Only 7 years of support from release date is unacceptable for a $2000+ personal computer.

[Bokito]

My 2012 non-retina MBP would about now loose it’s power usage if it were to still receive OS updates. My maxed out late 2013 27” iMac is one hell of a beast that could be useful for the next 5 years.

Supporting older systems longer would definitely hurt sales. 2015 MacBook Airs are still good for browsing and email. My 2012 MBP is still good enough for even more than that.

My guess is that the M1 and M2 will lose major new OS support at the same time as there is not so much difference between the internals. As the M2 (Ultra) is still being sold in the Mac Pro that will likely be 4 or 5 years from now. Hopefully Apple is going for 10 years of major OS support with Apple Silicon from the day a certain architecture was launched. So for M1/M2 that would be up until 2030, for M3 that will be 2033 and M4 2034. It’s definitely something they can do without compromise, but if they are willing to is another thing.

If Apple would only release a new OS once every two years they could still retain the last two versions for security updates, but it would double the time these OSes still get security updates. The problem here is that maintaining security updates for older OSes is complex and time consuming so Apple is not gonna move on that point. The only thing that could help is releasing major OS updates less often.

 

[TechRunner]

I buy new base-level Macs with the understanding that I'll keep them 4-5 years, then upgrade. Seven years of security and OS updates seems very reasonable to me for that occasion when I might keep one beyond that point.

 

[TracerAnalog]

So much entitlement... check your facts and compare to other hardware companies. Thanks.

 

[Arctic Moose]

What’s the argument *against* Apple extending security updates by a few years? Nobody is even bothering to offer one. They just say “it’s ridiculous”. Why?

Apple is in the business of making money. Support for obsolete hardware costs money, and does not make any money. There is very little incentive to offer such support, especially considering that such a tiny minority of the users actually ask for it. Personally, I would much prefer Apple spends resources fixing the current releases, rather than maintaining ancient releases.

Maybe this exists on the Linux side?

Ubuntu LTS (long term support) releases are supported for five years, and ten years if you subscribe to Ubuntu Pro.

I’m fairly certain there are current versions of Linux that will run perfectly fine on even 20 year old hardware. I don’t know if any of these ship with computers though since the idea is, the hardware manufacturer should support their hardware with an operating system for at least 10 years.

Exactly. The whole point of these distributions is to extend the life of hardware that has been abandoned by everyone else. NetBSD for example still mostly runs on both 68k and PPC Macs, and of course Intel, as does various variants of Chimera, Adélie and Gentoo Linux, but this is of course something very different compared to vendor-supported hardware.

That said, a few years ago I looked into modern Linux distributions that I could use on my PowerMac 9600 from 1997, and concluded that the normal suspects, including MkLinux, Debian and Yellow Dog, are either no longer maintained, or no longer support Old World ROMs.

You'd think that that for a $9540 machine (in 2025 dollars) someone should take some responsibility! 😆

 

[klasma]

A $10,000 Dell workstation purchased in 2017 cannot run Windows 11, which came out in 2021, only 4 years later.

But at least Windows 10 LTSC exists, which has support until 2032. And failing that, you can install Linux without issues.

Hardware nowadays lasts 10-15 years without problems and is still fast enough for most use cases. Platforms that artificially restrict the software that can run on them is a real issue, capitalism over sustainability.

 

[cjsuk]

Well this is a fun thread.

We simply don't know what Apple's support status is going to be for the ARM machines. There isn't any data to infer that from. We can speculate only.

I will speculate based on observations:

• Apple were constrained by Intel's support cycle previously. That means any microcode or platform firmware problems were shelved because the vendor couldn't support them. This is now gone. Apple manage the entire stack.
• The hardware My iPhone 6s, which I just sold, had an iOS update in March 2025 after 9 years.

Thus I expect 8-9 years is more realistic.

I don't really want an 8-9 year old computer. You're throwing everything at the tail end of the electronic components MTTF cycle there. Every day is just a day you are lucky it still works.

 

[Fyrus]

I always enjoy reading the comments on these topics... so many people still hail Apple as a company that can do no wrong, but luckily it's just the people inside this MacRumors bubble.

