6 ms·

> The Ars Technica article on this issue cuts to the heart of why this is so devastating: there is tons of software--software which was really interesting and I

by jmgao 10y ago

> The Ars Technica article on this issue cuts to the heart of why this is so devastating: there is tons of software--software which was really interesting and I dare say "seminal" for this important era of computing; and which is not old or outdated by any sane standard--that this destroys access to going forward, for essentially no benefit. It's not zero benefit. Supporting multiple ABIs means that you need to have multiple copies of system libraries paged in at a time if they're used, which is not an insignificant amount of memory (which then has resulting power/price costs). It's possibly even bigger of a problem on iOS than Android, because Apple changed the floating point ABI between ARMv6 and ARMv7, so they have to support multiple different 32-bit ABIs.

saurik 10y ago
That only matters if you are using 32-bit software. Deleting the 32-bit software is not somehow a benefit with relation to that goal. You are saying that it is better to run all 64-bit software. I am arguing that there is essentially no benefit to a device that is incapable of running 32-bit software when it clearly still has the hardware.
- npunt 10y ago
  I think you're assuming the upcoming A11 chip will also be capable of running 32-bit software. The hardware may be changed, for the sake of simplicity.
  - saurik 10y ago
    As far as anyone is reporting, Apple is intending to remove support for existing devices that get updated to new versions of the firmware, not just for new hardware.
    - crottypeter 10y ago
      Lack of fragmentation is a good thing. As others have said important software will be made available. Apple has the luxury of a dedicated userbase and can afford to make these calls.
- chacham15 10y ago
  What you say is true, but can you imagine trying to explain to the average user that the reason their phone is running slower than necessary is because they are using applications which necessitate multiple libraries be loaded simultaneously? From Apples perspective, the App market is so saturated that any missing functionality will be quickly replaced. This way, everyone gets a performant system without needing to know what the difference between a 32bit app and 64bit app is.
  - pmjordan 10y ago
    They already show a "this app may slow down your device" alert occasionally when you open a 32-bit app. This was added with iOS 10.
    - toyg 10y ago
      Oh, is that why you get that message? Uhm, I have a few of those apps then :(
- jmgao 10y ago
  I'm saying that supporting multiple ABIs has a nonnegligible cost, regardless of whether the hardware supports it or not. On my MacBook (I haven't touched an iOS device in the last 5 years), the 32-bit dyld_shared_cache is 300 MB, and the 64-bit one is over 600. There might be baked in assets that are larger on the laptop form factor, and libraries that don't exist on the phone, and demand paging might buy you some of that back, but it's still going to be an absolutely massive chunk of code. I'm not actually arguing that this is a net win for the consumer of the device. If your choice is between a device that supports 32-bit and a device that doesn't, with literally zero difference in performance, I would totally agree with you (modulo engineering effort it takes to maintain them all, but that probably isn't too high). I'm just saying that there are real quantifiable benefits to what they're doing. edit: and that's not considering the actual advantages of forcing 64-bit like improved security via better ASLR
- justincormack 10y ago
  I imagine they are dropping the support in new hardware too.
0x0 10y ago
So do like Microsoft does for 16bit/DOS support in the most recent 32bit windows, and let NTVDM be an optional download that is triggered on first use. Do the same for armv6/armv7 dyld files. Maybe they could even just freeze the armv6/armv7 libs on the iOS10 API level, since old apps won't be requiring new APIs. There are important apps out there that people paid for (for both the app or the hardware), and I think those users are more interested in having a working app that uses some memory, than a blocked app but lots of free memory.
- creshal 10y ago
  Even if the compatibility layer is optional, Apple still has to maintain it and port it to new OS versions.
  - 0x0 10y ago
    With the resources that Apple has, it would be silly to throw out so much backwards compatibility just because "uh, effort".
    - interpol_p 10y ago
      I don't think size and resources can effectively combat this sort of accrued technical debt. Once you have to maintain so much cruft it becomes emotionally difficult to write good software (at least, I experience this). I have a few personal projects that I have maintained for years, but the motivation required to refactor, clean and maintain the code gets bigger every year. You have to be passionate about the software you write. And unless you can find a team that is passionate about maintaining a 32 bit compatibility layer for old App Store apps, I think it would be a permanent burden on Apple.
    - valuearb 10y ago
      This is the reasoning that made Windows so crappy for so many years.
      - WorldMaker 10y ago
cm2187 10y ago
If I may, if all your pointers are now 64bit, the memory used by your program will typically grow significantly. Not sure that all in, reducing memory consumption is a benefit of switching to 64bit.
- Reason077 10y ago
  iOS apps have been 64-bit for several years. Apple's tools build dual 32/64-bit binaries, and the App Store will not accept uploads where the 64-bit part is missing. So, any modern iOS device has been running pretty much only 64-bit code for a long while. The only thing affected by this is the ability to run really old binaries that have not been updated in years. But those will often be suffering from other compatibility issues anyway, such as display sizes and not meeting modern security standards like Apple's TLS mandate.
  - cm2187 10y ago
    Among these 32bit applications there is my beloved Tetris app. Which doesn't need modern security standards or use the half of an inch more screen real estate available. If I have to chose between yet another iOS update (with the usual harassment to use apple pay, apple music, icloud and all that shit every time I upgrade) and Tetris, I chose Tetris.
    - NoPiece 10y ago
      I agree, so let's yell at EA and get them to update the app. I suppose they have no interest because they now have a "free" version in the App Store...
      - wolfgke 10y ago
        > I suppose they have no interest because they now have a "free" version in the App Store Not "free" as in "freedom". :-(
    - givinguflac 10y ago
      If you think you're being "harassed" by the device offering to use essential features of the platform then perhaps it's not the device for you? I've used iOS for years and have never found any prompts that are remotely harassing about anything iirc. It's been nearly two years since they started requiring all apps and updates to be 64 bit, it's not a huge surprise this is coming.

