Which Devices Won't Make the Cut for iOS 10?

[Shirasaki]

I do firmly believe this, but we will have to wait and see. All I'm saying is, prepare for some potential outcry and the same old tired argument about "planned obsolescence" when Apple pulls the plug on two generations of A-based processors with one release.

"Planned obsolescence" will always exist at any product introduced by any company. This is inevitable. Apple might just accidentally amplify this statement, resulting higher concentration of caring and discussions.

Whether Apple ditch two generations of chip in one stroke or not in this iOS 10 doesn't really matter that much for me now. But that of course doesn't mean others don't take care. Perhaps they will just stick at a version supporting maybe iOS 9 on their productivity apps. Developers will not need to update it for quite a while until all old devices are not usable anymore. Reaching this would gonna take another half decade if not more.

 

[Josh54671]

"Planned obsolescence" will always exist at any product introduced by any company. This is inevitable. Apple might just accidentally amplify this statement, resulting higher concentration of caring and discussions.

Whether Apple ditch two generations of chip in one stroke or not in this iOS 10 doesn't really matter that much for me now. But that of course doesn't mean others don't take care. Perhaps they will just stick at a version supporting maybe iOS 9 on their productivity apps. Developers will not need to update it for quite a while until all old devices are not usable anymore. Reaching this would gonna take another half decade if not more.

Right, and that's the problem. A lot of developers were complaining about how Apple made huge advancements in their chips after the A5… but decided to constantly support the A5 by continuing to sell devices with it. There was a piece online referring to the iPad mini as the "Zombie iPad," because Apple decided that, with the introduction of the A8X-based iPad Air 2, they'd continue to sell the iPad mini with an A5 chip. This undoubtedly meant that Apple would support the A5 once again with iOS 9… and sure enough, they did.

The problem currently is, now we have the A9 and A9X chips which are really great. But developers can't take advantage of them, because they have to support the A5. Even if developers limit their apps to JUST iOS 9, they still have to support the A5, because Apple still supports those devices with iOS 9.

Once we get to iOS 10, should Apple make it A7-and-up, we should start seeing apps that'll mandate users to only have iOS 10 and later, meaning they could finally start taking advantage of the later 64-bit chips and letting go of the old A5/512MB RAM hardware.

 

[Paddle1]

Right, and that's the problem. A lot of developers were complaining about how Apple made huge advancements in their chips after the A5… but decided to constantly support the A5 by continuing to sell devices with it. There was a piece online referring to the iPad mini as the "Zombie iPad," because Apple decided that, with the introduction of the A8X-based iPad Air 2, they'd continue to sell the iPad mini with an A5 chip. This undoubtedly meant that Apple would support the A5 once again with iOS 9… and sure enough, they did.

The problem currently is, now we have the A9 and A9X chips which are really great. But developers can't take advantage of them, because they have to support the A5. Even if developers limit their apps to JUST iOS 9, they still have to support the A5, because Apple still supports those devices with iOS 9.

Once we get to iOS 10, should Apple make it A7-and-up, we should start seeing apps that'll mandate users to only have iOS 10 and later, meaning they could finally start taking advantage of the later 64-bit chips and letting go of the old A5/512MB RAM hardware.

Doesn't iOS 9 allow 64-bit only apps? And why would they want to require iOS 10? That would cut off a big portion of the market. Many apps these days still work on iOS versions older than 9. By supporting iOS 10 in a limited manner on A6 devices and not at all on A5 devices would allow for a transition period where they can support 32-bit devices with apps giving more time for users to upgrade, in turn decreasing the 32-bit market share more gradually and reducing backlash.

It's possible but just going iOS 10 and 64-bit only right away might not be ideal at this point.

 

[Josh54671]

Doesn't iOS 9 allow 64-bit only apps? And why would they want to require iOS 10? That would cut off a big portion of the market. Many apps these days still work on iOS versions older than 9. By supporting iOS 10 in a limited manner on A6 devices and not at all on A5 devices would allow for a transition period where they can support 32-bit devices with apps giving more time for users to upgrade, in turn decreasing the 32-bit market share more gradually and reducing backlash.

It's possible but just going iOS 10 and 64-bit only right away might not be ideal at this point.

