True. but the 3G wasn't a currently selling model when iOS 4 came out, and it was still supported. Same with the original iPhone and iOS 3.
While the 3G received iOS4 it was a total disaster. The performance was abismal and it made the phone almost unusable. It would have been better if the 3G never received iOS4.
If the 3GS gets iOS6 then I hope they optimize the OS for it.
Data is NOT forced on PAYG plans in the U.S., either--at least not on AT&T. I have a voice only plan with AT&T Gophone that, in fact, I use with an iPhone 3GS. So I am very interested in hearing about IOS 6 tomorrow.
Lest, anyone think I am doing anything sneaky, AT&T knows very well that I am using an iPhone on Gophone. In fact, precisely because I have a smartphone on its prepaid, it requires me to choose between a expensive monthly voice and date plan or no data. I have opted to rely on wifi alone.
Yeah, if they are supporting the iPhone 3GS, it makes little sense to not support the third-gen iPod Touch since it's essentially the same hardware so it'd be minimal effort. ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by THEMAC1NT0SH
Then why can't the third-gen iPod Touch it's basically the same thing.
Both these guys are implying that Apple's (presumed) lack of support is some kind of plot, and this guy ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun, UK
... it makes sense to support the new 5th Generation model and the previous 4th Generation model to encourage 3rd Generation users to upgrade.
Upgrades = more revenue. It's a simple business decision. Keep the product churn going. Encourage users to upgrade at least every 2 or 3 years to get the latest OS.
Is explicitly stating as much.
But it's worth mentioning that despite these kinds of conspiracy theories and despite the rantings of arch capitalists about it "all being about the money," there is no actual record of Apple ever doing this, or ever playing the game of not supporting older products that are able to receive a software update. There is no reason for Apple to screw over it's customers "for the money" or "to encourage them to upgrade" or any such thing and they have never done this.
Every single time this kind of thing is raised, it always turns out weeks later (when no one remembers of course), that the reason that product a, b, or c wasn't supported was actually hardware related, completely rational and in fact, unavoidable.
if Apple doesn't support a particular model with this next OS, you can practically bet on the fact that there is a good, hardware related reason not to do so, whether we are currently aware of the reason or not.
It's NOT free on pre-paid PAYG plans you idiot. Maybe you should engage your brain before your mouth once in a while.
China + India = 2.5 Billion people = Huge sales potential for PAYG phones = Lots of money = Why they will continue to sell the 3GS
Quote:
Originally Posted by iVince
I interpreted his reply as the 3GS is already free to have on a monthly plan (as is the iPhone 4), so why would Apple expect customers to pay for the same inferior 3 year old phone on PAYG with a (likely sub-optimised iOS 6 running off it). He kind of has a point.
What part of "2.5 billion" don't you understand? World markets ain't just USA, Japan, Western Europe any more. (Actually, last I checked, all those places were in trouble while the rest of the world is still seeing 5-10% economic growth)
Cook is squeezing every bit of value out of the old 3GS, which must cost peanuts to manufacture by this point. (Low-res screen, lower end cameras, cpu, wireless, battery) Then using it to make sure that Apple competes in all markets in the world, except for the very lowest, and maintains market share. All while making a tidy profit in the process.
Also, booyah, Safari 6. 5.2 is dandy, but if they're jumping a whole number then they must be adding something good.
I'd love more integration with my Apple ID. Probably would be the only thing that would get me to switch back from Chrome.
I love how Chrome integrates my Google ID (gmail account) into the App so I can always have my information, bookmarks, email, calendars, notes, etc. anywhere when I login with my Google ID. That's really all Safari is missing to more fully integrate the User experience. They are just about the same speed/functionality as Chrome otherwise. Additionally, I'd like to see the search and Address windows combined like Chrome.
On the Flipside, the one thing Chrome could use is something like Safari's "Reader" function.