by jmgao 10y ago

saurik 10y ago

That only matters if you are using 32-bit software. Deleting the 32-bit software is not somehow a benefit with relation to that goal. You are saying that it is better to run all 64-bit software. I am arguing that there is essentially no benefit to a device that is incapable of running 32-bit software when it clearly still has the hardware.

npunt 10y ago
I think you're assuming the upcoming A11 chip will also be capable of running 32-bit software. The hardware may be changed, for the sake of simplicity.
- saurik 10y ago
  As far as anyone is reporting, Apple is intending to remove support for existing devices that get updated to new versions of the firmware, not just for new hardware.
  - crottypeter 10y ago
    Lack of fragmentation is a good thing. As others have said important software will be made available. Apple has the luxury of a dedicated userbase and can afford to make these calls.
chacham15 10y ago
What you say is true, but can you imagine trying to explain to the average user that the reason their phone is running slower than necessary is because they are using applications which necessitate multiple libraries be loaded simultaneously? From Apples perspective, the App market is so saturated that any missing functionality will be quickly replaced. This way, everyone gets a performant system without needing to know what the difference between a 32bit app and 64bit app is.
- pmjordan 10y ago
  They already show a "this app may slow down your device" alert occasionally when you open a 32-bit app. This was added with iOS 10.
  - toyg 10y ago
    Oh, is that why you get that message? Uhm, I have a few of those apps then :(
jmgao 10y ago
I'm saying that supporting multiple ABIs has a nonnegligible cost, regardless of whether the hardware supports it or not. On my MacBook (I haven't touched an iOS device in the last 5 years), the 32-bit dyld_shared_cache is 300 MB, and the 64-bit one is over 600. There might be baked in assets that are larger on the laptop form factor, and libraries that don't exist on the phone, and demand paging might buy you some of that back, but it's still going to be an absolutely massive chunk of code. I'm not actually arguing that this is a net win for the consumer of the device. If your choice is between a device that supports 32-bit and a device that doesn't, with literally zero difference in performance, I would totally agree with you (modulo engineering effort it takes to maintain them all, but that probably isn't too high). I'm just saying that there are real quantifiable benefits to what they're doing. edit: and that's not considering the actual advantages of forcing 64-bit like improved security via better ASLR
justincormack 10y ago
I imagine they are dropping the support in new hardware too.

0x0 10y ago

So do like Microsoft does for 16bit/DOS support in the most recent 32bit windows, and let NTVDM be an optional download that is triggered on first use. Do the same for armv6/armv7 dyld files. Maybe they could even just freeze the armv6/armv7 libs on the iOS10 API level, since old apps won't be requiring new APIs. There are important apps out there that people paid for (for both the app or the hardware), and I think those users are more interested in having a working app that uses some memory, than a blocked app but lots of free memory.

creshal 10y ago
Even if the compatibility layer is optional, Apple still has to maintain it and port it to new OS versions.
- 0x0 10y ago
  With the resources that Apple has, it would be silly to throw out so much backwards compatibility just because "uh, effort".
  - interpol_p 10y ago
    I don't think size and resources can effectively combat this sort of accrued technical debt. Once you have to maintain so much cruft it becomes emotionally difficult to write good software (at least, I experience this). I have a few personal projects that I have maintained for years, but the motivation required to refactor, clean and maintain the code gets bigger every year. You have to be passionate about the software you write. And unless you can find a team that is passionate about maintaining a 32 bit compatibility layer for old App Store apps, I think it would be a permanent burden on Apple.
  - valuearb 10y ago
    This is the reasoning that made Windows so crappy for so many years.
    - WorldMaker 10y ago

cm2187 10y ago

If I may, if all your pointers are now 64bit, the memory used by your program will typically grow significantly. Not sure that all in, reducing memory consumption is a benefit of switching to 64bit.

Reason077 10y ago
iOS apps have been 64-bit for several years. Apple's tools build dual 32/64-bit binaries, and the App Store will not accept uploads where the 64-bit part is missing. So, any modern iOS device has been running pretty much only 64-bit code for a long while. The only thing affected by this is the ability to run really old binaries that have not been updated in years. But those will often be suffering from other compatibility issues anyway, such as display sizes and not meeting modern security standards like Apple's TLS mandate.
- cm2187 10y ago
  Among these 32bit applications there is my beloved Tetris app. Which doesn't need modern security standards or use the half of an inch more screen real estate available. If I have to chose between yet another iOS update (with the usual harassment to use apple pay, apple music, icloud and all that shit every time I upgrade) and Tetris, I chose Tetris.
  - NoPiece 10y ago
    I agree, so let's yell at EA and get them to update the app. I suppose they have no interest because they now have a "free" version in the App Store...
    - wolfgke 10y ago
      > I suppose they have no interest because they now have a "free" version in the App Store Not "free" as in "freedom". :-(
  - givinguflac 10y ago
    If you think you're being "harassed" by the device offering to use essential features of the platform then perhaps it's not the device for you? I've used iOS for years and have never found any prompts that are remotely harassing about anything iirc. It's been nearly two years since they started requiring all apps and updates to be 64 bit, it's not a huge surprise this is coming.