Apple restricts online Apple Store access to newer versions of Safari and macOS

Posted:
in General Discussion edited June 14
In a move presumably designed to protect customers from potential online threats, Apple recently changed access requirements of its online store to restrict compatibility to more current versions of macOS and Safari.

Safari


The online Apple store now requires at least OS X 10.10.5 Yosemite or over and Safari version 10.1.2 or newer to access. Attempting to view the shopping domain within Apple.com using an older version of Safari or OS X results in an error message.

As noted by Mac Otakara, which stumbled onto the new requirement on Friday, Apple's webpage displays an "Unsupported Browser Version" message when using older Safari and Mac software.

Interestingly, a separate alert suggests third-party web browsers are completely unsupported when running iterations of OS X 10.10.

Attempting to access the online storefront from a legacy Yosemite build triggers a message instructing users to download the latest version of Chrome or Firefox. Yosemite-compliant iterations of the two browsers are already outdated, meaning Mac owners must update to a more recent operating system build like macOS 10.14 Mojave.

The minor change further protects customers from online threats by ensuring they are running the latest, most up-to-date operating system and web browser software.

Apple, long a stalwart of consumer privacy, has over the past year amplified efforts to secure its hardware and software offerings, including online services. The company will introduce a new slate of protections with iOS 13, iPadOS, macOS Catalina, watchOS 6 and tvOS 13 this fall, including internet-based utilities like Sign in with Apple.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 21
    chasmchasm Posts: 1,592member
    This seems like a good, security-motivated move. Yosemite was released nearly five years ago, so while I expect to see some complaints about this from the "#snowleopard4ever" crowd, it makes a lot of sense. Non-Safari browsers that are still supported by their creators are largely fine, unsupported versions aren't.
    bshank
  • Reply 2 of 21
    dempsondempson Posts: 54member
    This article has a few details wrong.

    1. Firefox 67.0.2 on OS X Yosemite 10.10.5 or OS X Mavericks 10.9.5 is accepted by the Apple online store.
    2. Chromium 75.0.3770.90 on OS X Yosemite 10.10.5 is accepted by the Apple online store. (I haven't tried Chrome but it should be the same.)
    3. Even though it is a year out of date, Chromium 67.0.3396.99 on OS X Mavericks 10.9.5 is accepted by the Apple online store.

    (Firefox still supports OS X Mavericks 10.9 and later; Chrome has required OS X Yosemite 10.10 or later since late June 2018.)

    The unsupported browser message does appear as described in Safari on OS X Mavericks and earlier, and in too old versions of Firefox and Chrome on any system.

    OS X Mountain Lion 10.8.5 is too old: the last supported versions of Safari, Firefox (49.5.0esr) and Chromium (49.0.2623.112) are rejected by the Apple online store.

    Therefore access the Apple online store from a Mac now requires OS X Mavericks or later if using a reasonably up to date Firefox or Chrome, or OS X Yosemite or later with Safari.

    On iOS devices, the Apple Store app now says it requires iOS 11 or later, which means it isn't available on devices with A6 or older processors that can't update past iOS 10 (iPhone 5/5c or earlier, iPad 4 or earlier, original iPad mini, iPod Touch 5 or earlier).
    edited June 14
  • Reply 3 of 21
    arthurbaarthurba Posts: 106member
    Ok - I’ve long had a gripe with this behaviour from Apple - it’s their Achilles Heel. 

    I first encountered it years ago with iTunes. Apple would release the latest iTunes and it would run on/support 7 year old Windows XP, but only run on the last 2 or 3 Mac OS X releases. 

    iTunes today is worse - the latest release will run only on Mojave, but it runs on Windows 8 (an 8 year old OS) just fine. 

    Now they block lock access to apple.com for 5 year old MacOS releases, but not 8 year old Windows releases. 

    Apple make their money from hardware - so they do everything in their power to get you to upgrade your hardware.  I get that - and I prefer it than buying from an advertising company who do everything in their power to get you to give up personal information and watch adverts.  But it’s the choice between two evils,  not the choice between good and bad. 

    If apple would just update the SSL libraries on those old MacOS releases then they would be secure for web browsing.
    mike54
  • Reply 4 of 21
    adamcadamc Posts: 573member
    arthurba said:
    Ok - I’ve long had a gripe with this behaviour from Apple - it’s their Achilles Heel. 

    I first encountered it years ago with iTunes. Apple would release the latest iTunes and it would run on/support 7 year old Windows XP, but only run on the last 2 or 3 Mac OS X releases. 

    iTunes today is worse - the latest release will run only on Mojave, but it runs on Windows 8 (an 8 year old OS) just fine. 

    Now they block lock access to apple.com for 5 year old MacOS releases, but not 8 year old Windows releases. 

    Apple make their money from hardware - so they do everything in their power to get you to upgrade your hardware.  I get that - and I prefer it than buying from an advertising company who do everything in their power to get you to give up personal information and watch adverts.  But it’s the choice between two evils,  not the choice between good and bad. 

