. But whatever. It seems Apple is really just trying to look out for it's own best interests lately. Which all companies in a capitalistic society do I understand but still.
Most people won't care about this but as a dev I don't like it. Maybe I want to develop an app and make sure it hits the most possible iphone users. I'll develop for the lowest SDK and it will/should cover everyone. Not anymore. So I guess people with 2.0 on their iphones need to buck up and probably make up less than 3% of all iphone users. I think.
@BerkleyBerkley2011
No it's more ways to avoid fragmentation and confusion in the "i" universe.
@Ahmedz
Keep that treadmill rolling! I stepped off it already anyway, when they tried to force me to upgrade phone hardware just to get MMS support.
@Dig Deep
Come on now. By making an app using the 2.0 sdk means that the app will not support multitasking and other goodies in iOS4. So although you are pleasing a few, you are pissing off a lot more by not using the new sdk. At some point in time you are going to have to draw a line in the sand. I think 4 years is reasonable for these type of devices.
Its not like all the 2.0 apps magically disappear and you can't use the device anymore, it just means that new software will not be guaranteed to work with it. I'm actually surprised that these 4 year old portable devices are still working and that people actually still want to use them.
@Dig Deep
I'm sure if you were a Windows developer you would be ensuring compatibility with Windows 95, right?
@who said what
Luckily Android users won't have that problem:
http://www.androidzoom.com/android_applications/fart/by_matching
@Ahmedz how does is suck? every phone is upgradeable to iOS 3.1 anyway, and should have had it for the past year. Its not like 3.x isn't jailbreakable.
@Altivec
I think Lenovo/IBM wins at legacy support.
http://www-307.ibm.com/pc/support/site.wss/document.do?sitestyle=lenovo&lndocid=MIGR-67364
Software updates for the X40, which was released in 2004.
@dave95
Errrr, This move is EXACTLY what fragmentation is sir. When you have different flavors of a platform that do not support the same core functionality i.e. apps in this case. Now if they wanted to avoid fragmentation they would make sure apps made are compatible across the board.
@Ahmedz
Big surprise. Since when has Apple worried about backwards compatibility?
Apple users should be used to this by now, and they should like it.
Move along, move along.
@Altivec you actually think it's a software barrier? really?
@tikigawd: You're joking, right? Building the Classic layer into the first versions of OS X to ensure compatibility with old apps? Putting Rosetta into Intel versions of OS X to ensure PPC app compatibility?
The fact that the iPhone's OS can be upgraded is still an abnormality in the mobile phone market, and a 2007 iPhone can still run most apps published in the App Store (the ones that don't have hardware specific requirements). How many mobile phones, across the board, can you say that about?
Apple does a hell of a lot to extend backwards compatibility. It's unrealistic that they should have to make sure old applications run on a brand-new OS just because the user is too cheap to spring for a new version from time-to-time.
@suicidebob
You can run windows 1.1 programs in Win 7. Windows is cool like that.
@wraith404
Honestly, I never saw the draw of MMS or even SMS at all. Free Push e-mail. wtf should I PAY to send something I can otherwise send for free, and access from numerous platforms.
Getting a pic in MMS means a) degraded quality, b) cost, C0 funk hoops to jump through to get the image into a PC (and a fee on many Verizon and Sprint devices).
Do you REALLY have to show me that image RIGHT NOW, at a cost to me to get it? no, you don's. Also, every phone I've had with a color screen and a camera could get e-mail on it anyway, free. Phonenumber@carrier.net. MMS is BS, and I've had it and SMS blocked on all my iDevices, and every other phone I'm forced to carry for a job, since I've had them in my hand. Never once has someone tried to contact me with something important, and they could not get data to me instantly. (either by simply placing a call, sending an e-mail, or posting on some service or corporate server that had push notifications.
I applauded Steve when he said the iPhone at launch would not have/need MMS and why, and he lost points with me when he and apple finally caved to AT&T to allow MMS (at 3 times the cost of text, even though every iPhone got e-mail with embeded image support, and so did every other MMS device on the market at the time).
Data is data is data, and fuck no I'm not paying more for one type than another.
@Ahmedz
OH NOOO!!1!~! \(*O * / ) Fragmentation!!
@Ahmedz
OH NOOOO!!1~! \(*O * / ) Fragmentation!!
@zelannii
OH NOOOO!!1~! \(*O * / ) Fragmentation!!
@Ahmedz
Why? NOBODY is still on OS 2. There's no point in allowing devs to program for a 2 year old version of the OS which nobody should be using.
@Altivec
I agree, writing this on my original iPhone with iOS 3. Still chugging along. :)
@suicidebob
Actually, it would be more like ensuring compatibility with Windows XP.
In which case the answer would likely be yes.
Noticed this yesterday when posting an update to a old app to fix iOS 4 crashes. It's dumb they give you the deployment option for 2.0 and then they say "HaHa no just kidding reupload using 3.x deployment target". Pissed me off!
I don't think many people use it anyway...
@pankomputerek The app store? Yeah no one uses that
@nalanarof
Yeah, I don't think it's of any use... lol
________________________________
Nah I mean OS 2.xIt's sooo out dated.
@nalanarof Think harder.
@Ninetysix
__________________________
Some people can't think harder
@Ninetysix *whoosh*
We dont like your kind around here..
"We have your money, now remake everything for iOS4 and give us some more."
Note to self: rinse and repeat for every even numbered iOS.
@BigD145
by "we have your money" I can only assume you mean "we give you 70% of all money made from your app on our store". And by "give us some more" I can only assume you mean "Update it with the iOS 4 SDK so we can give you more money."
@BigD145 yeah I bet all those [now] millionaire app developers are so bummed that they'll have to update their app...Apple just loves screwing those developers.
"Recent years"?
That sounds like a reason to jailbreak to me.
@jonbruc
Really? Which apps are you talking about that would actually be affected by this?
Eh, really not that big of a deal. Like they said, there are likely very, very few people who still use iOS2.x. Now next year will be interesting, as that will pretty much entirely kill off any of the original iPhones. Oh well.
@Ambient80 Would make older ipod touches less relevant as well. Guess it'll finally be time to Jailbreak this thing the next time it bricks...
It says it won't accept apps "targeted to iOS 2.x"
That doesn't mean that apps written for iOS 3.x or 4 won't work on iOS 2.x unless the newer software is necessary for operation of the app.
Some Spring Cleaning, huh? I guess thats pretty typical of apple to cut out the people who didn't want to upgrade. Kinda sucks, but probably needed.
@bandsaw
This has nothing to do with which OS you're running. This only has to do with apps that were written specifically for iOS 2. Apps that weren't written for a specific version of the os, even ones written three years ago, will still be fine.
It's all about the business they want people to update and pay more so they can become as rich as Bill Gates....
@pankomputerek
1. iPhone updates are free.
2. Developers get 70% of all the money made from their apps on the store.
Assuming you're living in the same reality as the rest of us, who is paying more in this scenario?
@Jack
1. You neglect the iPod Touch, which required a $10 fee to upgrade to iOS 3.
@War Ensemble
You forgot to mention that this doesn't affect which OS you're running. It ONLY affects apps that were specifically written for iOS 2. Apps. Not your OS. Furthermore, old apps that do NOT specifically target an OS aren't affected by this. Additionally, iOS 4 apps are backwards compatible, so it's STILL not an issue.
Get it yet?
@Jack
It seems the only ones complaining are those who have never used IOS and therefore have no clue what they're talking about
What developer would still target the 2.X crowd? In the interest of money making, I cant see the 2.X crowd being a gold mine.