Yes, we definitely need something like this for the iDevices - it's outrageous that an old but capable device like iPad Air (1st generation) has to become e-Waste simply because Apple has decided not to support it any longer and won't allow other Operating Systems to run on it. Mac's already have the OpenCore Legacy Patcher - https://github.com/dortania/OpenCore-Legacy-Patcher - that allow you to run newer macOS versions on older and even unsupported Macs.
Even if this was overcome (checkra1n) or they provided for bootloader unlocks to run an unsigned firmware, you would still then need to reverse engineer all the drivers. It’s why you don’t see stuff like the original iphone SE’s running different OS.
It would be difficult, but it would at least be possible. See projects like Asahi Linux where they did the work to reverse engineer the drivers for ARM-based Macs.
Asahi started to be developed a couple of months after the first of what would turn out to be the very popular M-chip Macbooks was launched. Those Macbooks are still in people's hands in very large numbers.
Compare that to the number of 1st gen iPads or older iPhones and the demand might not be to the same level to justify the endless reverse engineering effort.
The solution is for the companies to have to open up the device once it's officially not supported.
It wouldn’t be that big a problem if 3rd party app developers would stop dropping support for older operating systems. This is the thing that truly kills the devices.
Go to the App Store on an iPhone 7 and every app will refuse to install because it requires the latest and greatest OS even though they used to work just fine on the old OS. They deliberately drop support even when they don’t have to. Total shitty behavior.
I gotta throw away my phone because you, Mr. Developer, can’t be bothered to keep the old code around for backward compatibility.
As far as I know, it's not really on the app developers, after a while Apple requires them to switch to a newer "target" build if they want to push out an update. Currently, the minimum target iOS version if you're submitting an app to the app store is iOS 18.
And additionally, even if there once was a compatible version, Apple only lets end users download it if they have previously purchased/downloaded the app.
You’re conflating target version with minimum supported version.
There aren’t requirements to update the minimum. They’re independent. There might be limitations on what APIs are still available though in Xcode if they’re removed after a deprecation period however.
You can use the latest SDK, and if you don’t use any new APIs, your app will continue to deploy to whatever minimum you have set.
If you want to use the new APIs, you can put their use behind availability checks.
It’s just that at some point, as a dev, you want to stop testing on older devices and you want to stop branching your code for OS versions that are a minuscule fraction of the active user base. The ROI changes quickly.
1. you must use current Xcode to submit to the App Store
2. Current Xcode only supports a short list of the most recent iOS SDKs as targets
3. Therefore you can’t make a build with an older Xcode to submit, and you can’t make a build that supports say, iOS 15, with current Xcode.
The video highlights a complete hack which can for now be used to make builds that target older SDKs, but Apple could change their systems to break that at any time, and in fact the latest iOSs don’t use these device support files that he shows are the key to the hack. So while you can do this now for old iOS, when 26 is too outdated for Apple to want you to target, this hack won’t work to bring it back.
This video was very informative on how Apple deliberately blocks developers’ ability to update an app without removing support for older iOS and an unsupported undocumented workaround the creator has noticed which at least momentarily works to work around it:
That’s not how that works. Broadly speaking, you compile your app against a selected SDK version. Want to use newer features? You have to use a newer SDK. The SDKs themselves support selected ranges of OSes and don’t go back all the way to the beginning.
If you’re writing an app that targets the newest hardware features, say because you’re making a camera app that uses the latest updates, it’s not going to run on iOS 5. You can’t hold that against app authors, or even against Apple, really. There’s not a lot of return on investment for sinking thousands of dev hours into supporting ancient phones that almost no one uses, and which by definition are more likely to be used by people who won’t spend a dime on apps or services.
It's also worth noting that app stores tend to have a range of SDK versions that they will accept for new uploads. (For iOS apps on the Apple App Store, the minimum is currently the SDK for iOS 18[0], and in April 2026, that will change to a minimum of the SDK for iOS 26[1]).
In some cases (such as with Google Play), app stores will even unpublish apps that were built with old versions of the SDK.
In other words, if you want to update your app at all, you have to stick to the rules that they provide regarding SDK versions.
