This is the most frustrating thing about Apple computer hardware, that they only support it for 7(?) years. I understand that they don't want to make parts available after that, but there's no good reason why a 10 year old Mac should artificially not be able to install the latest version of macOS. This is the main reason why I have never bought a personal Mac.
should artificially not be able to install the latest version of macOS
There's no artificial reason. The OS was a complete architecture change when they went to Apple Silicon. From x86 to ARM. The newer versions of MacOS are completely incompatible with x86 architecture.
Windows ARM support is god awful. Windows is a bloated mess even in the best of cases, but the emulation they do to make it work is some of the worst I have ever used.
Sure, that's reasonable; however, my recollection is that they've had this time limit on OS support on their computers for a long time, well before Apple Silicon was introduced.
The 5 year vintage / 7 year obsolete is more hardware-oriented. While it typically corresponds to software, there have been exceptions when a particular model sells very well or has a specific niche and reason to stick around (example: 2012 13” MBP supported for a full decade, from Lion -> Catalina).
Even after this period they will usually push major security updates from time to time to legacy OS versions.
Does it suck that there’s any kind of block with installing later macOS versions? Sure, but that’s mitigated easily enough by tools like Opencore Legacy Patcher , which will let you install a current macOS version on unsupported hardware. You may not like the performance, which is partially why there’s any OS upgrade restrictions on Mac hardware at all.
Get another Mac in 10 years, or use a patcher to upgrade (at the cost of reduced performance). Or install Linux on it. It’s really not that big a deal when you consider most consumer PC’s aren’t even kept for that long as the primary machine.
Anecdotally, I just bought a used “vintage” iMac from 2017. It’s stuck on Ventura, which is fine for the use case I bought it for. Brought it home yesterday and it had some security updates ready to install, even though it’s 3-4 major macOS versions behind.
Does it suck that there’s any kind of block with installing later macOS versions? Sure, but that’s mitigated easily enough by tools like Opencore Legacy Patcher , which will let you install a current macOS version on unsupported hardware. You may not like the performance, which is partially why there’s any OS upgrade restrictions on Mac hardware at all.
Thanks, I hadn't heard of Opencore Legacy Patcher before. It sounds interesting, but it doesn't excuse Apple from this anti-consumer and anti-environment practice. The consumer should be able to decide if the performance is adequate or not.
By the way, I'm not an Apple-hater. My family and I use iPhones, and interestingly enough it's largely for a similar reason as above: Apple has had one of the better policies with how long they support their mobile devices with their OSes. Still not long enough, mind you, but better than Android for a mile until a few Android devices caught up very recently. I think that there should be a law that all electronics devices be fully supported for a minimum of 10 years. It's not the 90s anymore. Moore's law has slowed down a lot since then, so there's not such a major gap in performance within 10 years.
Oh it’s not ideal and it’s totally fine to not agree with their practices for sure, I just wanted to add some context as there seems to be a lot of knee-jerk reactions around these kinds of subjects sometimes.
Very much agreed, a minimum supported timeframe would be awesome.
I do think calling it anti-consumer and anti-environment is a bit of a stretch, though. Just because the manufacturer no longer officially supports a device receiving major OS updates doesn’t render the device useless. I would actually argue their continual push of major security updates to vintage and obsolete machines to keep those still around secure is the exact opposite.
This is not specific to Apple by any means. Microsoft has repeatedly left hardware behind throughout Windows’ development, just not on a predictable schedule like Apple and instead whenever they feel like the hardware’s inability to support ‘x’ feature is reason enough to pull support.
Even certain Linux distros or package maintainers will drop support for hardware in newer major versions when it no longer makes sense to devote resources to maintaining that support.
I can see the anti-environment argument applying more towards the hardware side of things but again, at some point it makes more sense from
that perspective for them to cut off support than it does to continue providing parts or repair services for obsolete hardware. For example, legacy models that contained mercury and lead or used less sustainable materials. Why would it be anti-environment of a stance for them to no longer provide replacement parts for those devices?
