11–20 of 50 posts
"However, it won’t be long until it becomes an attractive option to increase sales."
Seriously? Um, it's already an attractive option. Always has been, if you are a lazy, sloppy company. Apple's eschewed this option approximately forever, and there's no evidence of anything different.
Apple is already killing off device support, sometimes (seemingly) for marketing reasons. With iOS 6, Apple dropped support for the first-generation iPad, but continued to support the iPhone 3GS (which I cannot imagine being much faster [edit: see Xuzz's reply to this comment]). The obvious reason, from my layman's perspective, is sales: the iPhone 3GS was on the market more recently, so the (newer) iPad got the ax.…
The iPhone 3GS is much faster than the original iPad. On the iPhone 3GS, you have a reasonably slow CPU and GPU, but you also only have 320x480 pixels to deal with. On the iPad, you have a slightly faster CPU and GPU (but still single core), but have to render to 1024x760 — way more pixels. You also don't have any extra RAM on the iPad, but your images and framebuffer still have to cover that extra area. The net resu…
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/compare/1635302/16...
So it's faster than a 3GS http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/compare/1634913/16...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The iPhone 3GS is much faster than the original iPad. On the iPhone 3GS, you have a reasonably slow CPU and GPU, but you also only have 320x480 pixels to deal with. On the iPad, you have a slightly faster CPU and GPU (but still single core), but have to render to 1024x760 — way more pixels. You also don't have any extra RAM on the iPad, but your images and framebuffer still have to cover that extra area. The net resu…
Original iPad is even faster than iPhone 4 http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/compare/1635302/16... So it's faster than a 3GS http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/compare/1634913/16...
Yes, raw performance may be better on the original iPad. But raw performance is irrelevant if you can't get the same effective performance for the user.
Everyone does this - it's not unique to Apple. How many single core phones run Android 4 from the factory? It's probably less about upgrade revenue than the new opportunities in the SoC space which, unlike desktop/server CPU's, are increasing in performance/W at a much greater clip. Software tends to expand to fit hardware capabilities, so as newer hardware comes out, software is written to use, then require the adde…
Definitely. Just look at the Android OEMs (HTC, Samsung, etc). They're always at an impasse to whether they should continue to update their devices to the latest Android version (and avoid angering customers) or stop updating to boost more new phone sales. On average though, it seems the assumption they can sell more devices seems to win out for Android OEMs than updating.
Most Android users have no idea what Android version they run (and what the latest version is) and I think the lack of being informed allows the Android OEMs to get away more often with not pushing updates. Android users figure out they need a new device when they realize they can't run a certain app or the apps they use no longer perform as well. Some probably also figure it out by comparing with friends' devices.
Only exception to the above really are Nexus devices since Google has no great vested interest really in selling more of them and benefits more from everyone having the latest Android version. Unfortunately, Google seems too worried if they pressure OEMs to push more updates in an assertive manner, they will suffer backlash from them.
edit: typos
I'm no expert on compilers, but I find it hard to see how that isn't deliberate, or what other benefits it provides.
I have seen this argument applied to Dell, Microsoft, Apple and others over the years. It is really a straw man argument. Apple will not kill off old hardware just to boost new sales. Apple keeps their offerings fairly current in order to push the envelope. When Apple dropped the floppy drive they were not trying to screw over consumers, they were looking forward and realizing that documents would not fit on a 1.4mb…
> When Apple dropped the floppy drive they were not trying to screw over consumers, they were looking forward and realizing that documents would not fit on a 1.4mb storage medium for much longer and they were right. No, they dropped the floppy disk for aesthetic reasons. Steve was adamant about there being only a trayless CD drive, and USB. The original iMac had a CD tray, but it was switched to trayless in the first…
Apple is already killing off device support, sometimes (seemingly) for marketing reasons. With iOS 6, Apple dropped support for the first-generation iPad, but continued to support the iPhone 3GS (which I cannot imagine being much faster [edit: see Xuzz's reply to this comment]). The obvious reason, from my layman's perspective, is sales: the iPhone 3GS was on the market more recently, so the (newer) iPad got the ax.…
Sloppy, content-free article that is basically half a dollop of pure speculation and little else. "However, it won’t be long until it becomes an attractive option to increase sales." Seriously? Um, it's already an attractive option. Always has been, if you are a lazy, sloppy company. Apple's eschewed this option approximately forever, and there's no evidence of anything different.
Siri for only iPhone 4S when iPhone 4 hardware could support it was one chink in their impecable reputation for supporting older hardware as long as possible.
The one thing I can think of that has effectively EOL-ed older iPhones is dropping support for ARM v6 codegen from recent versions of Xcode. It is not possible to build against the iOS 6 SDK (which is needed to access newer APIs) and support the 3G & below. I'm no expert on compilers, but I find it hard to see how that isn't deliberate, or what other benefits it provides.