Well, if the rumors are true, it makes me very comfortable about buying an iPhone and very uncomfortable about buying an iPad. The iPhone has the great virtue of being something that stays on the market for a long time, as it gradually migrates down the price points. Not so the iPad. In general I wish Apple would be more communicative about setting out some general parameters for roadmaps of their products. (For exhibit A on this, see "Mac Pro")
But it's worth mentioning that despite these kinds of conspiracy theories and despite the rantings of arch capitalists about it "all being about the money," there is no actual record of Apple ever doing this, or ever playing the game of not supporting older products that are able to receive a software update. There is no reason for Apple to screw over it's customers "for the money" or "to encourage them to upgrade" or any such thing and they have never done this.
Obviously Apple orphans systems to encourage upgrades, as well as to simplify their support burden. This is observably true in the many instances when an "unsupported" system update is enabled by hacks which just bypass the system ID check.
On the other hand, Apple is generally much better on this score than many of its competitors, e.g. the Android handset makers who orphan half their phones the day they're sold.
Well, if the rumors are true, it makes me very comfortable about buying an iPhone and very uncomfortable about buying an iPad. The iPhone has the great virtue of being something that stays on the market for a long time, as it gradually migrates down the price points. Not so the iPad. In general I wish Apple would be more communicative about setting out some general parameters for roadmaps of their products. (For exhibit A on this, see "Mac Pro")
If they did, would there be so much excitement over their product announcements?
But it's worth mentioning that despite these kinds of conspiracy theories and despite the rantings of arch capitalists about it "all being about the money," there is no actual record of Apple ever doing this, or ever playing the game of not supporting older products that are able to receive a software update. There is no reason for Apple to screw over it's customers "for the money" or "to encourage them to upgrade" or any such thing and they have never done this.
Every single time this kind of thing is raised, it always turns out weeks later (when no one remembers of course), that the reason that product a, b, or c wasn't supported was actually hardware related, completely rational and in fact, unavoidable.
if Apple doesn't support a particular model with this next OS, you can practically bet on the fact that there is a good, hardware related reason not to do so, whether we are currently aware of the reason or not.
You might want to say this unavoidable to mac pro users of pre 2008 machines most of which are perfectly capable of mountain lion and won't be getting it cause apple can't be bothered to write a few more drivers...
Also the hardware argument is spurious. If apple decide that gen. 1 ipad is good enough with 128mb of ram, and then the fanbois go, it's not about the specks, it's optimized because apple create both hardware and software, blah, blah, no wonder less than a couple of years later the then current ios 5 runs like shit on it. Apple aims at planned obsoletion of their products so people buy more, period.
You might want to say this unavoidable to mac pro users of pre 2008 machines most of which are perfectly capable of mountain lion and won't be getting it cause apple can't be bothered to write a few more drivers...
Also the hardware argument is spurious. If apple decide that gen. 1 ipad is good enough with 128mb of ram, and then the fanbois go, it's not about the specks, it's optimized because apple create both hardware and software, blah, blah, no wonder less than a couple of years later the then current ios 5 runs like shit on it. Apple aims at planned obsoletion of their products so people buy more, period.
Nothing personal, but this sounds like a load of personal stuff you have about Apple and not based on any actual facts.
My point was only that I haven't ever heard of any proof or evidence that Apple acts in this way that everyone immediately assumes they act when it turns out they don't support their favourite piece of hardware. Apple is not "about the money" it's more about the product. If a piece of hardware is not supported it always (100% of the time) turns out to be the case that if it was supported, it would run like crap or the experience would be severely compromised in some specific way.
People just want to pretend that they know more than the engineers at Apple, or that because they don't care about the compromises, no one else should. They act like armchair quarterbacks while at the same time telegraphing that very fact. They state here that the iPod hardware is "basically" or "almost" the same thing which is in fact quite telling, because it lets us know that even they are quite aware that it's not actually the same hardware.
There are differences in the hardware. It's as simple as that.
They aren't letting you have the software update because it wouldn't work or wouldn't work in the same (acceptable) way as it would on the other devices. As I said, AFAIK there isn't a single substantiated, factual case where this wasn't true and instead the conspiracy theories of the disgruntled people who didn't get the software update was true instead.
Obviously Apple orphans systems to encourage upgrades, as well as to simplify their support burden. This is observably true in the many instances when an "unsupported" system update is enabled by hacks which just bypass the system ID check.