If Apple locked you out of your device when it became labeled obsolete and your only realistic recourse was to buy a new computer, then I would 100% agree. As it stands, it’s just a status that means (on the OS side) Apple can no longer guarantee the minimum usable user experience you would expect from that hardware, and it makes no sense to continue devoting resources to supporting it compared to newer hardware. You can see this yourself by using the earlier mentioned patcher. You can run Tahoe on a ton of legacy hardware and it will work, but you’re gonna hate the experience.
On the hardware side, the supply and logistics chain needs to remain operational for those spare parts to continue to be produced. But there is limited physical space, equipment, raw materials, licensing periods, strategic partnership timelines, and probably many other considerations that have to align for production of these parts to continue. It’s not entirely profit based, and instead usually depends most on whether the scale of that manufacturing makes sense anymore, if they need the physical space for another component in higher demand, or if they can no longer acquire a component from another manufacturer necessary to continue production.
One stance I will absolutely agree with you on is how against repairs they can be about specific components that could be more repairable. While I get that they really care about good design with tight tolerances, they could do a better job of balancing that with reparability. Not counting on it, but hopefully the new CEO being a product guy leads to a trend in the right direction there.
I do think calling it anti-consumer and anti-environment is a bit of a stretch, though. Just because the manufacturer no longer officially supports a device receiving major OS updates doesn’t render the device useless. I would actually argue their continual push of major security updates to vintage and obsolete machines to keep those still around secure is the exact opposite.
I don't know about Macs, but my experience with iPhones has been that a very short time (a couple months?) after an iPhone can't install the latest major version of iOS, some apps will stop being able to be updated. Between that and not receiving all security updates, those essentially make the device at least partially obsolete, and quickly advancing in obsolescence. Not completely, because there are many apps that will still work, but the device becomes far from 100% usable compared to when it had the latest OS. Now part of that is the app developers' fault, but a large part of the problem rests on Apple's shoulders.
This is not specific to Apple by any means. Microsoft has repeatedly left hardware behind throughout Windows’ development, just not on a predictable schedule like Apple and instead whenever they feel like the hardware’s inability to support ‘x’ feature is reason enough to pull support.
Even certain Linux distros or package maintainers will drop support for hardware in newer major versions when it no longer makes sense to devote resources to maintaining that support.
This is true, but Linux is better by at least an order of magnitude. The Linux kernel dropped support for the 486 CPU in 2025. That CPU was introduced in 1989 and discontinued in 2007 (which is well after it stopped being sold on new computers). Sure, some small Linux distros may not have the resources to support older hardware, but that's not the case for a lot of the major distros. Windows used to be similar. I've installed Windows on computers way older than 10 years. That only changed with Windows 11, and even then, they're nearing 10 years of official support right now, and may very well go above that.
I think you're being very lenient with apple on their forced obsolescence policies. Hardware support and repairs are a whole other aspect for a different discussion, but my complaint here is just talking about software support. Like I mentioned above, if the hardware isn't allowed to run the latest OS, it becomes significantly handicapped, which greatly increases the likelihood that it will end up in the trash. I also feel that this is nearly entirely driven by profit motive.
Like I mentioned above, if the hardware isn't allowed to run the latest OS, it becomes significantly handicapped, which greatly increases the likelihood that it will end up in the trash. I also feel that this is nearly entirely driven by profit motive.
Also totally valid. However, this concern is less of an “Apple doesn’t feel like letting me install whatever OS I want” problem and more of a “we don’t require tech companies to allow us the permissions necessary to do whatever we want on the devices we buy from them” problem.
Apple is absolutely guilty here, I just think it’s symptomatic of something larger and not entirely on their shoulders. But it seems they get all the attention whenever the discussion of planned obscelence appears, and that bothers me not because I think Apple’s some perfect entity, but because when you pick apart their rationale for doing so they are usually comparable or better in this respect to their peers, and we shouldn’t be hyperfixating on only one of them when trying to identify the issue.