It's actually a requirement by app store connect to use a modern sdk for uploading binaries, and modern sdk versions will often raise the minimum supported ios version, so this is not always the developer's fault. See for example https://developer.apple.com/news/upcoming-requirements/?id=0...
Not sure this would solve much as new iOS would be far too slow for these devices.
Better they allowed installing linux on old devices. But even then it wouldn't move a needle - it's such a niche case.
Maybe some would end up in extremely poor countries, but even there people can afford $30-50 for a brand new computer and Apple rather get those old devices recycled properly.
I don't understand that. 98% of devices over 15 years old have either died of old age or are completely obsolete. Something can be said about unlocking deprecated devices, but it would only ever be used by a tiny percentage of people. Apple devices in particular last a very long time anyway, as you should expect from a premium brand.
They did the same for the iPad Pro. My kid is using the hand-me-down of my mother (so from grandmother to granddaughter). I put a case on it to protect against bumps, protect screen (has a couple of burn-in marks but it is still very usable) and put tape on top of the camera (the mics likely still work). I also put it on my IoT VLAN. She uses it for YouTube Kids and Disney+, mainly, but schooldays it is limited to 15 min a day and weekend days (fri and sat) to 1 hr. After that, she needs to ask for more time. Usually we don't give that, although in vacations we are lenient. The device still works very well, although the battery (still same as in 2017 or so when it was bought new) is a lil' bit hammered. Now here's the thing: is this device not overkill for the tasks I mentioned? I think so, yes. A kid her age (almost 8) would be happy with whatever, it could be 480p and they're cool with it, as long as the software is still secure (and don't give me the BS of 'don't give them a tablet'; it is locked down and my first shared PC was in like 1989 when I was about her age). And sadly, Apple doesn't want to provide software updates for this device anymore. Microsoft not either, btw, as they deprecated Windows 10 and Windows 11 requires TPMv2 (though Windows is more about PCs and laptops, I'm not sure if there's any effect on Surface hardware). I believe companies can do better, but if they don't want to, they should unlock the bootloader and give the user free reign on the device. You quit support, you unlock the hardware, or else you're violating the local law. That'd be my preference.
It's the larger point. A device with a 64-bit SoC, higher-than-HD display, battery, gigabytes of RAM and storage being consigned to landfill is bonkers.
>It's the larger point. A device with a 64-bit SoC, higher-than-HD display, battery, gigabytes of RAM and storage being consigned to landfill is bonkers.
That's not a high bar to clear. Who's realistically going to use a laptop/desktop with a Core 2 Duo (2006), for instance?
You're going to think my answer is bizarre, but those kind of underpowered devices would be ideal for office work or non-IT businesses in general. They need computers to do the same things as they needed 15 or 20 years ago. Writing documents, spreadsheets, taking inventory, sending and receiving e-mail.
> Something can be said about unlocking deprecated devices, but it would only ever be used by a tiny percentage of people. Apple devices in particular last a very long time anyway, as you should expect from a premium brand.
Used by a tiny percentage only because Apple has made it as difficult as possible to not upgrade, which is especially egregious precisely because their devices are long-lasting.
(This comment brought to you via a perfectly functioning iPhone 8 running the latest possible iOS that supports it.)
HN is biased towards the sort of people who keep computers from 2009 to play with and wish they could get more use out of their 12 year old iPad Air. That's great, but it's simply not a thing for most people so i don't see how it significantly reduce ewaste.
If mobile devices would routinely last twenty years, which they very well could, that would reduce a lot of e-waste. Software getting more demanding is also a function of hardware churn.
The iOS ecosystem graduated to status symbol for many, $66k average salary doesn’t really matter when society will just take whatever carrier trade in deal they can use to status up.
>You're living in a bubble to think people don't want to get more time out of their family's iOS devices.
No, at least for Apple devices, the overwhelming majority are replaced before they reach EOL. According to https://telemetrydeck.com/survey/apple/iPhone/models/, only around 25% of people are using iPhones that were released more than 3 years ago.
Maybe more people aren't running older hardware because it's too difficult, rather than because they don't want to. The basic idea is here is taht if a device can still hold a charge and the user is OK with limited features, they should be able to keep using it as long as they feel like it.