On the other hand, Apple is generally much better on this score than many of its competitors, e.g. the Android handset makers who orphan half their phones the day they're sold.
Well, I just don't think you have any actual proof of this beyond the simple act of saying it. Your argument also revolves completely around the definition of "works." Changing the ID of a system to make a piece of software *run* on it, is not the same thing as saying it works on that device.
My argument is that it wouldn't run "acceptably" or in the manner that Apple wants it to run, and with the performance they want it to have, with all the various features intact etc. I can make Lion run on all kinds of computers, that doesn't mean they should be on the supported list or that a user of one of those machines is actually even getting the "lion experience."
I don't suppose we will ever agree on this as it's one of those "engineer vs. designer" things. An engineer would say that if it's possible to get it to run on the device then it's running on the device, a designer would not agree. It's perfectly valid IMO (and obviously in Apple's as well), to require a certain level of performance and features before it's said to be "running" or workable on one device or another.
I do believe that 3GS will get iOS6 support, but it won't be around after iPhone 6th generation launch as iPhone 4 will take its place as the free iPhone with a 2 year contract.
What doesn't make sense is why they wouldn't support the original iPad, as the hardware inside is nearly identical to that of the 3GS.
Actually, isn't the originaliPad more like the iPhone 4? Don't they have the same A4 processor only the iPhone 4 is 800 MHz and the iPad is 1 ghz? True the iPhone 4 has 512 MB vs only 256 in the original iPad.
But the 3GS has the older Samsung A8 right and only 256 RAM. I can't see them supporting the older hardware and not the newer hardware.
Comments
The only one?
You need to have a wider perspective.
Shaun UK makes some great points.
The list of identified links pretty much rules out the "iPhone 5", huh?
it rules out the fact that an iPhone 5 will be released with old software and need to be updated to iOS 6, yes
Quote:
Originally Posted by ttollerton
The list of identified links pretty much rules out the "iPhone 5", huh?
Considering that phone doesn't exist yet, I'd say that's a pretty safe bet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hittrj01
True. but the 3G wasn't a currently selling model when iOS 4 came out, and it was still supported. Same with the original iPhone and iOS 3.
While the 3G received iOS4 it was a total disaster. The performance was abismal and it made the phone almost unusable. It would have been better if the 3G never received iOS4.
If the 3GS gets iOS6 then I hope they optimize the OS for it.
How come there is no new MoLo preview? Ready for sale?
Data is NOT forced on PAYG plans in the U.S., either--at least not on AT&T. I have a voice only plan with AT&T Gophone that, in fact, I use with an iPhone 3GS. So I am very interested in hearing about IOS 6 tomorrow.
Lest, anyone think I am doing anything sneaky, AT&T knows very well that I am using an iPhone on Gophone. In fact, precisely because I have a smartphone on its prepaid, it requires me to choose between a expensive monthly voice and date plan or no data. I have opted to rely on wifi alone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ltcommander.data
Yeah, if they are supporting the iPhone 3GS, it makes little sense to not support the third-gen iPod Touch since it's essentially the same hardware so it'd be minimal effort. ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by THEMAC1NT0SH
Then why can't the third-gen iPod Touch it's basically the same thing.
Both these guys are implying that Apple's (presumed) lack of support is some kind of plot, and this guy ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun, UK
... it makes sense to support the new 5th Generation model and the previous 4th Generation model to encourage 3rd Generation users to upgrade.
Upgrades = more revenue. It's a simple business decision. Keep the product churn going. Encourage users to upgrade at least every 2 or 3 years to get the latest OS.
Is explicitly stating as much.
But it's worth mentioning that despite these kinds of conspiracy theories and despite the rantings of arch capitalists about it "all being about the money," there is no actual record of Apple ever doing this, or ever playing the game of not supporting older products that are able to receive a software update. There is no reason for Apple to screw over it's customers "for the money" or "to encourage them to upgrade" or any such thing and they have never done this.
Every single time this kind of thing is raised, it always turns out weeks later (when no one remembers of course), that the reason that product a, b, or c wasn't supported was actually hardware related, completely rational and in fact, unavoidable.
if Apple doesn't support a particular model with this next OS, you can practically bet on the fact that there is a good, hardware related reason not to do so, whether we are currently aware of the reason or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun, UK
It's NOT free on pre-paid PAYG plans you idiot. Maybe you should engage your brain before your mouth once in a while.
