Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
iOS 12 and planned obsolescence
- Thread starter _Refurbished_
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
So, which one is it:
- New iOS is released for an older device where it brings new features but doesn't perform well, and people are upset that Apple is doing it on purpose so that they couldn't really use their device like before and would need to upgrade (and keep on asking why they can't downgrade or why Apple couldn't leave their devices alone with the previous iOS version where they worked just fine).
Or
- New iOS version isn't released for an older device so that it can stay with the last version that works better for it compared to the new one that would make the experience quite bad, and people are upset that Apple is doing it on purpose so they couldn't get the benefit of new features and would need to upgrade.
If they support a device longer than they should, they’re terrible. If they don’t support all devices forever, they’re terrible.
If they selectively slow down older supported devices, they're terrible.
This is just stupidity -
If a new version of iOS is released for iOS devices that purposefully slows the device down or is purposefully unoptimsiedd, then yes this is planned obsolescence, especially wheren there is no downgrade path.
If a new version of iOS abitarily drops support for devices, that could otherwise have run that version of iOS fine, it is also planned obsolescence.
Apple should be a) supporting devices for as long as possible, b) allowing downgrades, c) ensuring that iOS releases are optimised for all hardware that supports it.
All three are things that Apple can achieve, but there are times in the past that they haven’t.
I applaud Apple for achieving a) and c) with iOS 12 (As long as 12 is actually an improvement on older hardware). I am unhappy with them over MacOS.
I’m not holding my breath, iOS 9 was meant to improve performance and it did the opposite.
[doublepost=1528158671][/doublepost]
It doesn’t have to be an either.
If they support a device and performance is slow because they have not optimised it then yes it is terrible.
I’d they cut off support for a device when it was possible to support it then yes it is terrible.
And both are terrible because apple talks the talk about being green, but reducing device life by either dropping support or making said devices too slow to use is very environmentally unfriendly as it increases the cycle of device production.
hmm..i recently came from Android,so, i guess numbers are even now
. i got my first iOS device in 2017(8 plus), initially i was not happy..but now pretty much i liked it. My major gripe with iOS is notification..looks like they fixed it in iOS12..lets see..
So based on a) at some point devices need to be dropped, but then when that happens it's still planned obsolescence if those who have those devices don't agree with that decision. And with c) at some point the return on spending more time and resources on optimizing things to run on much older hardware isn't really there, so then either a) comes into play or they still release it but the older devices don't perform well and it's still planned obsolescence to those who have those devices because their experience is degraded.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Only a utopian solution of everything being supported and performing at the same level would do (but then there's going to be some other conspiracy as to why older devices work just as well as newer ones and that newer ones must be getting artificially slowed down to match up with the older ones and it's some sort of pre-planned obsolescence).
Last edited:
You mentioned 7, 8 and 9. I addressed all of them specifically in the order that they were introduced.
Interests/needs aside, the fact is: there are very few "changes" going from iOS 11 to iOS 12, as opposed to all older iOS releases. This includes both changes under the hood (APIs for developers) and functions/features/UI stuffs for users.
That's the thing.
The pattern is one introduces larger UI/UX level changes (that being 7, in that example) and the next two (8 and 9, in that example) refine and work off of those changes. 6 had nothing at all with that.
People were saying similar things about iOS 9, for example, about there being few "changes".
Well if devices are dropped arbitrarily then yes, it is. Eg when a version of iOS doesn’t introduce any features that would have an impact on performance and devices are dropped, or like when the 3GS got iOS 6 but the iPod touch 3G did not despite identical specs. Or when Apple dropped 2008 and 2009 era macs from Sierra which can be hacked to run it perfectly well and the fact that there were supported derives which were slower than the dropped devices.
There shouldn’t need to be a monetary return for Apple to not be arbitrily dropping devices or slowing them down. It is about doing the best by the environment and consumer by a very very very rich company.