I'm not saying all apps would do this. I'm very well aware of the fact that most apps today don't require iOS 9 and later. Many popular apps still go back to iOS 6, and there've even been some that I've seen that go all the way back to iOS 4! However, many new apps that get released are a little more bold and are designed with the latest system in mind, so they require iOS 9 and later.

Your argument that Apple should "allow a transition" between 32-bit and 64-bit doesn't make much sense, because the very introduction of the 64-bit A7 chip in 2013 was already the beginning of that transition. Apple then set the ground to further that transition with things like Metal, and then in iOS 9 with the iPads, adding multitasking features that were exclusive to the 64-bit iPads.

That transition has already begun. It'll be three years since the introduction of the 64-bit A7 this year. That's enough time.

 

[Paddle1]

I'm not saying all apps would do this. I'm very well aware of the fact that most apps today don't require iOS 9 and later. Many popular apps still go back to iOS 6, and there've even been some that I've seen that go all the way back to iOS 4! However, many new apps that get released are a little more bold and are designed with the latest system in mind, so they require iOS 9 and later.

Your argument that Apple should "allow a transition" between 32-bit and 64-bit doesn't make much sense, because the very introduction of the 64-bit A7 chip in 2013 was already the beginning of that transition. Apple then set the ground to further that transition with things like Metal, and then in iOS 9 with the iPads, adding multitasking features that were exclusive to the 64-bit iPads.

That transition has already begun. It'll be three years since the introduction of the 64-bit A7 this year. That's enough time.

But what makes that enough time? 64% 32-bit back in October, this is why it's preferable to wean people off gently, not drop around half of your market at once. They can do that by bringing iOS 10 to A6 devices. What does Apple gain by dropping them? They can wait a year as they've proved with A5, there's no rush.

 

[Josh54671]

But what makes that enough time? 64% 32-bit back in October, this is why it's preferable to wean people off gently, not drop around half of your market at once. They can do that by bringing iOS 10 to A6 devices. What does Apple gain by dropping them? They can wait a year as they've proved with A5, there's no rush.

Okay, but by that, even if they kept the A6 devices, they'd only be benefitting the 13% 4th gen iPad owners. We know that they'll drop the A5 devices, that means they're ALREADY dropping 51% of the user base. It's already going to be a rough transition, and I don't think dropping another 13% is something they find all that risky.

Plus, that chart is from October. It doesn't account for the launch of the 12.9 inch iPad Pro, the holiday season, nor the launch of the 9.7 inch iPad Pro.

Besides which, since when has Apple cared about causing an uproar? They've launched many products that are all about taking out legacy technologies to usher in new ones. Pissing people off is nothing new to them.

 

[Paddle1]

Okay, but by that, even if they kept the A6 devices, they'd only be benefitting the 13% 4th gen iPad owners. We know that they'll drop the A5 devices, that means they're ALREADY dropping 51% of the user base. It's already going to be a rough transition, and I don't think dropping another 13% is something they find all that risky.

Plus, that chart is from October. It doesn't account for the launch of the 12.9 inch iPad Pro, the holiday season, nor the launch of the 9.7 inch iPad Pro.

Besides which, since when has Apple cared about causing an uproar? They've launched many products that are all about taking out legacy technologies to usher in new ones. Pissing people off is nothing new to them.

Exactly, if you factor in everything that's happened since October then you'll have a more reasonable percentage to drop, especially with A5 devices. The iPad 4 is nearly two years newer than the iPad 2. It wouldn't cause as much uproar to drop A5 devices. On the other hand, A6 is more capable, and longer support life cycles are also more environmentally and consumer friendly, which encourages loyalty. Dropping the A6 now would likely be done simply because it's not 64-bit. It just depends on what direction Apple is going for with iOS 10.

 

[Josh54671]

Exactly, if you factor in everything that's happened since October then you'll have a more reasonable percentage to drop, especially with A5 devices. The iPad 4 is nearly two years newer than the iPad 2. It wouldn't cause as much uproar to drop A5 devices. On the other hand, A6 is more capable, and longer support life cycles are also more environmentally and consumer friendly, which encourages loyalty. Dropping the A6 now would likely be done simply because it's not 64-bit. It just depends on what direction Apple is going for with iOS 10.