China + India = 2.5 Billion people = Huge sales potential for PAYG phones = Lots of money = Why they will continue to sell the 3GS
Quote:
Originally Posted by iVince
I interpreted his reply as the 3GS is already free to have on a monthly plan (as is the iPhone 4), so why would Apple expect customers to pay for the same inferior 3 year old phone on PAYG with a (likely sub-optimised iOS 6 running off it). He kind of has a point.
What part of "2.5 billion" don't you understand? World markets ain't just USA, Japan, Western Europe any more. (Actually, last I checked, all those places were in trouble while the rest of the world is still seeing 5-10% economic growth)
Cook is squeezing every bit of value out of the old 3GS, which must cost peanuts to manufacture by this point. (Low-res screen, lower end cameras, cpu, wireless, battery) Then using it to make sure that Apple competes in all markets in the world, except for the very lowest, and maintains market share. All while making a tidy profit in the process.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Also, booyah, Safari 6. 5.2 is dandy, but if they're jumping a whole number then they must be adding something good.
I'd love more integration with my Apple ID. Probably would be the only thing that would get me to switch back from Chrome.
I love how Chrome integrates my Google ID (gmail account) into the App so I can always have my information, bookmarks, email, calendars, notes, etc. anywhere when I login with my Google ID. That's really all Safari is missing to more fully integrate the User experience. They are just about the same speed/functionality as Chrome otherwise. Additionally, I'd like to see the search and Address windows combined like Chrome.
On the Flipside, the one thing Chrome could use is something like Safari's "Reader" function.
Well, if the rumors are true, it makes me very comfortable about buying an iPhone and very uncomfortable about buying an iPad. The iPhone has the great virtue of being something that stays on the market for a long time, as it gradually migrates down the price points. Not so the iPad. In general I wish Apple would be more communicative about setting out some general parameters for roadmaps of their products. (For exhibit A on this, see "Mac Pro")
Quote:
But it's worth mentioning that despite these kinds of conspiracy theories and despite the rantings of arch capitalists about it "all being about the money," there is no actual record of Apple ever doing this, or ever playing the game of not supporting older products that are able to receive a software update. There is no reason for Apple to screw over it's customers "for the money" or "to encourage them to upgrade" or any such thing and they have never done this.
Obviously Apple orphans systems to encourage upgrades, as well as to simplify their support burden. This is observably true in the many instances when an "unsupported" system update is enabled by hacks which just bypass the system ID check.
On the other hand, Apple is generally much better on this score than many of its competitors, e.g. the Android handset makers who orphan half their phones the day they're sold.
Quote:
Originally Posted by photoeditor
Well, if the rumors are true, it makes me very comfortable about buying an iPhone and very uncomfortable about buying an iPad. The iPhone has the great virtue of being something that stays on the market for a long time, as it gradually migrates down the price points. Not so the iPad. In general I wish Apple would be more communicative about setting out some general parameters for roadmaps of their products. (For exhibit A on this, see "Mac Pro")
If they did, would there be so much excitement over their product announcements?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
Is explicitly stating as much.
But it's worth mentioning that despite these kinds of conspiracy theories and despite the rantings of arch capitalists about it "all being about the money," there is no actual record of Apple ever doing this, or ever playing the game of not supporting older products that are able to receive a software update. There is no reason for Apple to screw over it's customers "for the money" or "to encourage them to upgrade" or any such thing and they have never done this.
Every single time this kind of thing is raised, it always turns out weeks later (when no one remembers of course), that the reason that product a, b, or c wasn't supported was actually hardware related, completely rational and in fact, unavoidable.
if Apple doesn't support a particular model with this next OS, you can practically bet on the fact that there is a good, hardware related reason not to do so, whether we are currently aware of the reason or not.
You might want to say this unavoidable to mac pro users of pre 2008 machines most of which are perfectly capable of mountain lion and won't be getting it cause apple can't be bothered to write a few more drivers...
