OverDrive drops support for Mac

[odamizu]

Statement from OverDrive:

“Due to upcoming macOS changes, and to simplify the user experience, OverDrive will soon end support for OverDrive for Mac. Effective September 4, 2019, OverDrive for Mac will no longer be available for download and Mac users will no longer see the option to download audiobook titles at your OverDrive website. Instead, Mac users can enjoy audiobooks using OverDrive Listen from [McGill’s OverDrive] library website."

If I understand correctly, "OverDrive Listen" is a web browser streaming option, which means you now need an active Internet connection if you want to listen to library audiobooks on a Mac.

https://mcgill.ca/channels/channels/...c-users-300113

Also: https://help.overdrive.com/en-us/1322.htm

[JSWolf]

Is there a version of Libby for OS X?

[odamizu]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Is there a version of Libby for OS X?

As far as I can tell, there is a Libby app for iOS as well as an OverDrive app for iOS, but neither are available for macOS. The only option for Mac computers is to stream through a browser with an always-on Internet connection.

[haertig]

Can you run Overdrive under WINE on a Mac?

https://www.winehq.org/

[odamizu]

Interesting. I never thought of WINE on Mac as I associate it with Linux. Don't know if OverDrive will work.

I tested the Windows version of OverDrive running on VM on Mac. That works.

But it's sad that OverDrive has dropped support for off-line listening on Mac computers. Though I suppose most people listen to audiobooks via apps nowadays.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by odamizu

Interesting. I never thought of WINE on Mac as I associate it with Linux. Don't know if OverDrive will work.

I tested the Windows version of OverDrive running on VM on Mac. That works.

But it's sad that OverDrive has dropped support for off-line listening on Mac computers. Though I suppose most people listen to audiobooks via apps nowadays.

I suspect that's the case. I also suspect that if they had their way, some of these services would drop their support for off-line listening all together.

[odamizu]

As of yesterday, OverDrive restored support for the Mac desktop app and the downloading of mp3s for Macs running 10.6 (Snow Leopard) thru 10.14 (Mojave).

They have stated, however, that they have no plans to update OverDrive for Mac to make it compatible with Catalina (10.15):

OverDrive for Mac and OverDrive MP3 audiobooks will not be compatible with the upcoming macOS version 10.15 (Catalina), expected to be released in October 2019. This is because Apple requires all apps in macOS Catalina or newer to be 64-bit, and OverDrive for Mac (which is required for downloading MP3 audiobooks) is 32-bit.

https://help.overdrive.com/en-us/1322.htm

[JSWolf]

Apple is really screwing the pooch by going 64-bit only.

[haertig]

Is there a reason why Apple would not want to support 32-bit applications? Or are they just not supporting them "because we're Apple and we have a long history of forcing things on our users"? I'm thinking it might be more the latter.

Sure, 64-bit apps would see benefits that 32-bits apps wouldn't, but why would Apple care what version a user wanted to run? No skin off Apple's nose if a user has older software that they'd like to keep using.

[CRussel]

It's _always_ easier to simply drop support for legacy. And can often result in real savings in other ways, such as security and hardware. Apple, being a closed system, has no real compelling reason to want to provide legacy support -- they want you to buy new.

Microsoft faced this when they moved to 64-bit Windows. They dropped support for 16-bit apps, but supported 32-bit apps (and, in fact, continue to ship 32-bit versions of the consumer version of Windows to this day.)

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by CRussel

It's _always_ easier to simply drop support for legacy. And can often result in real savings in other ways, such as security and hardware. Apple, being a closed system, has no real compelling reason to want to provide legacy support -- they want you to buy new.

Microsoft faced this when they moved to 64-bit Windows. They dropped support for 16-bit apps, but supported 32-bit apps (and, in fact, continue to ship 32-bit versions of the consumer version of Windows to this day.)

There are two basic models for supporting legacy. One is to only support legacy for a limited time, which simplifies security and maintenance and makes it much easier to move in new directions, the other is to attempt to provide backward compatibility as much as possible, which makes it much more complex to move forward.

Microsoft and Windows is the classic example of the later and a big reason that many versions of Windows were so buggy. Many people get comfortable with something and resist change as much as possible. I know people who were still using DOS programs well over a decade after Windows 3.0 came out.