The PC ecosystem is the exception to the rule. 20 year lifetimes are typical, but in the smartphone world 10 years is treated as an impossibility. It is all disposable by design
I'm not sure about today's conventions, but it used to be that every component inside a car had a minimum standard of 10-year-life. The Toyota Landcruiser famously had a minimum 25-year-life for each and every single component. I have worked closely with some older Toyota engineers in Japan. It is possible but not conventional.
> I don't understand that. 98% of devices over 15 years old have either died of old age or are completely obsolete. Something can be said about unlocking deprecated devices, but it would only ever be used by a tiny percentage of people. Apple devices in particular last a very long time anyway, as you should expect from a premium brand.
Fascinating. Could this method be used to boot iPhone OS 1.0 (or at least 1.1.1) on an iPhone 2G with 16GB NAND maybe?
The oldest iPhone OS that natively boots on my particular one is 1.1.4, 1.1.1 (which is the highest version number where you can trivially escape the OOBE via the emergency dialer) fails to initialise the FTL (flash translation layer), probably because the chip is sufficiently different from that used in the older phones.
It would bring me great joy to be able to relive emergency dialer hacktivation again, but I have lost that particular iPhone 2G, and only have this 16GB one left.
A bit of OT, but I have four iPhone 5/5s/SE (the SE is peak design and form factor, fight me) lying around that I use strictly as offline devices for things like saving data from my heart rate monitor, controlling my action camera, doing voice/field recordings through the 3.5mm connector – stuff I'd prefer never to leave my device (or data that should be open to user control but requires an invasive app to work, I have very few apps on my daily driver).
These devices are are small, snappy and powerful enough in 2025.
I am going farther offtopic, too. I have removed the radio on Samsung Galaxy IV device† and they still work. I don't know if that is possible for iphones, just throwing it here.
† I don't have the skills to reverse the process, though :)
I joined Apple at the start of my career when iOS 6 and Snow Leopard were the active projects. I had to learn all of this. I’ve since forgot but this post was a wonderful bit of proprietary OS jargon and trivia nostalgia for me.
26 (Tahoe) has had a lot of teething problems on ALL platforms, and lacks the typical quality and polish of Apple releases. I couldn't believe how many obvious bugs there were on first use across Macbook and iPhone.
Seconding this simply for data purposes. iOS 26 was the worst release I've ever dealt with coming from an iPhone 4S user to present. Goddamn there were so many obvious bugs and flaws. The .1 release fixed some of them but my keyboard still randomly shifts to the left by a few pixels every time it opens.
Take me back to the days where things were governed by UX and not revenue.
I have an iPad Air that I love, made in 2014, last iOS is 12.5. I’d love a slightly more current browser, but the rest of the software is working fine. I spend 6-7 hours using it each day.
Yes, we definitely need something like this for the iDevices - it's outrageous that an old but capable device like iPad Air (1st generation) has to become e-Waste simply because Apple has decided not to support it any longer and won't allow other Operating Systems to run on it. Mac's already have the OpenCore Legacy Patcher - https://github.com/dortania/OpenCore-Legacy-Patcher - that allow you to run newer macOS versions on older and even unsupported Macs.
Kinda related... I put together a filterable set of apps that are supported on older iOS devices. https://cjstewart88.github.io/vintage/
RE ".... won't allow other Operating Systems to run on it...."
How does apple do this ?
By requiring signed firmware and holding the signing keys.
Even if this was overcome (checkra1n) or they provided for bootloader unlocks to run an unsigned firmware, you would still then need to reverse engineer all the drivers. It’s why you don’t see stuff like the original iphone SE’s running different OS.
It would be difficult, but it would at least be possible. See projects like Asahi Linux where they did the work to reverse engineer the drivers for ARM-based Macs.
Asahi started to be developed a couple of months after the first of what would turn out to be the very popular M-chip Macbooks was launched. Those Macbooks are still in people's hands in very large numbers.
Compare that to the number of 1st gen iPads or older iPhones and the demand might not be to the same level to justify the endless reverse engineering effort.
