Still pretty embarrassing when Microsoft maintains backwards compatibility for decades.
It's clear that Apple has no respect for developers on their platform.
I see this as Apple breaking the app. Demanding and nudging users to auto-update the iOS, the consequences being the OS fails to run what it previously could run.
Backwards compatibility would mean that MacOS should still have support for 32 bit apps? PPC apps? 68K apps? Should they have ported Carbon to 64 bits? Should they have kept support for QuickDraw from the 80s? QuickDraw GX from the 90s?
Either way, I expect my PC to be capable of running old software including 32 bit apps. My 64bit Windoze machine does that.
> removed chunks of the processor
Did users petition for the chunks to be removed?
It's not like 32/64 bit applications are equivalent to VHS/DVD, where hardware is obviously different. But even then, I own this DVD/VHS combo player: https://www.lg.com/au/dvd-blu-ray-players/lg-RC689D
Your x86 PC that you appreciate being able to run 32 bit apps, also can’t last 20 hours on one charge, the integrated graphics are much slower and it probably sounds like a 747 under load compared to the fanless MacBook Air.
32/64 bit applications are in fact the equivalent of VHS/DVD combo players. Each instruction set is duplicated and shared libraries are duplicated. If you have some 32 bit applications in memory and some 64 bit applications in memory, you have duplicate libraries in memory.
I use a desktop machine primarily, no battery issues, no memory issues. Purrs like a kitten under load. I like pushing 3D graphics and having lots of headroom in general. A MacBook Air won't cut it for my purposes.
I suppose rejecting backwards compatibility is better for business: Competition from older software is no longer a problem.
I still use Photoshop CS6 (2012) because it does what I need. My work laptop has latest Photoshop and while some of the new tools are nice, I don't see 10 years worth of innovation. I see a software company's nagging efforts to enforce cloud dependency, hustle users with sneaky price hikes, and even spam the email addresses of licensee seat holders with "trusted partner" junk.
Photoshop actually is another example of things working as they should. Adobe has ported Photoshop from 68K, to PPC, to OS X, to x86 32 bit, to x86 64 bit, to ARM.
As far as subscriptions, I don’t use Photoshop. But back in the day, one seat of MS Office use to be $600. Now I can get a 5 user license of Office where each user can use Office on any combination of Macs, Windows PCs, iPhones, iPads and the web plus 5TB of cloud storage for $99 a year.
The vast majority of people are using laptops. But even desktop ARM Macs are seeing the same benefits from being able to ditch backwards compatibility.
Because who doesn't want better battery life for their desktop machine? Or quieter fans or more memory.
Desktops have plenty of RAM, enough to not worry about whatever insignificant benefits you're talking about that may arise from ditching backwards compatibility. Which by the way, has never been an undesirable feature. You're just trying to sell it as undesirable by claiming users are in great debt to those who decide to take away the option to run older software.
Apple has stated they will delete iOS apps from app store if they haven't been updated in awhile even if they technically still function. This will lead to a farcical situation of updates for the sake of updates, which is no doubt happening now anyway to get attention. "Remember me? I'm the app you haven't touched in a few months, here's an update!"
You're a subscription apologist and you dislike backwards compatibility. Your position is unconvincing in this discussion, but it sounds like you're happy! All the best.