New Magic Mouse and Magic Keyboard don't work with older versions of macOS
Apple's new USB-C peripherals for the Mac are failing to work with either versions of macOS before macOS Sequoia 15.1, or with the current beta of 15.2.
Apple's updated Magic Keyboard - Image Credit: Apple
Despite Apple saying that its new USB-C Magic Keyboard and Magic Mouse will work with devices that are years old, they won't without a specific update. Apple lists compatible Macs as old as 2018, but does not say that users have to update to macOS Sequoia 15.1.
On macOS Sequoia 15 or earlier, Touch ID and function keys fail to work on the new Magic Keyboard. While there don't appear to be reports of the Magic Trackpad failing, the Magic Mouse is unable to scroll.
Fortunately, all of the listed compatible Macs are also compatible with macOS Sequoia. However, they include the 2018 Mac mini and an iMac from 2019 that are Intel-based, and so not fully supported by macOS Sequoia.
As first spotted by MacRumors, it's also been reported that these peripherals are failing with macOS Sequoia 15.2. That is still in developer beta, so Apple will surely be addressing it before releasing macOS Sequoia 15.2 to the public.
The only apparent difference in the new versions of the peripherals is that they have switched from Lightning to USB-C. It's not clear why there should be any issues with their wireless connection, and yet reports appear to be exclusively about that.
Apple's list of compatible devices for the peripherals also lists many iPads, back to the iPad Air 2. So far there do not appear to have been reports of issues using the peripherals with iPads.
Read on AppleInsider
Comments
Looks like Apple is feeling comfortable making even more brazen planned obsolescence moves with their intel culling process.
Less plausible deniability and more straight up. I guess they figure not enough people to make noise to care.
The compatibility for Macs goes back as old as Mac Book Air and Mac mini from 2018, yet it says, "Mac with Apple silicon using macOS 11.4 or later" Those are not ASi Macs for the keyboard with numerical keypad. Trackpad is the same, except the OS requirements of, "Bluetooth-enabled Mac with OS X 10.11 or later." Mouse same Macs, "Bluetooth-enabled Mac with OS X 10.11 or later." Keyboard without the keypad is the same as with the keypad for requirements.
Nothing. It's just whining.
As far as obsolescence for Intel Macs, that is absolutely going to continue to what should be no one's surprise since Apple development is focused on a chip with a completely different architecture. This was clear from when M1 dropped 3 years ago. And when you look at the insane price/performance ratio that the new M4 Mac Minis offer--machines that "obsolete" the current lineup of more premium Macs like Studio and Pro that costs thousands of dollars more--there's no question that Apple made the right decision when it parted ways with Intel.
What I've described for myself is only one use case. If you are all-in on building up the best possible setup for yourself with a single Mac you'll be hard pressed to find a large choice of non-Apple gear that doesn't sacrifice one thing or another. That's exactly the way Apple wants it to be.
If you've been inside the Apple ecosystem for more than a few years it should be very apparent that Apple always does things that enhance the user experience and functionality inside their own ecosystem. They've always had a strong bias towards making their current products and product versions the priority focus of their efforts. Apple does provide a reasonable level of support for legacy products, but it is never for long enough to impair their forward progress, current goals, and future aspirations. Anyone involved with new product development fully understands that having too long of a legacy support tail is like dragging a boat anchor around. Legacy support sucks, especially when you aren't charging for it. This is especially true for products that evolve at a rapid pace, which includes pretty much all of the major contributors to Apple's financial performance.
I asked about what was removed because the things that where removed are sus.
ie: touchID and what was needed to make it function.
I don't understand your question. I hope your not being smug.
If you think about it. Are your plans an involuntary movement that give you the singular result you wanted?
Most "plans" require multiple steps and when "planning"、especially if a giant corporations like Apple look to "cull" a products based on there core customer appeal.
It started with Graphic Hardware understanding and Metal development. I think now the T2 and customers understanding of how the secure enclave works (or what is needed for it)
What I can see them doing is "testing" peoples awareness on low risk products.
Things that provoke the same reaction I see a few people already posted.
Well there is "this"
It is not about the keyboard.
Every product Apple developed has another products future "feature" being developed on it.
They think things our well and don't impliment them until they get a good mindshare of how they expect you to use it.
It is one of the reason I like Apple because it minimizes diversion, and creates better cohesion between products (hardware + software)
But they are a Business and they still do shady things.
I think you miss understand "planned obsolescence". You talking like a serf which is alarming.
I am on Appleinsider, even though Apple is a giant cooperation I like Apple over many other choices out there.
But non of them are ever perfect, and in this consumer relationship I would never speak to the benifits that go against mine.
They have no clue or care about me and will do what makes their margins wider before ever thinking to adopt the "true needs" of the customer.
This situation always has this huge imbalance.
The only thing we have in this form is a minute ability to drive narrative and point out directions you feel are sus and go against past assertions.
In this example it has nothing to do with something you can get somewhere else it is what is exclusive to Apple and what this can signify (and does signify) because of Apples past.
The touchID is said to not work because of the OS version. The idea of the T2chip was to provide this secure enclave.
This was later integrated in there ARM chips and has been functional through out the change (intel and ARM).
This removal will work its way into "everything" this chip does if they convince people it is the OS, major changes, while the root hardware needed is the same.
The more comfortable they feel blaming it on something else the more they remove. ie the T2 chip was needed to stream 4k video or other media related services.
Well this old intel hardware with the same screens they use in current gen hardware will not be viable
Slowly removing the core "convenience" and usability to not "force" but genrally push you to adopt something new you don't honestly need for the function.
You look at what apple removes as well from there software side and being able to downgrade OS. There are features that really are not tide to anything innately different between OSes. There is more because of the new architectures but the practice has always happened far before the change.
Also crazy as it is to say after what I said
I think Apple does the best job of this in the system they partake in, they always give just enough. ie the lesser evil towards my goals.
But like I said I am not going to do what you did and prop narratives they want, that is ridiculous
Back to your post: Almost everyone who posts here, including the poster you're replying to, knows what corporations are and are not, and they don't "miss understand" planned obsolescence. Since nothing lasts forever, everything has a limited lifespan, known to the manufacturer and usually to the customer as well. A shovel has planned obsolescence.
But, back to your post: I don’t think you understand 'planned obsolescence' in this situation. The nature of obsolescence in your shovel example is different. There is an important distinction to be made between the two. A shovel is a simple tool with a straightforward function, and its obsolescence usually comes from wear and tear rather than the deliberate removal of features or functions. In contrast, software and hardware often involve planned obsolescence, where features can be intentionally disabled or removed to encourage upgrades or new purchases, i.e., shelf life. This misunderstanding is why I made my initial observation.
If you are okay with manufacturers determining 'shelf life' without the 'wear and tear' of your example to compel you to upgrade, I see that as a problem.
Also, as a consumer (if you are not a manufacturer), it is not worth your time or in your best interest to act as the grammar police, while defending the manufacturer through superficially white-knighting for social brownie points. It distracts from the main point and relies on broad, reactionary generalizations.
My gut feeling is that given Apple's tight control of their own hardware so when USB-C interface was recognized, they probably did not map correctly thinking it's a generic USB-C keyboard.