Also the hardware argument is spurious. If apple decide that gen. 1 ipad is good enough with 128mb of ram, and then the fanbois go, it's not about the specks, it's optimized because apple create both hardware and software, blah, blah, no wonder less than a couple of years later the then current ios 5 runs like shit on it. Apple aims at planned obsoletion of their products so people buy more, period.
Quote:
Originally Posted by saarek
Makes complete sense, as it's a current selling product there'd be an uproar if it could not run iOS 6!
What doesn't make sense is why they wouldn't support the original iPad, as the hardware inside is nearly identical to that of the 3GS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by myapplelove
You might want to say this unavoidable to mac pro users of pre 2008 machines most of which are perfectly capable of mountain lion and won't be getting it cause apple can't be bothered to write a few more drivers...
Also the hardware argument is spurious. If apple decide that gen. 1 ipad is good enough with 128mb of ram, and then the fanbois go, it's not about the specks, it's optimized because apple create both hardware and software, blah, blah, no wonder less than a couple of years later the then current ios 5 runs like shit on it. Apple aims at planned obsoletion of their products so people buy more, period.
Nothing personal, but this sounds like a load of personal stuff you have about Apple and not based on any actual facts.
My point was only that I haven't ever heard of any proof or evidence that Apple acts in this way that everyone immediately assumes they act when it turns out they don't support their favourite piece of hardware. Apple is not "about the money" it's more about the product. If a piece of hardware is not supported it always (100% of the time) turns out to be the case that if it was supported, it would run like crap or the experience would be severely compromised in some specific way.
People just want to pretend that they know more than the engineers at Apple, or that because they don't care about the compromises, no one else should. They act like armchair quarterbacks while at the same time telegraphing that very fact. They state here that the iPod hardware is "basically" or "almost" the same thing which is in fact quite telling, because it lets us know that even they are quite aware that it's not actually the same hardware.
There are differences in the hardware. It's as simple as that.
They aren't letting you have the software update because it wouldn't work or wouldn't work in the same (acceptable) way as it would on the other devices. As I said, AFAIK there isn't a single substantiated, factual case where this wasn't true and instead the conspiracy theories of the disgruntled people who didn't get the software update was true instead.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hypercommunist
Obviously Apple orphans systems to encourage upgrades, as well as to simplify their support burden. This is observably true in the many instances when an "unsupported" system update is enabled by hacks which just bypass the system ID check.
On the other hand, Apple is generally much better on this score than many of its competitors, e.g. the Android handset makers who orphan half their phones the day they're sold.
Well, I just don't think you have any actual proof of this beyond the simple act of saying it. Your argument also revolves completely around the definition of "works." Changing the ID of a system to make a piece of software *run* on it, is not the same thing as saying it works on that device.
My argument is that it wouldn't run "acceptably" or in the manner that Apple wants it to run, and with the performance they want it to have, with all the various features intact etc. I can make Lion run on all kinds of computers, that doesn't mean they should be on the supported list or that a user of one of those machines is actually even getting the "lion experience."
I don't suppose we will ever agree on this as it's one of those "engineer vs. designer" things. An engineer would say that if it's possible to get it to run on the device then it's running on the device, a designer would not agree. It's perfectly valid IMO (and obviously in Apple's as well), to require a certain level of performance and features before it's said to be "running" or workable on one device or another.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
How do we know these links even exist if they're not active? You can type anything you want and have it look like a URL.
This is the first I'm hearing of first-gen iPad support, particularly since it has been missing the last few days.
Also, booyah, Safari 6. 5.2 is dandy, but if they're jumping a whole number then they must be adding something good.
Why the hell wouldn't it be supported? Now the iPhone 3GS, sure I can see that being nixed but not the iPad.
Safari 6 should be the full debut of WebKit 2.
Actually, isn't the originaliPad more like the iPhone 4? Don't they have the same A4 processor only the iPhone 4 is 800 MHz and the iPad is 1 ghz? True the iPhone 4 has 512 MB vs only 256 in the original iPad.
But the 3GS has the older Samsung A8 right and only 256 RAM. I can't see them supporting the older hardware and not the newer hardware.
Doesn't make sense to me.