    If apple would just update the SSL libraries on those old MacOS releases then they would be secure for web browsing.
    Time to move on dude like joining the MS windows revolution.
    pulseimagesRayz2016uraharaStrangeDays
  • Reply 5 of 21
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 4,652member
    arthurba said:
    Ok - I’ve long had a gripe with this behaviour from Apple - it’s their Achilles Heel. 

    I first encountered it years ago with iTunes. Apple would release the latest iTunes and it would run on/support 7 year old Windows XP, but only run on the last 2 or 3 Mac OS X releases. 

    iTunes today is worse - the latest release will run only on Mojave, but it runs on Windows 8 (an 8 year old OS) just fine. 

    Now they block lock access to apple.com for 5 year old MacOS releases, but not 8 year old Windows releases. 

    Apple make their money from hardware - so they do everything in their power to get you to upgrade your hardware.  I get that - and I prefer it than buying from an advertising company who do everything in their power to get you to give up personal information and watch adverts.  But it’s the choice between two evils,  not the choice between good and bad. 

    If apple would just update the SSL libraries on those old MacOS releases then they would be secure for web browsing.
    You folks just don’t give up do ya?
    pscooter63racerhomie3pulseimagesRayz2016uraharaStrangeDays
  • Reply 6 of 21
    mdossmdoss Posts: 21member
    chasm said:
    This seems like a good, security-motivated move. Yosemite was released nearly five years ago, so while I expect to see some complaints about this from the "#snowleopard4ever" crowd, it makes a lot of sense. Non-Safari browsers that are still supported by their creators are largely fine, unsupported versions aren't.
    I know a few people who are still running old machines that cannot support anything newer than Snow Leopard. They're happy with their machines since they still work well and serve their limited and/or specific requirements. Those people would be affected by this; but like you said, they could till use browsers other than Safari to get around this.

    Cheers
  • Reply 7 of 21
    > security-motivated move Or motivated by better ad-blocking plug-ins in older versions of Safari?
    Latko
  • Reply 8 of 21
    kipfinchkipfinch Posts: 1unconfirmed, member
    I have several "old" MAC's - all of which work fine however I can't do much with them now because of these sort of restrictions. Even browsing the web is challenging or nearly impossible. I get it's time to move on but gone are the days when Apple supported perfectly fine older equipment which is sad.
    mike54baconstangarthurba
  • Reply 9 of 21
    macxpressmacxpress Posts: 4,896member
    kipfinch said:
    I have several "old" MAC's - all of which work fine however I can't do much with them now because of these sort of restrictions. Even browsing the web is challenging or nearly impossible. I get it's time to move on but gone are the days when Apple supported perfectly fine older equipment which is sad.
    Just curious, when days were those? As far back as I remember, Apple has always been about pushing forward, not sticking to the past.

    And, jesus macOS Catalina supports down to a 2012 Mac...how fuckin far back do you want Apple to go? Thats 7yrs back! 

    Rayz2016uraharaStrangeDays
  • Reply 10 of 21
    majorslmajorsl Posts: 119unconfirmed, member
    sflocal said:
    arthurba said:
    Ok - I’ve long had a gripe with this behaviour from Apple - it’s their Achilles Heel. 

    I first encountered it years ago with iTunes. Apple would release the latest iTunes and it would run on/support 7 year old Windows XP, but only run on the last 2 or 3 Mac OS X releases. 

    iTunes today is worse - the latest release will run only on Mojave, but it runs on Windows 8 (an 8 year old OS) just fine. 

    Now they block lock access to apple.com for 5 year old MacOS releases, but not 8 year old Windows releases. 

    Apple make their money from hardware - so they do everything in their power to get you to upgrade your hardware.  I get that - and I prefer it than buying from an advertising company who do everything in their power to get you to give up personal information and watch adverts.  But it’s the choice between two evils,  not the choice between good and bad. 

    If apple would just update the SSL libraries on those old MacOS releases then they would be secure for web browsing.
    You folks just don’t give up do ya?
    Where is this user factually wrong?  I've run into this myself.

    I wonder about the ability to get older macOS releases up-to-date after an Internet Recovery, since you're likely to get the OS that came with the machine and not the newest that it is capable of supporting.  If you can't hit the App Store to get the latest OS you can run because your OS is too old after a restore, that kinda sucks.

    Obviously, most here are smart enough to keep a download of the full installer that can be made into a bootable USB, but the average person off the street might just give up.

    Do you have an idea about this to enlighten us and add productively to the discussion?
    p-dogarthurbachemengin1
  • Reply 11 of 21
    majorsl said:

    I wonder about the ability to get older macOS releases up-to-date after an Internet Recovery, since you're likely to get the OS that came with the machine and not the newest that it is capable of supporting.  If you can't hit the App Store to get the latest OS you can run because your OS is too old after a restore, that kinda sucks.

    Obviously, most here are smart enough to keep a download of the full installer that can be made into a bootable USB, but the average person off the street might just give up.