Support for Macs is honestly just bad. Very capable machines get cut off of updates which wouldn't be that much of a problem if the browser that comes with it (safari) could be updated individually. But no, Apple for some insane reason decided to link safari to the OS. Causing many people to have to download another browser which most of the time have a negative impact on these Macs which were mostly sold with a low amount of RAM.

It's insane that a company claiming to be green, or at least focused on becoming green, is fine with just letting these devices become e-waste. While with all their internal documentation it wouldn't even be that hard to support these systems for way longer, OpenCore does it without any official documentation.

 

[cjsuk]

But at least Windows 10 LTSC exists, which has support until 2032. And failing that, you can install Linux without issues.

Hardware nowadays lasts 10-15 years without problems and is still fast enough for most use cases. Platforms that artificially restrict the software that can run on them is a real issue, capitalism over sustainability.

Actually this is definitely not true. This is survivor bias. They don't generally last 10-15 years. Some hardware lasts that long but the majority seems to crap out after about 3-4 years from experience. That's from a 500 machine sample size, not just a couple of them. We're talking 70%+ failure rate. And occasionally you get bad stuff like the Surface tabs we had which seems to have a very sharp failure window of 18-20 months.

The parts the things are made out of have limited lifespan initially as well. For example your average capacitor in the power supply in the screen or PC case, even the best ones, has an expected failure rate of nearly 100% within 7 years at half its rated temperature. You're at the mercy of probability after a point.

 

[cjsuk]

I always enjoy reading the comments on these topics... so many people still hail Apple as a company that can do no wrong, but luckily it's just the people inside this MacRumors bubble.

Support for Macs is honestly just bad. Very capable machines get cut off of updates which wouldn't be that much of a problem if the browser that comes with it (safari) could be updated individually. But no, Apple for some insane reason decided to link safari to the OS. Causing many people to have to download another browser which most of the time have a negative impact on these Macs which were mostly sold with a low amount of RAM.

It's insane that a company claiming to be green, or at least focused on becoming green, is fine with just letting these devices become e-waste. While with all their internal documentation it wouldn't even be that hard to support these systems for way longer, OpenCore does it without any official documentation.

It's not just Apple. It's everyone.

There's 20x as much Lenovo, Dell, HP, Acer trash out there which failed quickly due to being put together out of Shenzhen scrap. I would like some ire directed at Microsoft for abandoning support for a lot of PCs with windows 11.

I agree with RAM/storage upgrades though - that needs to get sorted.

 

[Fyrus]

Apple is in the business of making money. Support for obsolete hardware costs money, and does not make any money. There is very little incentive to offer such support, especially considering that such a tiny minority of the users actually ask for it. Personally, I would much prefer Apple spends resources fixing the current releases, rather than maintaining ancient releases.



Ubuntu LTS (long term support) releases are supported for five years, and ten years if you subscribe to Ubuntu Pro.



Exactly. The whole point of these distributions is to extend the life of hardware that has been abandoned by everyone else. NetBSD for example still mostly runs on both 68k and PPC Macs, and of course Intel, as does various variants of Chimera, Adélie and Gentoo Linux, but this is of course something very different compared to vendor-supported hardware.

That said, a few years ago I looked into modern Linux distributions that I could use on my PowerMac 9600 from 1997, and concluded that the normal suspects, including MkLinux, Debian and Yellow Dog, are either no longer maintained, or no longer support Old World ROMs.

You'd think that that for a $9540 machine (in 2025 dollars) someone should take some responsibility! 😆

tiny minority? Everyone I know who owns MacBooks and iMacs from around 2012-1015 are insanely annoyed by Apple just cutting support. I think 80% of them decided their replacement to be a windows pc. Especially people who bought a 5K iMac are disgusted by Apple, who is (or claims to be) so environmentally focused, turning their beautiful displays into a pretty useless machine.

It's why you can get these 5k iMacs secondhand for cheaper than you can get some used 2k monitors.

 

[Fyrus]

It's not just Apple. It's everyone.

There's 20x as much Lenovo, Dell, HP, Acer trash out there which failed quickly due to being put together out of Shenzhen scrap. I would like some ire directed at Microsoft for abandoning support for a lot of PCs with windows 11.