I’m not trying to give Apple a pass by any means, merely bringing up the fact that the complaints posted here in this thread are not unique to them. There are plenty of reasons to be unhappy with them, I just haven’t seen any here yet that are specific to them or are indicative of them being measurably worse.
Windows 11 absolutely dropped support for hardware (TPM2.0?) , and is 5 years old at this point. If it were an Apple product it would just now be getting “vintage” status but still continue to get updates and where possible, repairs.
You can also install macOS on older (10+ years old) hardware as I’ve already covered.
iOS app compatibility is largely up to the app developer, not Apple. And for the past few years since I want to say ~2020 (I could be a little off there), you also have the option of installing an older version of an app if you’re on an old version of iOS that’s no longer supported by that developer. But again, that depends on the dev.
A large part of the problem rests on Apple’s shoulders
You know what? You’re absolutely right. They don’t make it easy for app devs to continue supporting legacy iOS versions in their latest app versions because each major iOS dev kits often introduce breaking changes specific to that version of iOS. Typically you might see the average app support N-2 (latest iOS and 2 major revisions back).
But here’s the cool part, that means my 9 year old iPad stuck on iOS 17 is still able to use almost all of the apps I typically have installed and use daily, and still gets updates for those apps. That’ll probably change soon, but even then I expect it to keep getting security updates for a few years.
In other words, I’m about to have a 10 year old iOS device still getting updated. Which is exactly in line with the benchmark we’ve both given now with Windows and macOS.
I’m struggling to see through all of this how Apple is materially worse at forced obsolescence than the competition. There’s totally improvement to be had, but most people do not use a device for longer than a decade anyway. If it can comfortably hit (and often exceed) that timeframe before support is fully revoked, then the average user will never experience it. To a major degree anyway.
I’ve said it before and will say it again: There are plenty of legitimate things Apple does to be pissed off at them about. Feel free to ask me if you want a few examples. I just don’t see how, compared to the rest of the market, this is one of them or how they’re so much worse to have to be called out, but the other guys either get a pass or no mention either.
14 Comments
Cricket@lemmy.zip · 4 pts · 4d
This is the most frustrating thing about Apple computer hardware, that they only support it for 7(?) years. I understand that they don't want to make parts available after that, but there's no good reason why a 10 year old Mac should artificially not be able to install the latest version of macOS. This is the main reason why I have never bought a personal Mac.
Earthwormjim91@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 4d
There's no artificial reason. The OS was a complete architecture change when they went to Apple Silicon. From x86 to ARM. The newer versions of MacOS are completely incompatible with x86 architecture.
deadcream@sopuli.xyz · 4 pts · 4d
Lol even microsoft can support both x86 and arm.
Earthwormjim91@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 4d
Windows ARM support is god awful. Windows is a bloated mess even in the best of cases, but the emulation they do to make it work is some of the worst I have ever used.
panda_abyss@lemmy.ca · 2 pts · 3d
How is Windows ARM support?
I’ve always heard bad things, curious if it changed recently with all the ARM hardware out there now.
Cricket@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 4d
Sure, that's reasonable; however, my recollection is that they've had this time limit on OS support on their computers for a long time, well before Apple Silicon was introduced.
dudleyflippendoodle@lemmy.zip · 4 pts · 3d
The 5 year vintage / 7 year obsolete is more hardware-oriented. While it typically corresponds to software, there have been exceptions when a particular model sells very well or has a specific niche and reason to stick around (example: 2012 13” MBP supported for a full decade, from Lion -> Catalina).
Even after this period they will usually push major security updates from time to time to legacy OS versions.