The solution is for the companies to have to open up the device once it's officially not supported.
And I'm sure a lot of that work could be reused for the A-series SoCs.
It wouldn’t be that big a problem if 3rd party app developers would stop dropping support for older operating systems. This is the thing that truly kills the devices.
Go to the App Store on an iPhone 7 and every app will refuse to install because it requires the latest and greatest OS even though they used to work just fine on the old OS. They deliberately drop support even when they don’t have to. Total shitty behavior.
I gotta throw away my phone because you, Mr. Developer, can’t be bothered to keep the old code around for backward compatibility.
As far as I know, it's not really on the app developers, after a while Apple requires them to switch to a newer "target" build if they want to push out an update. Currently, the minimum target iOS version if you're submitting an app to the app store is iOS 18.
And additionally, even if there once was a compatible version, Apple only lets end users download it if they have previously purchased/downloaded the app.
In my opinion, this is almost fully Apple's fault
You’re conflating target version with minimum supported version.
There aren’t requirements to update the minimum. They’re independent. There might be limitations on what APIs are still available though in Xcode if they’re removed after a deprecation period however.
You can use the latest SDK, and if you don’t use any new APIs, your app will continue to deploy to whatever minimum you have set.
If you want to use the new APIs, you can put their use behind availability checks.
It’s just that at some point, as a dev, you want to stop testing on older devices and you want to stop branching your code for OS versions that are a minuscule fraction of the active user base. The ROI changes quickly.
Xcode occasionally bumps the minimum will compile for without complaint.
I'm on iOS 15 and still regularly get updates for a handful of apps. How are they doing it?
Your app must run on iOS 18 but you can drop features to get it to support as old of an iOS as you want.
That’s not true, watch the video here to see why not: https://youtu.be/WXqVV8_GORE
TL;DW
1. you must use current Xcode to submit to the App Store
2. Current Xcode only supports a short list of the most recent iOS SDKs as targets
3. Therefore you can’t make a build with an older Xcode to submit, and you can’t make a build that supports say, iOS 15, with current Xcode.
The video highlights a complete hack which can for now be used to make builds that target older SDKs, but Apple could change their systems to break that at any time, and in fact the latest iOSs don’t use these device support files that he shows are the key to the hack. So while you can do this now for old iOS, when 26 is too outdated for Apple to want you to target, this hack won’t work to bring it back.
No you can
https://developer.apple.com/support/xcode/ the iOS 26 SDK can target iOS 15 or later
This video was very informative on how Apple deliberately blocks developers’ ability to update an app without removing support for older iOS and an unsupported undocumented workaround the creator has noticed which at least momentarily works to work around it:
https://youtu.be/WXqVV8_GORE
That’s not how that works. Broadly speaking, you compile your app against a selected SDK version. Want to use newer features? You have to use a newer SDK. The SDKs themselves support selected ranges of OSes and don’t go back all the way to the beginning.
If you’re writing an app that targets the newest hardware features, say because you’re making a camera app that uses the latest updates, it’s not going to run on iOS 5. You can’t hold that against app authors, or even against Apple, really. There’s not a lot of return on investment for sinking thousands of dev hours into supporting ancient phones that almost no one uses, and which by definition are more likely to be used by people who won’t spend a dime on apps or services.
It's also worth noting that app stores tend to have a range of SDK versions that they will accept for new uploads. (For iOS apps on the Apple App Store, the minimum is currently the SDK for iOS 18[0], and in April 2026, that will change to a minimum of the SDK for iOS 26[1]).
In some cases (such as with Google Play), app stores will even unpublish apps that were built with old versions of the SDK.
In other words, if you want to update your app at all, you have to stick to the rules that they provide regarding SDK versions.
[0] https://developer.apple.com/news/upcoming-requirements/?id=0...
[1] https://developer.apple.com/app-store/submitting/
It's actually a requirement by app store connect to use a modern sdk for uploading binaries, and modern sdk versions will often raise the minimum supported ios version, so this is not always the developer's fault. See for example https://developer.apple.com/news/upcoming-requirements/?id=0...
Not sure this would solve much as new iOS would be far too slow for these devices.
