Who are you or anyone else to tell me that the app that I paid for is not "seminal" and therefore Apple gets to remove my ability to use it?
You might suggest that I don't have to upgrade iOS. But I have two responses to that. First, is that Apple has begun popping up frequent nag dialogs on the devices telling you to upgrade. Second, upgrades to iOS are the only way to get security fixes. It's one thing to give people a choice to opt out of the newest UI style vs. running older apps. It's something entirely different to require them to forego security fixes. Security issues that by rights should be considered defects in the products with Apple being given a choice of repairing the defects on every platform the defect exists on or buying back the old devices and paying the costs of switching for the people who bought the products in good faith.
It's bullshit that fully functional hardware is completely unsafe to use because Apple chooses not to fixes security bugs in the iOS versions that run on those devices. E.g. first generation iPad is not safe to use online because Apple has abandoned support.
Why do you care about security fixes when updating the OS but you don't care about security fixes of apps? If an app is 2 years old it is probably using libraries with security issues. I would blame the developer for not updating the app, not apple. (I am saying this as an app developer).
Not all apps involve connecting to an arbitrary set of network services or provide a listening port as an attack vector.
Regardless, these are not exclusive values. We don't have to have one or the other. If Apple ships a device that is defective, it's bullshit for them to say "that piece of hardware is two years old, it's not going to get fixed."
Ask yourself how many if the goods you have are less than two years old? I'm not saying they should bring every feature from all later releases to the older devices, but actual bugs should be fixed for longer than two years.
I don't understand your comment. I am saying you should have updated SO and updated apps. Apple is in charge to update the SO and the app developers to update their apps.
I'm saying that I should have a choice not to upgrade to the latest features -- including the dropping of support for 32-bit apps -- without having to give up security fixes, which are fundamentally defects in the product.
Imagine if you bought an mp3 & aac player, amassed a collection of mp3 formatted audio, and then the vendor said "oh, we have to do an update because if we don't the player will explode. and we're removing the ability to play mp3 formatted music, but that's ok, you can play aacs." No one wants their audio player to explode, but by the same token it was sold as a device that plays mp3 and aac.
You can not upgrade, but you will have security issues.
It is very hard to offer support for legacy systems. You should expect more than 2 year support. Software evolves really fast, companies cannot sit and wait. They will lose their hype and money.
You are giving the developer a free ride for never maintaining that app you paid them for, and blaming Apple for greatly improving the operating system?
No. Your sentence presents a false dichotomy. There is nothing inherent in software design that binds security fixes and new features. I get it, no amount of software updates will put a camera in a first generation ipad, but there is absolutely nothing about the hardware that prevents the correcting of buffer and stack overflows.