This absolutely is the definition of planned obsolescence. The manufacture of affordable products by limiting the life of the product.
Windows 10 is a re-skinned Windows xp in my humble opinion, which is why it runs on old intel hardware.
Apple could appease the masses with “obsolescence” by dropping support for new a OS, but continuing security updates for 1 year. Wouldn’t be too hard to do. The iPhone 5S being one example. I’m sure the only reason it made to 12 is the fact they and the carriers hocked it well past it’s lifespan. I remember Sprint still selling it to clear inventory while side by side of the SE.
On the other hand, the definition of planned obsolescence is being molded to ensure Apple is criticized (as usual).
If planned obsolescence is really in effect, my 5s, 6s, 6s+ and 7 would all need replacing under iOS 11. Yet we are all happy with the performance. So it can’t be the meme version of planned obsolescence is what Apple is doing.
hmm..i recently came from Android,so, i guess numbers are even now
My major gripe with iOS is notification..looks like they fixed it in iOS12..lets see..
I have always had Android devices... as a developer. This includes both tablets and phones primarily, but I also have access to some odd devices as well. Android does run on a wide number of platforms.
As for iOS, my first device is the original iPhone, and I have had at least every Apple iPhone device in existence up to now. I still do, actually, so it's not like I'm out of the ecosystem. I also have iPads, Apple TVs, and iPod Touches lying around the house as well... plus an Apple Watch.
It's never been an either/or thing for me, I could always use both. As an aside, I do have iOS 12 beta on my iPhone X and 6+. No comment on how it compares to Android since you can tell where my preference lies.
So Continuity, Health Kit, universal Airdrop, and interactive notifications in iOS 8 are "refinements" of what iOS 7 introduced?
And Split-window Multitasking, Picture-in-Picture for iPad in iOS 9 are "refinements" of iOS 7? The rest of the changes that are "refinements" actually also include Siri changes, typeface font changes, messages, safari, notes, passbook/wallet, etc...
So even in comparison, iOS 9 does have factually more changes than iOS 12. That's the point.
If you say iOS 9 has "few changes" then iOS 12 is even fewer.
Seems like plenty of things are listed at https://www.apple.com/ios/ios-12-preview/features/
Now, if they aren't of that much use/value to some, that's all good and fine, but the same kind of thing can be said about plenty of other releases (let's say including that iOS 9 where, depending on their use, someone with an iPhone, for example, they might not have gotten much out of iOS 9).
Remember, this was put into context of an idea of a UX/UI redesign of some sort being introduced and following couple of versions refining it and building upon it, and that being some sort of a potential new precedent. When that kind of thing has been more of a pattern (perhaps the degrees can differ as to how much refinement vs. brand new things happen) where a larger UX/UI redesign of some sort happening in a version and then following couple of versions following on that design before another larger UX/UI redesign happens in the next version, and so on.
They increased performance more for older devices. It seems like there was some selection
I don’t see how anything they said points to the conspiracy theory that they slow down select devices.
Again, this is not about whether something is useful. iOS 12 has factually less features. It has so few that "performance" has its own headline as a "feature" on that website you just linked.
For a list of full iOS 9 changes since you seem to consistently ignore what I was trying to say:
https://www.macrumors.com/roundup/ios-9/
And iOS 9 was the last version that had the least changes ever.
And granted, iOS 11 was so horrible that people are crying tears of joy when the first beta of iOS 12 manages to get back to par with iOS 10. So I guess that warrants "performance" as a "feature" if I have to be perfectly fair.
But that doesn't excuse Apple from the fact that they are releasing a bug fix release as a major release. I still stand by the point that iOS 12 should be iOS 11.5.
So a similar breakdown hasn't been put together for iOS 12 to do a good comparison to really how signifantly different it might be. So far things don't seem to indicate that there's some sort of a signicant difference to indicate some new precedent of something or other, at least no more than let's say iOS 9, as we are using that as an example, would have indicated as far as some sort of a similar precedent back in its day.