But you just said it would cause an uproar dropping 64%. Not dropping the A6 would only bring that down to 51%. Somehow, 51% doesn't matter, but that extra 13% does?

The 4th gen iPad, processor-wise, is only a generation above the iPad 2. The 4th gen iPad is already slow on iOS 9. It's essentially like running iOS 9 on the iPhone 5. It's dated now. It's already limited considering it supports absolutely none of the multitasking features of iOS 9. There was only one iPad that had an A6. Clearly Apple never placed much importance on it.

Plus, you're not accounting for the iPhone users. If you look at the userbase there, nearly 2/3 of all iPhone users are on a 64-bit device (and this is BEFORE the introduction of the iPhone 6S and 6S Plus, and the iPhone SE). There aren't a large amount of people on an A6 device.

Had Apple not supported the A5 as expected with iOS 9, they would've dropped the A6 devices with iOS 10 anyway.

 

[bodonnell202]

Right, and that's the problem. A lot of developers were complaining about how Apple made huge advancements in their chips after the A5… but decided to constantly support the A5 by continuing to sell devices with it. There was a piece online referring to the iPad mini as the "Zombie iPad," because Apple decided that, with the introduction of the A8X-based iPad Air 2, they'd continue to sell the iPad mini with an A5 chip. This undoubtedly meant that Apple would support the A5 once again with iOS 9… and sure enough, they did.

The problem currently is, now we have the A9 and A9X chips which are really great. But developers can't take advantage of them, because they have to support the A5. Even if developers limit their apps to JUST iOS 9, they still have to support the A5, because Apple still supports those devices with iOS 9.

Once we get to iOS 10, should Apple make it A7-and-up, we should start seeing apps that'll mandate users to only have iOS 10 and later, meaning they could finally start taking advantage of the later 64-bit chips and letting go of the old A5/512MB RAM hardware.

Apple already dealt with the problem you mentioned with iOS 9 giving developers the option to only support 64 bit devices, which gives developers who want to make "high end" games that would run poorly on older devices the option not to support the A5 and A6 (see: http://9to5mac.com/2015/06/10/ios-9-older-devices-lose-support-apps/). I recognize that in the past that dropping devices that are no longer sold was how it was done when Apple introduced a new version of iOS, but I think iOS 9 represents a new direction for Apple where since an increasing portion of their revenue comes from services it is in their best interest to continue to support devices for as long as possible so they can keep selling them services (the large number of 32-bit iPads still in use shows why this is important). Just my 2 cents...

 

[Paddle1]

But you just said it would cause an uproar dropping 64%. Not dropping the A6 would only bring that down to 51%. Somehow, 51% doesn't matter, but that extra 13% does?

The 4th gen iPad, processor-wise, is only a generation above the iPad 2. The 4th gen iPad is already slow on iOS 9. It's essentially like running iOS 9 on the iPhone 5. It's dated now. It's already limited considering it supports absolutely none of the multitasking features of iOS 9. There was only one iPad that had an A6. Clearly Apple never placed much importance on it.

Plus, you're not accounting for the iPhone users. If you look at the userbase there, nearly 2/3 of all iPhone users are on a 64-bit device (and this is BEFORE the introduction of the iPhone 6S and 6S Plus, and the iPhone SE). There aren't a large amount of people on an A6 device.

Had Apple not supported the A5 as expected with iOS 9, they would've dropped the A6 devices with iOS 10 anyway.

It wouldn't be 51% as you stated:
-It's 5 months later
-The iPad Pros
-Holidays
Plus:
-Price drops
-iPad mini 4
-Probably not out until September

Which should result in a smaller A5 and A6 market share. However, A5 owners are likely more prepared to let go of their devices due to getting a lot out of them and the large improvements in specs. That isn't true for the A6 to the same extent.

If you bought an iPhone 5c in September with a 2 year contract you'll only be one year in when iOS 10 comes out. Meanwhile if you bought an iPhone 4s in September 2014 you'd receive support for the whole contract. Apple shouldn't be backtracking.

 

[Josh54671]

It wouldn't be 51% as you stated:
-It's 5 months later
-The iPad Pros
-Holidays
Plus:
-Price drops
-iPad mini 4
-Probably not out until September

Which should result in a smaller A5 and A6 market share. However, A5 owners are likely more prepared to let go of their devices due to getting a lot out of them and the large improvements in specs. That isn't true for the A6 to the same extent.

