[madars]

It's fine for a vendor to completely abandon 10 year old hardware but if you can still pay 30% App Store tax/pay for iCloud/etc, the security fixes should be backported as well. The current situation is charging full price for inferior (or maybe even dangerous) product: Apple wants to have its cake and eat it too.

[leetcrew]

I don't totally follow this argument. the 30% app store commission, iCloud subscription, etc. does not only fund security fixes for the OS and core services. I don't think the average consumer thinks that's what they're paying for either. waiving the fee for EOL'd devices would create a perverse incentive of its own.

I do wish apple would follow google's example and commit to a service lifetime upfront, but other than that, I don't object to their model. in practice, it vastly exceeds the level of support for any android phone other than the pixel 8, and we have yet to see whether google actually follows through on that.

[Closi]

Also it means that at some point, Apple would have to actively block some legacy devices from using iCloud, app store, apple music, any app with subscrpitions etc which would effectively make the device pretty useless.

[wtallis]

Are you really saying Apple should actively break interoperability with old software?

[madars]

They should stop charging 30% App Store tax for an inferior product at the very least.

[wtallis]

App Store purchases aren't tied to a particular device; you can buy an app on an old device and keep using it when you get a newer device. Do you have a coherent, reasonable suggestion for how Apple could modify their business model without completely breaking it, or are you just desperate to shoehorn complaints about the App Store fees into the conversation?

[madars]

Easy: offer a discount if purchase is made on an unsupported device, just like how grocery stores offer discounts for food that's about to expire.

I don't think there is a real concern about app store economics collapsing, the app marketplace business is very lucrative. We can see this in related cases: you can avoid certain iOS taxes by purchasing your subscriptions on the web: Twitter Blue is $11 on iOS and $8 on the web. Spotify used to be $12.99 for iOS sign-ups and $9.99 on the web.

Why should users pay full bundled iOS tax that supports security updates, if they are getting none?

[wtallis]

> Why should users pay full bundled iOS tax that supports security updates,

I don't think I've ever seen someone express the expectation that Apple's App Store fees are for the purpose of supporting iOS development and maintenance. Mostly I've seen and heard the expectation that those fees are connected to running the App Store itself (payment processing, hosting, app review, etc.) and beyond that, vague profiteering. iOS itself isn't a subscription service, and Apple seems quite happy to sell you devices even if you don't spend money in the App Store. So you seem to be stretching a bit by attributing those fees to iOS maintenance and then turning around to say that unsupported iOS versions should get a discount on the fees for any services that still work.

[8n4vidtmkvmk]

Your purchases carry forward to newer devices, no? If nothing else, people would keep an older device just to make purchases and then install it on their newer iPhone.

[mrcarruthers]

They're not charging you, the user that 30%. They're charging the developer. Yes that does trickle down to you in the developer's pricing, but, in this instance, a phone no longer receiving security updates is not an inferior product from the point of view of the transaction in question.

[gghffguhvc]

15% for the vast majority of developers and apps FWIW.

[gnicholas]

Probably true, but is it the same for the vast majority of the app revenue? Quite possibly not.

[kaba0]

Why exactly? Does petrol get cheaper for an old car that barely works?

[rrdharan]

What does this mean? The App Store fees are paid by the developers / vendors. Are you saying they should pay less proportionate to the number of times their apps are downloaded to older devices?

[JumpCrisscross]

> What does this mean?

It means they’re shoehorning another issue into this discussion.

[slaymaker1907]

I think it’s a completely valid point. Apple is still making (potentially a lot) of money off these old devices yet isn’t willing to fully support them. It seems very unethical.

[schiffern]

  > seems very unethical

I agree. Clearly Apple should do the only ethical thing and immediately ban all unsupported devices from new App Store purchases.

When Apple announces this (very ethical) policy change, I expect you to full-throatedly defend Apple from the mass shrieking cries of "but muh planned obsolescence!!" Right? Right?? ;-)

In fact, one could argue it's also "very unethical" for Apple to (negligently) allow someone to use a potentially unsafe or hackable product. To be maximally ethical, Apple should be remotely bricking any Apple device the day it loses security support. Better to be on the safe ("ethical") side and remote wipe too, to protect people's data privacy.

Can you see how Argument From I Merely Assert XYZ Is Unethical Then Demand Some Arbitrary Relief can quickly break down?

[judge2020]

iOS 12 was released September 2018 and

> iOS 12.5.7

> Released January 23, 2023

https://support.apple.com/en-us/103015

[scarface_74]

So theoretically - and I tried this a couple of years ago - I could still download the “last compatible version” of an app if it’s available on the store for my old 2010 iPad 1st generation running iOS 5.

This device had 256Mb RAM and 400Mhz 32 bit processor. Should Apple still support this with security updates?