Better they allowed installing linux on old devices. But even then it wouldn't move a needle - it's such a niche case.
Maybe some would end up in extremely poor countries, but even there people can afford $30-50 for a brand new computer and Apple rather get those old devices recycled properly.
I don't understand that. 98% of devices over 15 years old have either died of old age or are completely obsolete. Something can be said about unlocking deprecated devices, but it would only ever be used by a tiny percentage of people. Apple devices in particular last a very long time anyway, as you should expect from a premium brand.
They did the same for the iPad Pro. My kid is using the hand-me-down of my mother (so from grandmother to granddaughter). I put a case on it to protect against bumps, protect screen (has a couple of burn-in marks but it is still very usable) and put tape on top of the camera (the mics likely still work). I also put it on my IoT VLAN. She uses it for YouTube Kids and Disney+, mainly, but schooldays it is limited to 15 min a day and weekend days (fri and sat) to 1 hr. After that, she needs to ask for more time. Usually we don't give that, although in vacations we are lenient. The device still works very well, although the battery (still same as in 2017 or so when it was bought new) is a lil' bit hammered. Now here's the thing: is this device not overkill for the tasks I mentioned? I think so, yes. A kid her age (almost 8) would be happy with whatever, it could be 480p and they're cool with it, as long as the software is still secure (and don't give me the BS of 'don't give them a tablet'; it is locked down and my first shared PC was in like 1989 when I was about her age). And sadly, Apple doesn't want to provide software updates for this device anymore. Microsoft not either, btw, as they deprecated Windows 10 and Windows 11 requires TPMv2 (though Windows is more about PCs and laptops, I'm not sure if there's any effect on Surface hardware). I believe companies can do better, but if they don't want to, they should unlock the bootloader and give the user free reign on the device. You quit support, you unlock the hardware, or else you're violating the local law. That'd be my preference.
It's the larger point. A device with a 64-bit SoC, higher-than-HD display, battery, gigabytes of RAM and storage being consigned to landfill is bonkers.
>It's the larger point. A device with a 64-bit SoC, higher-than-HD display, battery, gigabytes of RAM and storage being consigned to landfill is bonkers.
That's not a high bar to clear. Who's realistically going to use a laptop/desktop with a Core 2 Duo (2006), for instance?
With lightweight , efficient , non bloated software it is entirely possible ? Start with a efficient OS
I was ripping CDs with a Core 2 Duo Macbook a couple weeks ago lol (running Linux)
I still use a C2D laptop running Linux for some things.
You're going to think my answer is bizarre, but those kind of underpowered devices would be ideal for office work or non-IT businesses in general. They need computers to do the same things as they needed 15 or 20 years ago. Writing documents, spreadsheets, taking inventory, sending and receiving e-mail.
Thinpkad owners/modders, probably.
Because your made up stat is false because you lump a real problem (died of old age) with a fake one (completely obsolete)
> Something can be said about unlocking deprecated devices, but it would only ever be used by a tiny percentage of people. Apple devices in particular last a very long time anyway, as you should expect from a premium brand.
Used by a tiny percentage only because Apple has made it as difficult as possible to not upgrade, which is especially egregious precisely because their devices are long-lasting.
(This comment brought to you via a perfectly functioning iPhone 8 running the latest possible iOS that supports it.)
I am typing this from my 2009 Win7 PC I use for older Windows games...
Huh?
RE "....I am typing this from my 2009 Win7 PC...."
Ssssshhhh ..... Microsoft does not want people to hear this .....
HN is biased towards the sort of people who keep computers from 2009 to play with and wish they could get more use out of their 12 year old iPad Air. That's great, but it's simply not a thing for most people so i don't see how it significantly reduce ewaste.
If mobile devices would routinely last twenty years, which they very well could, that would reduce a lot of e-waste. Software getting more demanding is also a function of hardware churn.
It’s sad that hardware outlasts software. You’d expect the opposite.
The average salary in the USA is still $66k. You're living in a bubble to think people don't want to get more time out of their family's iOS devices.
The iOS ecosystem graduated to status symbol for many, $66k average salary doesn’t really matter when society will just take whatever carrier trade in deal they can use to status up.