If you bought an iPhone 5c in September with a 2 year contract you'll only be one year in when iOS 10 comes out. Meanwhile if you bought an iPhone 4s in September 2014 you'd receive support for the whole contract. Apple shouldn't be backtracking.

If you were going to concede to the fact that it's 5 months later, and that chart may be a bit outdated, then why even bother bringing it up at all?

Yeah, but the amount of A5 iPad users we have is far greater than the A6 users. The majority of Apple customers are uninformed normal folks who don't read forums or keep up with this stuff. They're all equally unprepared for their device being cut off. The normal average consumer doesn't go, "Hm, well, my iPad 2 is an A5 device. It should be discontinued soon!" Regardless on whether or not it's 50% or 60%, it's still going to be a large number of people with A5 devices being cut off completely.

If you bought an iPhone 5C in September of last year, then… tough luck. That's what happens when you buy a device RIGHT before a refresh. Same thing happened to those people who decided it was a good idea to buy an iPhone 3GS in early September of 2012 because it was "free," only to find out iOS 7 didn't support the 3GS while they were one year into their contract. Or, those who thought getting an iPhone 4 in September of 2013 was a great idea, only to find out that the 4S would become the free phone a couple weeks later, and the iPhone 4 buyers would lose out on iOS support one year in. This isn't new for them. This has happened before.

 

[Shirasaki]

The problem currently is, now we have the A9 and A9X chips which are really great. But developers can't take advantage of them, because they have to support the A5. Even if developers limit their apps to JUST iOS 9, they still have to support the A5, because Apple still supports those devices with iOS 9.

https://itunes.apple.com/jp/app/fate-grand-order/id1015521325?mt=8
Here. A perfect example showing how this app does NOT support older A5 and iPad mini alike.
"※iPod touch第5世代以前、iPhone4S以前の機種は非対応です。"-->This one means this game does not support A5 touch and iPhone.
And this game does not support iPad mini, and maybe iPad 2 and 3 as well.
You can install it but you cannot play it. That's it.
Apple supports A5 on iOS 9 doesn't mean developer needs to support them too.
[doublepost=1461553393][/doublepost]

Plus, that chart is from October. It doesn't account for the launch of the 12.9 inch iPad Pro, the holiday season, nor the launch of the 9.7 inch iPad Pro.

Market share of new 12.9 and 9.7 iPad Pro can simply be neglected. No one with iPad 2 at hand and happy will buy those as usual over price and probably lackluster products.

 

[Paddle1]

https://itunes.apple.com/jp/app/fate-grand-order/id1015521325?mt=8
Here. A perfect example showing how this app does NOT support older A5 and iPad mini alike.
"※iPod touch第5世代以前、iPhone4S以前の機種は非対応です。"-->This one means this game does not support A5 touch and iPhone.
And this game does not support iPad mini, and maybe iPad 2 and 3 as well.
You can install it but you cannot play it. That's it.
Apple supports A5 on iOS 9 doesn't mean developer needs to support them too.

It says it works on iPad 3 so it's because of RAM.

Also, yes developers could always do this, however older device users can still install and leave bad reviews, but like @bodonnell202 said there was supposed to be a feature that allowed you to completely block installation on all 32-bit devices. A5 and A6. http://9to5mac.com/2015/06/10/ios-9-older-devices-lose-support-apps/

Does anyone know if this is actually a thing that's available or has been used? I haven't seen it. Content blockers are the only 64-bit only downloads I see.


Edit: After further searching I have found an app that's 64-bit only: https://itunes.apple.com/app/jetpack-fighter/id933338712?mt=8

And you don't even need to require iOS 9 for it, this app goes back to 7.0, which is the first 64-bit version of iOS.

 

[Shirasaki]

It says it works on iPad 3 so it's because of RAM.

