Apple releases an update once a year and they give several months of betas where app devs can test and prepare. That’s more than enough for supported apps.
This is why I don’t like developing on Windows, everything has 10 layers of complexity. To write a script for something that should be a simple task, I need to either reengineer the exact environment settings used in the UI or write an additional script to find the correct executable (with all the overhead of running the executable) to recreate the state needed to run a single command.
Providing backwards compatibility for decades has some serious tradeoffs. Breaking apps that were using the most up-to-date APIs three months ago is simply amateurish.
It's clear that Apple has no respect for developers on their platform.
As mentioned in other comments, it's very unusual for undeprecated APIs in iOS to break badly from one release to the next, at least the time I've developed for the platform. Usually if something is that broken it's because the app in question was using an API that was deprecated years ago despite repeated warnings.
Backwards comparability doesn't prevent forward movement. Moving forward is an overused tagline from every meeting ever anyway. If we move along a path does the path behind us crumble into the abyss?
I see this as Apple breaking the app. Demanding and nudging users to auto-update the iOS, the consequences being the OS fails to run what it previously could run.
Apple literally removed chunks of the processor that was needed to run 32 bit software to make room for more forward looking features.
Backwards compatibility would mean that MacOS should still have support for 32 bit apps? PPC apps? 68K apps? Should they have ported Carbon to 64 bits? Should they have kept support for QuickDraw from the 80s? QuickDraw GX from the 90s?
A smartphone that fails to run a banking app that worked literally "yesterday" is not the same as 32bit deaktop apps no longer working on 64bit systems.
Either way, I expect my PC to be capable of running old software including 32 bit apps. My 64bit Windoze machine does that.
No, users appreciate having better photography because the die space that was used to run 32 bit apps can now be used for other features. They appreciate their memory not being used to hold both 32 bit and 64 bit versions of shared libraries. They appreciate their apps not being purged from memory because of memory being taken up by the 32 bit and 64 bit libraries. They appreciate the better battery life because Apple could add features and reduce the size of the chip.
Your x86 PC that you appreciate being able to run 32 bit apps, also can’t last 20 hours on one charge, the integrated graphics are much slower and it probably sounds like a 747 under load compared to the fanless MacBook Air.
32/64 bit applications are in fact the equivalent of VHS/DVD combo players. Each instruction set is duplicated and shared libraries are duplicated. If you have some 32 bit applications in memory and some 64 bit applications in memory, you have duplicate libraries in memory.
Off track now, 32/64 bit is drifting too far from a banking app that works fine on iOS 15 but not iOS 16. Looks like they fixed the app anyway, as the message on the link has changed and is advising people to update app.
I use a desktop machine primarily, no battery issues, no memory issues. Purrs like a kitten under load. I like pushing 3D graphics and having lots of headroom in general. A MacBook Air won't cut it for my purposes.
I suppose rejecting backwards compatibility is better for business: Competition from older software is no longer a problem.
I still use Photoshop CS6 (2012) because it does what I need. My work laptop has latest Photoshop and while some of the new tools are nice, I don't see 10 years worth of innovation. I see a software company's nagging efforts to enforce cloud dependency, hustle users with sneaky price hikes, and even spam the email addresses of licensee seat holders with "trusted partner" junk.
So Apple had a beta period that gave developers a chance to test for compatibility and either Apple fixed the underlying issue before the OS released or the developer fixed their app. Either way, things worked as expected.
Photoshop actually is another example of things working as they should. Adobe has ported Photoshop from 68K, to PPC, to OS X, to x86 32 bit, to x86 64 bit, to ARM.
As far as subscriptions, I don’t use Photoshop. But back in the day, one seat of MS Office use to be $600. Now I can get a 5 user license of Office where each user can use Office on any combination of Macs, Windows PCs, iPhones, iPads and the web plus 5TB of cloud storage for $99 a year.
The vast majority of people are using laptops. But even desktop ARM Macs are seeing the same benefits from being able to ditch backwards compatibility.
> "But even desktop ARM Macs are seeing the same benefits from being able to ditch backwards compatibility."
Because who doesn't want better battery life for their desktop machine? Or quieter fans or more memory.
Desktops have plenty of RAM, enough to not worry about whatever insignificant benefits you're talking about that may arise from ditching backwards compatibility. Which by the way, has never been an undesirable feature. You're just trying to sell it as undesirable by claiming users are in great debt to those who decide to take away the option to run older software.
Apple has stated they will delete iOS apps from app store if they haven't been updated in awhile even if they technically still function. This will lead to a farcical situation of updates for the sake of updates, which is no doubt happening now anyway to get attention. "Remember me? I'm the app you haven't touched in a few months, here's an update!"
You're a subscription apologist and you dislike backwards compatibility. Your position is unconvincing in this discussion, but it sounds like you're happy! All the best.
