I know I'm going to look like a whacko and this will probably go over like a 
lead balloon, but I'll say it anyway: I'd like to see iOS 5 stay in Cordova for 
the next while. This is with my customer hat on, not my Cordova developer hat 
on.

The reason is because our distribution has customers internationally, including 
Asia. In Asia there are higher concentrations of iOS devices that aren't 
upgraded like other geographies, which there becomes a significant amount of 
end-user devices instead of a trivial amount. iOS 5 end users are important to 
app developers in Asia using our distribution - they want to support these end 
users.

I'm gating this based on the following understandings, please point out any 
errors:
- Xcode 5 can target iOS 5.0 and 5.1
- Xcode 5 has emulators for iOS 5.0 and 5.1
- the fat binary support in Xcode 5 can generate 32-bit code that can run on 
iOS 5.0 and 5.1. [1]
- there isn't code that needs to be ripped out or a bunch of conditional 
branches that need to stay in especially if iOS 6 is supported, it's really a 
matter of test effort to cover iOS 5.x

[1] per the Xcode release notes, it actually looks like the min target for fat 
binaries is iOS 5.1.1. This pokes at least one hole in my argument if the 
desire is to generate only a fat binary.

I understand the thought process around supporting iOS n and n-1. And the 
desire to set a cutoff at a 5% global average usage. But Asia isn't average, 
and averages can hide things. My suggestion is to align more (not entirely) 
with what the current Xcode supports as deployment targets with emulators. 
Apple seems to keep the cutoff level in Xcode moving up. To keep balance, I 
also wouldn't suggest to do something unnatural (i.e., iOS 4.3).

On Dec 19, 2013, at 1:32 PM, Shazron <[email protected]> wrote:

> Starting Feb 1st, 2014, Xcode 5 is required:
> https://developer.apple.com/news/index.php?id=12172013a
> 
> This is the perfect time to drop iOS 5.0 support, and support arm64. I
> would say the Jan 2014 release should have this change.

Reply via email to