>You're living in a bubble to think people don't want to get more time out of their family's iOS devices.
No, at least for Apple devices, the overwhelming majority are replaced before they reach EOL. According to https://telemetrydeck.com/survey/apple/iPhone/models/, only around 25% of people are using iPhones that were released more than 3 years ago.
So only ~35 million people?
Maybe more people aren't running older hardware because it's too difficult, rather than because they don't want to. The basic idea is here is taht if a device can still hold a charge and the user is OK with limited features, they should be able to keep using it as long as they feel like it.
The PC ecosystem is the exception to the rule. 20 year lifetimes are typical, but in the smartphone world 10 years is treated as an impossibility. It is all disposable by design
I am running the latest LineageOS on my OnePlus 5, which is eight years old. I intend to be using it for some time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OnePlus_5
I'm not sure about today's conventions, but it used to be that every component inside a car had a minimum standard of 10-year-life. The Toyota Landcruiser famously had a minimum 25-year-life for each and every single component. I have worked closely with some older Toyota engineers in Japan. It is possible but not conventional.
> I don't understand that. 98% of devices over 15 years old have either died of old age or are completely obsolete. Something can be said about unlocking deprecated devices, but it would only ever be used by a tiny percentage of people. Apple devices in particular last a very long time anyway, as you should expect from a premium brand.
This comment gave me whiplash
Fascinating. Could this method be used to boot iPhone OS 1.0 (or at least 1.1.1) on an iPhone 2G with 16GB NAND maybe?
The oldest iPhone OS that natively boots on my particular one is 1.1.4, 1.1.1 (which is the highest version number where you can trivially escape the OOBE via the emergency dialer) fails to initialise the FTL (flash translation layer), probably because the chip is sufficiently different from that used in the older phones.
It would bring me great joy to be able to relive emergency dialer hacktivation again, but I have lost that particular iPhone 2G, and only have this 16GB one left.
A bit of OT, but I have four iPhone 5/5s/SE (the SE is peak design and form factor, fight me) lying around that I use strictly as offline devices for things like saving data from my heart rate monitor, controlling my action camera, doing voice/field recordings through the 3.5mm connector – stuff I'd prefer never to leave my device (or data that should be open to user control but requires an invasive app to work, I have very few apps on my daily driver).
These devices are are small, snappy and powerful enough in 2025.
I am going farther offtopic, too. I have removed the radio on Samsung Galaxy IV device† and they still work. I don't know if that is possible for iphones, just throwing it here.
† I don't have the skills to reverse the process, though :)
It's a shame there isn't something like Lineage OS for Apple mobile devices.
I joined Apple at the start of my career when iOS 6 and Snow Leopard were the active projects. I had to learn all of this. I’ve since forgot but this post was a wonderful bit of proprietary OS jargon and trivia nostalgia for me.
All of that is cool, but can this help get iOS 18 back on supported devices that have upgraded to 26? That'd be magical.
26 (Tahoe) has had a lot of teething problems on ALL platforms, and lacks the typical quality and polish of Apple releases. I couldn't believe how many obvious bugs there were on first use across Macbook and iPhone.
Seconding this simply for data purposes. iOS 26 was the worst release I've ever dealt with coming from an iPhone 4S user to present. Goddamn there were so many obvious bugs and flaws. The .1 release fixed some of them but my keyboard still randomly shifts to the left by a few pixels every time it opens.
Take me back to the days where things were governed by UX and not revenue.
Probably need a lawsuit in the EU before they allow downgrading OS. I would love to get my old phones to iOS 16 to jailbreak it.
Sadly not, those devices don’t have an exploit afaik
I wonder if liquid glass will push people to jailbreak 18 and 26.
Interesting article. Minor correction:
It prepends "--bundle-id ".I have an iPad Air that I love, made in 2014, last iOS is 12.5. I’d love a slightly more current browser, but the rest of the software is working fine. I spend 6-7 hours using it each day.
Just a browser is all I want.
Writing this from an iPhone 8 (no sec updates anymore) and I am not feeling good about it…
Really the command to strip a “fat header” is called “lipo”…