I agree with RAM/storage upgrades though - that needs to get sorted.

But the big difference is Apple's claim being focussed on saving the environment. They attract people who are willing to pay extra in order to be part of a better, cleaner world. Artificially limiting these machines by just not supporting them anymore goes against everything they claim to be. Even if other companies are worse, they aren't screaming of the rooftops how "green" they are like Apple does.


People just feel like Apple is just making decisions based on making more money, we all know that's what companies do but when your costumers start to feel like everything is just a scheme to make more money... that's a problem.


The chargers not being in the first iPhones that shipped with a usb-c cable is another example, they claimed to do it because of the environment, because everybody had chargers already. People got annoyed because they shipped a new cable with a connector they didn't have a charger for, just to sell them another charger, causing more packaging, more shipping etc. etc.

Apple just isn't as green as they claim to be which causes people to become disappointed/annoyed/angry.

 

[cjsuk]

But the big difference is Apple's claim being focussed on saving the environment. They attract people who are willing to pay extra in order to be part of a better, cleaner world. Artificially limiting these machines by just not supporting them anymore goes against everything they claim to be. Even if other companies are worse, they aren't screaming of the rooftops how "green" they are like Apple does.


People just feel like Apple is just making decisions based on making more money, we all know that's what companies do but when your costumers start to feel like everything is just a scheme to make more money... that's a problem.


The chargers not being in the first iPhones that shipped with a usb-c cable is another example, they claimed to do it because of the environment, because everybody had chargers already. People got annoyed because they shipped a new cable with a connector they didn't have a charger for, just to sell them another charger, causing more packaging, more shipping etc. etc.

Apple just isn't as green as they claim to be which causes people to become disappointed/annoyed/angry.

They are making them out of recycled and recyclable materials. That's the pitch. There isn't anything about support. Also try even getting 3 years out of Lenovo even as a paid customer. They just don't even have any parts any more and take your laptop and give you a new one. And we don't know about the ARM machines yet. There isn't any data.

The shipping without a charger thing was a good bet. They managed to get more phones per consignment. That means less marine / air traffic which was the idea. That is both saving money and reducing waste.

I just emptied my drawer of unused chargers for example....

 

[maflynn]

@staypuftforums
I think you're misinformed in how the computer industry works. Dell supports their hardware about 5 years, HP's lifespan is 7 years. Apple had to draw the line somewhere, and 7 years for a piece of technoloy that changes often isn't unheard of.

Just look at Microsoft and the bloatedness that is windows, it has to support old devices to the point where stability and performance is an issue. That will be macos if apple is to start supporting older hardware.

 

[weckart]

The only thing that could help is releasing major OS updates less often.

Please. All this yearly merry-go-round encourages is featuritis and bloat at the expense of finesse and bug fixing.

I buy new base-level Macs with the understanding that I'll keep them 4-5 years, then upgrade. Seven years of security and OS updates seems very reasonable to me for that occasion when I might keep one beyond that point.

I think most would accept that but it only works if you buy new hardware at launch - which can be a risk in itself as you become a beta tester for new iterations of BT, WiFi etc. If you are a business and need to buy at a certain point because you cannot wait for the forthcoming shiny new product, you lose a bit of support time. That can be quite a bit if your product doesn't make the yearly upgrade cycle, which happened latterly with Intel. It's all on Apple now as it makes its own hardware pretty much.

I would like some ire directed at Microsoft for abandoning support for a lot of PCs with windows 11.

Microsoft felt more than just a bit of ire, but a Mac board isn't really the place to see it. It worked. You no longer need a TP2 chip to install Windows 11. It seems to be deinnovating some of the "improvements" introduced into the Windows 11 desktop following feedback from users as well.

 

[Alameda]

I agree at least security fixes should be supported longer than 7 years.

It’s ironic that apple’s generally solid and reliable hardware benefit is negated by software updates, or a lack of.

But can’t you buy third party anti-malware software for older machines?

The lack of these patches doesn’t stop the machine from running. They still run.