The big issue with operating systems is that to move forward, you have to change things including the internal API's. This causes programs not to work. The real issue with 32 bit programs and Apple isn't that they are 32 bit, it's that they haven't been upgraded. Apple moved to 64 bit almost a decade ago and has been telling app programs for well over a year that they were dropping 32 bit support. So if you have a program that isn't 64 bit, odds are pretty good it hasn't been upgraded in a while.

The real answer if you have some 32 bit program that hasn't been upgraded is not to upgrade the operating system. Of course that means that you won't get security updates and eventually certain programs that connect to backend systems such as iTunes will stop being able to connect to those backend systems. I have an old 32 bit mac mini that I keep at Sierra. I use it to run a couple of old legacy programs that broke when High Sierra came out.

[JSWolf]

Apple's decision to go 64-bit only is not for security or ease of use. The reason Apple is going 64-bit only is to get people with older systems that won't run the new OSX will have to upgrade their hardware. It's a money making scheme. There's no reason Apple cannot keep support of 32-bit programs.

It's the same issue when a hardware company doesn't write a new driver for the new OS and the old driver no longer works. The hardware is perfectly OK, but the they want you to buy new hardware instead.

It's a scam and Apple is very good at playing it. They stop supporting older hardware when it will easily run the new OS. iPhones and iPads are a very good example of this.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Apple's decision to go 64-bit only is not for security or ease of use. The reason Apple is going 64-bit only is to get people with older systems that won't run the new OSX will have to upgrade their hardware. It's a money making scheme. There's no reason Apple cannot keep support of 32-bit programs.

It's the same issue when a hardware company doesn't write a new driver for the new OS and the old driver no longer works. The hardware is perfectly OK, but the they want you to buy new hardware instead.

It's a scam and Apple is very good at playing it. They stop supporting older hardware when it will easily run the new OS. iPhones and iPads are a very good example of this.

Yea, that's why Apple followed Microsoft's lead to charge $100 for an operation system upgrade. They are all about the money. Oh, wait. The OS upgrades are free.

Sigh. Yes, Apple is a hardware company and yes, Apple designed their operating systems to take advantage of the faster, more capable hardware. If you have faster, more capable machines, odds are pretty good you want an OS that can take advantage of it.

If you want to keep your 8 year old iPhone or mac, then don't upgrade the operating system. A 32 bit mac with Sierra still works just fine.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Yea, that's why Apple followed Microsoft's lead to charge $100 for an operation system upgrade. They are all about the money. Oh, wait. The OS upgrades are free.

Sigh. Yes, Apple is a hardware company and yes, Apple designed their operating systems to take advantage of the faster, more capable hardware. If you have faster, more capable machines, odds are pretty good you want an OS that can take advantage of it.

If you want to keep your 8 year old iPhone or mac, then don't upgrade the operating system. A 32 bit mac with Sierra still works just fine.

But a 32-bit only MAC won't work well once most of the programs and new programs are 64-bit only.

As for old iPhones and old iPads, there will come a point when you can no longer get updates on certain software that you use and new software is a forget it as well.

It is unfair to stop supporting older hardware when the OS will run no bother. It only becomes an issue if the new OS won't work or is too slow.

[haertig]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Sigh. Yes, Apple is a hardware company and yes, Apple designed their operating systems to take advantage of the faster, more capable hardware. If you have faster, more capable machines, odds are pretty good you want an OS that can take advantage of it.

Nobody said not to buy 64-bit hardware. Nobody said not to buy a 64-bit OS.

It is not unreasonable to ask for that shiny new 64-bit platform to continue supporting 32-bit apps, just like most every other 64-bit platform currently does. There is software that simply is not available in 64-bit. It could be because the developers are severely lagging in their updates. Or it could be because the software has been abandoned. Or maybe the user doesn't want to shell out more money to upgrade a program that works perfectly fine for them in 32-bit mode.

I agree with other posters who have said this is most likely a money ploy by Apple. Everything else they do pretty much is, so why not this? Apple makes good stuff. Way overpriced. Proprietary. And the company seems to have high disdain for their customers. So it's not out of character for them to drop support for 32-bit programs. Did anyone really expect different behavior?