Does it suck that there’s any kind of block with installing later macOS versions? Sure, but that’s mitigated easily enough by tools like Opencore Legacy Patcher , which will let you install a current macOS version on unsupported hardware. You may not like the performance, which is partially why there’s any OS upgrade restrictions on Mac hardware at all.
Get another Mac in 10 years, or use a patcher to upgrade (at the cost of reduced performance). Or install Linux on it. It’s really not that big a deal when you consider most consumer PC’s aren’t even kept for that long as the primary machine.
Anecdotally, I just bought a used “vintage” iMac from 2017. It’s stuck on Ventura, which is fine for the use case I bought it for. Brought it home yesterday and it had some security updates ready to install, even though it’s 3-4 major macOS versions behind.
Cricket@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 3d
Thanks, I hadn't heard of Opencore Legacy Patcher before. It sounds interesting, but it doesn't excuse Apple from this anti-consumer and anti-environment practice. The consumer should be able to decide if the performance is adequate or not.
By the way, I'm not an Apple-hater. My family and I use iPhones, and interestingly enough it's largely for a similar reason as above: Apple has had one of the better policies with how long they support their mobile devices with their OSes. Still not long enough, mind you, but better than Android for a mile until a few Android devices caught up very recently. I think that there should be a law that all electronics devices be fully supported for a minimum of 10 years. It's not the 90s anymore. Moore's law has slowed down a lot since then, so there's not such a major gap in performance within 10 years.
dudleyflippendoodle@lemmy.zip · 0 pts · 3d
Oh it’s not ideal and it’s totally fine to not agree with their practices for sure, I just wanted to add some context as there seems to be a lot of knee-jerk reactions around these kinds of subjects sometimes.
Very much agreed, a minimum supported timeframe would be awesome.
I do think calling it anti-consumer and anti-environment is a bit of a stretch, though. Just because the manufacturer no longer officially supports a device receiving major OS updates doesn’t render the device useless. I would actually argue their continual push of major security updates to vintage and obsolete machines to keep those still around secure is the exact opposite.
This is not specific to Apple by any means. Microsoft has repeatedly left hardware behind throughout Windows’ development, just not on a predictable schedule like Apple and instead whenever they feel like the hardware’s inability to support ‘x’ feature is reason enough to pull support.
Even certain Linux distros or package maintainers will drop support for hardware in newer major versions when it no longer makes sense to devote resources to maintaining that support.
I can see the anti-environment argument applying more towards the hardware side of things but again, at some point it makes more sense from that perspective for them to cut off support than it does to continue providing parts or repair services for obsolete hardware. For example, legacy models that contained mercury and lead or used less sustainable materials. Why would it be anti-environment of a stance for them to no longer provide replacement parts for those devices?
If Apple locked you out of your device when it became labeled obsolete and your only realistic recourse was to buy a new computer, then I would 100% agree. As it stands, it’s just a status that means (on the OS side) Apple can no longer guarantee the minimum usable user experience you would expect from that hardware, and it makes no sense to continue devoting resources to supporting it compared to newer hardware. You can see this yourself by using the earlier mentioned patcher. You can run Tahoe on a ton of legacy hardware and it will work, but you’re gonna hate the experience.
On the hardware side, the supply and logistics chain needs to remain operational for those spare parts to continue to be produced. But there is limited physical space, equipment, raw materials, licensing periods, strategic partnership timelines, and probably many other considerations that have to align for production of these parts to continue. It’s not entirely profit based, and instead usually depends most on whether the scale of that manufacturing makes sense anymore, if they need the physical space for another component in higher demand, or if they can no longer acquire a component from another manufacturer necessary to continue production.
One stance I will absolutely agree with you on is how against repairs they can be about specific components that could be more repairable. While I get that they really care about good design with tight tolerances, they could do a better job of balancing that with reparability. Not counting on it, but hopefully the new CEO being a product guy leads to a trend in the right direction there.