    Do you have an idea about this to enlighten us and add productively to the discussion?
    I have several machines multi booting OS X. So between 3 of them I have 10.1-10.14 , so every public version. Apple still offers the update downloads for all versions I can verify. As well as all versions available on the App Store as far back as Lion. I know that they removed the  ability to see the OS downloads in Mojave, but either a direct link from the web or an older version will still show them.  We’ll see if it stays that way or not ...
  • Reply 12 of 21
    taddtadd Posts: 98member
    7 years doesn't seem like a long time.  
    I'm a l little annoyed at the idea of a computer needing to phone home in order to operate completely, yet home tells them to drop dead when they call?   Or at least they threaten that they will no longer be providing good answers.  I wonder if Apple could farm that out to a pay-for-support company or something.  What if I have a file on an IDE HD that requires some program which runs only on a PMG4 to access it?  Let's go back to Leopard and run it.  Where's that pesky Leopard install DVD.  Oh. right here in the CD wallet.  
    I like having that power and Apple provided it.  Will they do so when El Capitan is 15 years discontinued?  Will there be a way to take a long side-lined 2008 Mac Pro and bring it back to life with the last supported OS?  I don't think I have a DVD install disk for El Capitan.  Should I?


    arthurba
  • Reply 13 of 21
    RajkaRajka Posts: 9member
    It's time for two guys in a garage to build the next great thing. Apple is done. I don't really have anything nice to say about it any more. Talk about a love / hate relationship. Unfortunately, the love has been gone for quite some time now.
  • Reply 14 of 21
    taddtadd Posts: 98member
    Rajka said:
    It's time for two guys in a garage to build the next great thing. Apple is done. I don't really have anything nice to say about it any more. Talk about a love / hate relationship. Unfortunately, the love has been gone for quite some time now.
    That kind of thing happens all the time. But I wouldn’t look for it to happen in desktop and laptop computing. It’ll happen in flying cars or 2 wheeled personal transport or electronic walking sticks for the blind or pharmaceutical belt buckles or mate-finding ear-rings or something.  
    StrangeDays
  • Reply 15 of 21
    slurpyslurpy Posts: 5,154member
    Rajka said:
    It's time for two guys in a garage to build the next great thing. Apple is done. I don't really have anything nice to say about it any more. Talk about a love / hate relationship. Unfortunately, the love has been gone for quite some time now.
    Apple is the furthest a company can possibly be from being “done”. Literally. WWDC solidified what a bright future three have.

    Good riddance. Don’t let the fucking door hit you on the way out, you troll. 
    StrangeDays
  • Reply 16 of 21
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 7,978member
    > security-motivated move Or motivated by better ad-blocking plug-ins in older versions of Safari?
    Huh? If older browsers were better at blocking ads (they weren’t, not on Safari anyway), why would Apple push this? Apple isn’t an advertising company. They build tools to thwart privacy-invasive practices used by advertising companies like google. What you’re suggesting makes no sense. 
  • Reply 17 of 21
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,742member
    > security-motivated move Or motivated by better ad-blocking plug-ins in older versions of Safari?
    Huh? If older browsers were better at blocking ads (they weren’t, not on Safari anyway), why would Apple push this? Apple isn’t an advertising company. They build tools to thwart privacy-invasive practices used by advertising companies like google. What you’re suggesting makes no sense. 
    Apple isn't trying to "thwart Google". If they were they wouldn't allow for 3 days of tracking. 'Nuff said. 
  • Reply 18 of 21
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 7,978member

    kipfinch said:
    I have several "old" MAC's - all of which work fine however I can't do much with them now because of these sort of restrictions. Even browsing the web is challenging or nearly impossible. I get it's time to move on but gone are the days when Apple supported perfectly fine older equipment which is sad.
    What facts do you offer to assert that Apple supports devices less now than previously

    I have a 2011 iMac on my desktop. It’s fine. If I couldn’t shop Apple.com by the time I replace it, it won’t be the end of the world. 

    Also, it’s “Mac” not “MAC” as it’s short for Macintosh and is not an acronym. 
  • Reply 19 of 21
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 7,978member

    Rajka said:
    It's time for two guys in a garage to build the next great thing. Apple is done. I don't really have anything nice to say about it any more. Talk about a love / hate relationship. Unfortunately, the love has been gone for quite some time now.
    Bahahaha. Ok. Let us know what these two guys should do to set themselves apart from macOS and iOS, which are excellent. Lemme guess, MP is too expensive?
  • Reply 20 of 21
    What Apple is probably doing, without directly saying it, is disabling browsers that do not support TLS 1.2 or later. It’s really not that big of a deal, as every computer that can run Yosemite can be upgraded to El Capitan, and from there you can run a supported version of Chrome, Firefox, or Safari that supports TLS 1.2.

    In recent years Apple has been much better with support for older hardware with OS X/macOS. These days you can usually get 6-7 years of full OS updates out of a Mac, and after that, two years of security updates before total end-of-support. I remember in years past, including when Steve Jobs was still around, there would occasionally be releases where some machines that did not make “the list” had been released only 3-4 years earlier.

    The computer doesn’t stop working after it stops receiving OS updates. You just need to take more precautions to prevent the system from being compromised by security vulnerabilities that affect unpatched systems.
Sign In or Register to comment.