So that proves developers can add such limitation to prevent pure 1-star negative review related only to performance or crash. Apple choose to support it doesn't mean developers choose to support it.
[doublepost=1461555069][/doublepost]

Yeah, but the amount of A5 iPad users we have is far greater than the A6 users. The majority of Apple customers are uninformed normal folks who don't read forums or keep up with this stuff. They're all equally unprepared for their device being cut off. The normal average consumer doesn't go, "Hm, well, my iPad 2 is an A5 device. It should be discontinued soon!" Regardless on whether or not it's 50% or 60%, it's still going to be a large number of people with A5 devices being cut off completely.

And even this is the fact, many real world productivity apps don't require hefty performance to run. They may just show a simple page. And users just tap on it, and boom, job done. iPad 2 is still perfect for such apps, yet tech industry hates such delay and "stay there". They always want to release the greatest and latest.

 

[Teon]

iOS and iPhone 4s really? I think it's terrible.

 

[asv56kx3088]

But you just said it would cause an uproar dropping 64%. Not dropping the A6 would only bring that down to 51%. Somehow, 51% doesn't matter, but that extra 13% does?

The 4th gen iPad, processor-wise, is only a generation above the iPad 2. The 4th gen iPad is already slow on iOS 9. It's essentially like running iOS 9 on the iPhone 5. It's dated now. It's already limited considering it supports absolutely none of the multitasking features of iOS 9. There was only one iPad that had an A6. Clearly Apple never placed much importance on it.

Plus, you're not accounting for the iPhone users. If you look at the userbase there, nearly 2/3 of all iPhone users are on a 64-bit device (and this is BEFORE the introduction of the iPhone 6S and 6S Plus, and the iPhone SE). There aren't a large amount of people on an A6 device.

Had Apple not supported the A5 as expected with iOS 9, they would've dropped the A6 devices with iOS 10 anyway.

I'm sorry to tell you iPhone 5 runs iOS 9 extremely smooth while iPad 4 doesn't.

 

[C DM]

iOS and iPhone 4s really? I think it's terrible.

What?

 

[Josh54671]

I'm sorry to tell you iPhone 5 runs iOS 9 extremely smooth while iPad 4 doesn't.

I wouldn't call it "extremely smooth" by any means. I owned an iPhone 5 from 2012 to October of last year when I got my 6S Plus… the iPhone 5 was okay running iOS 9. My dad owned a 4S until getting his regular 6S, but while his 4S was quite a pain to do anything with, my iPhone 5 was… less of a pain. It was more bearable than the 4S, but it was by no means ideal. Could've been worse, but certainly not "extremely smooth."

My point was, these guys were saying that the iPad 4th generation and the iPhone 5/5C deserve another year with iOS, saying they're perfectly capable to run another version and it's "too soon" to cut them off. My point is: they're already going to be 4 years old by the end of this year, the A6 chip was never a popular one, seeing that many devices either stuck with the A5 (iPad mini and iPod Touch 5th gen), or later skipped it altogether going straight to A7 (iPad mini 2). Apple no longer sells any A6 devices, and in the past, they've always cut off devices based on what they sell before the iOS unveiling of that year. The iPhone 5C was the last A6 device to be discontinued back last year, so that means at this point, before the unveiling of iOS 10, there are no A6 devices that Apple needs to support.

In the past with iOS 8, developers complained quite a bit of how they couldn't make apps that specifically targeted newer devices. I wasn't aware of how developers could now just target newer 64-bit ones, so, that's pretty neat. However, while the other people in this forum think that this means they could still support just the A6 for iOS 10 and let app developers just make a lot of 64-bit apps, I'm of the mentality that them now letting developers specifically target the A7 and later further signals the end of the 32-bit device support.

But that's just me.

 

[kiranmk2]

I wonder whether Apple would do an iOS 9.5 for A5 (and A6?) devices - something that completely optimises for these devices without any bells and whistles only the newer devices can support with the security updates from iOS10. This would let the current devices live on and still be secure for another year (I can't see any any iOS10-only apps for a good few months). That way Apple will show A5 owners that support/new features is coming to an end but without fully abandoning them to a less-secure, forgotten OS and leave owners with a good feeling about Apple (i.e. their devices have got a bit faster compared to iOS9). The lack of new features is what would drive upgrades rather than their devices grinding to a halt - which may prompt some people to move to cheaper Android phones or not bother with tabets again.