It's early day, but the differences are not ground-breaking and they are mostly just small tweaks here and there. I know because I'm running iOS 12 right now on 2 phones. Had to restore the iPhone X from scratch but it's okay now.
Apple put "back" some of the things they took away like grouped notifications and swiping to close app gestures in iPhone X, so now it's "closer" to iOS 10.3.3.
But that's the other side of why I kept saying this release is more like 11.5 than 12.
I'm not expecting ground-breaking UI/UX changes or new apps, but they're going back on quite a few things and just focusing on making what's there run faster/smoother. I'm not sure how that warrants a major release as this used to be a point upgrade thing.
As an aside, on the Mac side, there are a lot of changes, even ignoring the new dark mode:
https://www.apple.com/macos/mojave-preview/
Apple put "back" some of the things they took away like grouped notifications and swiping to close app gestures in iPhone X, so now it's "closer" to iOS 10.3.3.
But that's the other side of why I kept saying this release is more like 11.5 than 12.
I'm not expecting ground-breaking UI/UX changes or new apps, but they're going back on quite a few things and just focusing on making what's there run faster/smoother. I'm not sure how that warrants a major release as this used to be a point upgrade thing.
As an aside, on the Mac side, there are a lot of changes, even ignoring the new dark mode:
https://www.apple.com/macos/mojave-preview/
Both of them are planned obsolescence. There is a way both Google and Microsoft found out of this Catch 22. Downgrade support. Give the customer the choice of what he can run and what he prefers. Tiving this choice proves your intention wasn't planned obsolescence.
There are huge differences in the foundation of Windows 10 compared to XP. Windows Timeline, Dark Mode, Edge, Native support for burning DVDs and pdfs, Direct X 12. There's millions of em. If Windows 10 is a redlined XP, iOS 12 is a reskinnee iOS 7.
Also this excuse should stop now because Apple intends to use these A series chips in their next laptops
Both of them. Downgrade support is what's needed.
They did not optimise iOS 12 for the older devices out of the kindness of their heart. It was to address all the negative rep they have been getting lately in software. If they achieved 95% improvement in launch times, this means they were doing nothing for optimisation all these years.
While I'm in support of being able to downgrade, that in itself doesn't prove or disprove anything in particular.
As far as what you are trying to imply that some numbers mean, it's not necessarily how it works. Things being 2x faster doesn't mean that they weren't doing anything all the years. They could easily have already made optimizations before based on the priorities they had, and just now had them at a higher priority to be able to make a more seizable improvement. It could easily be that they were already improved 2x over some years and it would have been a 4x improvement now if they truly didn't do any improvements at all, as you are trying to say with those numbers.
Last edited:
It's planned obsolescence because you keep flashing intrusive prompts in the customer's face and if he accidentally updates, it's curtains for the device. Why is the device being trapped on a particular version which performs slower. When I pay for an iPhone I purchase its performance, and that's how the phone should perform throughout its lifetime. If it's slowed dow, they should be obligated to restore my phone to its original state.
Dropping support is also planned obsolescence. They dropped support for Series 0 after 3 years. For me it's 2 years as I purchased it a year later. This seems to be a tad less for a wearable imo especially a wearable which costs as much as an iPad does. Series 1 did not interest me as it was Series 0 with a powerful processor and Series 3 features do not appeal to me. But I am getting a new Watch soon, likely a Seies 4 in September. If they hadn't dropped support I wouldn't have gotten one. Again planned obsolescence.
So if they released a new version for your first version watch and it made it perform poorly and affected its battery life it would be planned obsolescence. But if they decide they would rather not do that and not degrade the experience on those first version devices and thus not have this latest update for them, then it's also planned obsolescence.
Basically, as has been pointed out before, planned obsolescence has become a diluted catch-all term for someone just not agreeing with whatever it is that's there.