 

[Circa1984]

The products don’t self destruct and can still be used. After 7 years Apple deems them ‘obsolete’ (by then you are 7 generations behind on the CPU), in which case you typically cannot upgrade to the latest OS. In my experience there are still security updates that follow for about 3 more years. For a total of 10 years give or take a year. Trust me, you don’t want to be using a 10 year old computer.

 

[nexx27]

Can’t agree more…

planned obsolescence… even though HW is capable, let’s restrict the SW so people have no choice, also lets use a proprietary chip so no linux, and also lets make ram and ssd non upgradable! Checkmate!

And humans: ok let’s accept that, we are all stupid and abusable. Some of us even defend a trillionaire company stealing like that!

Primates must be laughing from us…

 

[maflynn]

let’s restrict the SW so people have no choice, also lets use a proprietary chip so no linux, and also lets make ram and ssd non upgradable!

Software isn't restricted, you can run software from anywhere, be it steam, a developer's website, your own software. How is Apple restricting you? With the iPhone you cannot side-load apps, but macos, you have the control. Where is there no choice?

ARM is not proprietary, its being used in more and more devices, from phones, to handheld game devices, to windows machines.

You can also run Linux on a Mac, there's Asahi Linux which runs natively.

As for ram, they're not the only ones integrating ram into the CPU and/or logic/mother board. Also When was the last time a consumer upgraded their ram? Yes, it was a thing in the 1990s, but even then the people who actually upgraded their ram was probably a small minority compared to those who bought the machines.

At the end of the day, we have options, choices, and alternatives, in software, hardware, and operating systems.

 

[smirking]

Trust me, you don’t want to be using a 10 year old computer.

Other points well taken, but we should stop badgering people who don't need anything more than an older computer.

The computing needs of a good chunk of the world was met over a decade ago. For them, nothing interesting has happened since. Give them an 8GB any-processor with 128GB storage and they're good to go indefinitely.

My computer is always up to date, but my TV is almost 20 years old. It does everything I need it to do. It only gets turned on a few times a year.

 

[redheeler]

Apple actively works to sabotage and obsolete older OS versions by releasing incompatible versions of apps like Xcode and iMovie even during the period those OS versions still receive security updates. This bugs me more than simply not being able to run the latest OS version. It’s beyond frustrating to not be able to open your iMovie project because it was “saved by a newer version of iMovie” which doesn’t work on your OS.

Regardless of how long a PC manufacturer decides to support its hardware, you don’t have this problem of things becoming incompatible so quickly with the Linux or Windows software. This is a Mac-specific problem which Apple can do something about.

 

[smirking]

Apple actively works to sabotage and obsolete older OS versions by releasing incompatible versions of apps like Xcode and iMovie even during the period those OS versions still receive security updates.

It may feel like it, but it's not likely that they're doing that to sabotage you.

Speaking as a developer and an XCode user, lots of tools have a crap-ton of external dependencies. Getting stuff to work on one version of hardware is already hard enough. Making tools that themselves have to keep up with changing standards while remaining compatible with older standards whose support may be getting phased out independently is really really difficult.

 

[racerhomie]

Apple actually does 7-8 years of OS updates, and 3 additional years of Security Updates. So it’s 10-11 years of support.
Even then, the software existing currently won’t stop working after the next one comes out.

 

[redheeler]

I seriously doubt they're doing that just to sabotage you. As a developer and an XCode user, lots of tools have a crap-ton of external dependencies. Getting stuff to work on one version of hardware is already hard enough. Keeping tools that themselves have to keep up with changing standards compatible with older standards while also complying with new ones is really really difficult.

If the APIs are designed in a smart way, they aren’t being rewritten with every major OS release, and backporting just the needed components is possible.

API changes happen, but having to write a shim isn’t the end of the world. Many indie developers have backported complex open-source apps without the resources of a company the size of Apple. My favorite example is TenFourFox.

 

[oldmacs]

I’ll bite…

How long should Apple support their hardware?

For as long as the software can run.

2012 era Macs can run Sequoia reasonably well (and that's just off the back of hobbyists, it would run better with official support).

I've said it a million times before, but if Apple actually wants to care for the environment, extending the life of their devices through proper long term software support would be a good place to start.

 

[nathansz]

Most appliances come with a one or two year warranty. When you look at it that way, seven years is pretty good.