 

[GreyOS]

Right, and that's the problem. A lot of developers were complaining about how Apple made huge advancements in their chips after the A5… but decided to constantly support the A5 by continuing to sell devices with it. There was a piece online referring to the iPad mini as the "Zombie iPad," because Apple decided that, with the introduction of the A8X-based iPad Air 2, they'd continue to sell the iPad mini with an A5 chip. This undoubtedly meant that Apple would support the A5 once again with iOS 9… and sure enough, they did.

The problem currently is, now we have the A9 and A9X chips which are really great. But developers can't take advantage of them, because they have to support the A5. Even if developers limit their apps to JUST iOS 9, they still have to support the A5, because Apple still supports those devices with iOS 9.

Once we get to iOS 10, should Apple make it A7-and-up, we should start seeing apps that'll mandate users to only have iOS 10 and later, meaning they could finally start taking advantage of the later 64-bit chips and letting go of the old A5/512MB RAM hardware.

Whst apps are you imagining? Pretty sure games can be scalable on iOS so that better hardware produces better graphics etc

 

[Math889]

Ip

I guess it's safe to say that the A5 devices won't get updated. Question is - will the iPhone 5 get iOS 10 or not? On one hand, it does have 1 gb of ram, but it is also the last non-64 bit device.

iPhone 5 will get IOS 10 update. The question is- will iPad 3 get IOS 10?

 

[Shirasaki]

I wonder whether Apple would do an iOS 9.5 for A5 (and A6?) devices - something that completely optimises for these devices without any bells and whistles only the newer devices can support with the security updates from iOS10. This would let the current devices live on and still be secure for another year (I can't see any any iOS10-only apps for a good few months). That way Apple will show A5 owners that support/new features is coming to an end but without fully abandoning them to a less-secure, forgotten OS and leave owners with a good feeling about Apple (i.e. their devices have got a bit faster compared to iOS9). The lack of new features is what would drive upgrades rather than their devices grinding to a halt - which may prompt some people to move to cheaper Android phones or not bother with tabets again.

Your idea reminds me Windows phone 7.8, while Microsoft abandoned Windows CE system and introduced Windows NT into Windows phone 8.
Windows phone 7.8 was a system for all Lumia devices cannot be upgraded to Windows phone 8. Backed with features found on Windows phone 8, this version was also the last version available for those phones.

 

[oldmacs]

Your idea reminds me Windows phone 7.8, while Microsoft abandoned Windows CE system and introduced Windows NT into Windows phone 8.
Windows phone 7.8 was a system for all Lumia devices cannot be upgraded to Windows phone 8. Backed with features found on Windows phone 8, this version was also the last version available for those phones.

While I'd prefer iOS 10 in a very basic form for my iPad 2, I'd be down with 9.5 if it delivered minor updates, and continued delivering compatibility and security updates (Essentially what iOS 9 on A5 devices is now anyway). That would get me through to when Apple releases a worthwhile 9.7 inch iPad Pro to replace it.

 

[XTheLancerX]

iOS 9 ran like garbage on my iPhone 6.

Can't help but notice the tense here, "ran"

I am assuming you had an iPhone 6 on an older version of 9 (9.0-9.1) and then upgraded to the 6S.

I would agree, it *did* run like garbage on 9 but it doesn't anymore, not since 9.3. It rivals the 6S in all terms, speed, fluidity, etc. Maybe not RAM (holding programs in memory) but thats a different story

 

[bodonnell202]

While I'd prefer iOS 10 in a very basic form for my iPad 2, I'd be down with 9.5 if it delivered minor updates, and continued delivering compatibility and security updates (Essentially what iOS 9 on A5 devices is now anyway). That would get me through to when Apple releases a worthwhile 9.7 inch iPad Pro to replace it.

There is some precedent for this as Apple released iOS 6.1.6 in early 2014 (despite iOS 7 being released in late 2013) for devices that could not upgrade to iOS 7 (the iPhone 3GS & 4th Gen iPod Touch). The update patched a critical security issue and ensured FaceTime would continue functioning on the iPod (without the patch a certificate would have expired and FaceTime would no longer function on the device). That said I can't really see Apple fully supporting a branched version of iOS for a full year and I really only see this happening again under similar circumstances (i.e. to patch a critical security hole in devices that are no longer supported on the latest version of iOS).