Cricket@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 3d
I don't know about Macs, but my experience with iPhones has been that a very short time (a couple months?) after an iPhone can't install the latest major version of iOS, some apps will stop being able to be updated. Between that and not receiving all security updates, those essentially make the device at least partially obsolete, and quickly advancing in obsolescence. Not completely, because there are many apps that will still work, but the device becomes far from 100% usable compared to when it had the latest OS. Now part of that is the app developers' fault, but a large part of the problem rests on Apple's shoulders.
This is true, but Linux is better by at least an order of magnitude. The Linux kernel dropped support for the 486 CPU in 2025. That CPU was introduced in 1989 and discontinued in 2007 (which is well after it stopped being sold on new computers). Sure, some small Linux distros may not have the resources to support older hardware, but that's not the case for a lot of the major distros. Windows used to be similar. I've installed Windows on computers way older than 10 years. That only changed with Windows 11, and even then, they're nearing 10 years of official support right now, and may very well go above that.
I think you're being very lenient with apple on their forced obsolescence policies. Hardware support and repairs are a whole other aspect for a different discussion, but my complaint here is just talking about software support. Like I mentioned above, if the hardware isn't allowed to run the latest OS, it becomes significantly handicapped, which greatly increases the likelihood that it will end up in the trash. I also feel that this is nearly entirely driven by profit motive.
dudleyflippendoodle@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 3d
Also totally valid. However, this concern is less of an “Apple doesn’t feel like letting me install whatever OS I want” problem and more of a “we don’t require tech companies to allow us the permissions necessary to do whatever we want on the devices we buy from them” problem.
Apple is absolutely guilty here, I just think it’s symptomatic of something larger and not entirely on their shoulders. But it seems they get all the attention whenever the discussion of planned obscelence appears, and that bothers me not because I think Apple’s some perfect entity, but because when you pick apart their rationale for doing so they are usually comparable or better in this respect to their peers, and we shouldn’t be hyperfixating on only one of them when trying to identify the issue.
dudleyflippendoodle@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 3d
I’m not trying to give Apple a pass by any means, merely bringing up the fact that the complaints posted here in this thread are not unique to them. There are plenty of reasons to be unhappy with them, I just haven’t seen any here yet that are specific to them or are indicative of them being measurably worse.
Windows 11 absolutely dropped support for hardware (TPM2.0?) , and is 5 years old at this point. If it were an Apple product it would just now be getting “vintage” status but still continue to get updates and where possible, repairs.
You can also install macOS on older (10+ years old) hardware as I’ve already covered.
iOS app compatibility is largely up to the app developer, not Apple. And for the past few years since I want to say ~2020 (I could be a little off there), you also have the option of installing an older version of an app if you’re on an old version of iOS that’s no longer supported by that developer. But again, that depends on the dev.
You know what? You’re absolutely right. They don’t make it easy for app devs to continue supporting legacy iOS versions in their latest app versions because each major iOS dev kits often introduce breaking changes specific to that version of iOS. Typically you might see the average app support N-2 (latest iOS and 2 major revisions back).
But here’s the cool part, that means my 9 year old iPad stuck on iOS 17 is still able to use almost all of the apps I typically have installed and use daily, and still gets updates for those apps. That’ll probably change soon, but even then I expect it to keep getting security updates for a few years.
In other words, I’m about to have a 10 year old iOS device still getting updated. Which is exactly in line with the benchmark we’ve both given now with Windows and macOS.
I’m struggling to see through all of this how Apple is materially worse at forced obsolescence than the competition. There’s totally improvement to be had, but most people do not use a device for longer than a decade anyway. If it can comfortably hit (and often exceed) that timeframe before support is fully revoked, then the average user will never experience it. To a major degree anyway.
I’ve said it before and will say it again: There are plenty of legitimate things Apple does to be pissed off at them about. Feel free to ask me if you want a few examples. I just don’t see how, compared to the rest of the market, this is one of them or how they’re so much worse to have to be called out, but the other guys either get a pass or no mention either.