Why has iTunes 12.7 eliminated the ability to move apps into iPhone folders

Question

Level 1

10 points

Why has iTunes 12.7 eliminated the ability to move apps into iPhone folders

Once again, the geniuses at Apple, in an effort to make changes in the UI apparently for the sake of making changes, has done it again.

We are no longer able within iTunes to (1) see the iPhone screens (2) create folders and (3) move newly downloaded apps into the folders we create.

Why? WHYYYYYY??

Why did you get rid of this perfectly good UI interface? What were you thinking? Why do you persist in getting rid of features that allows for ease of use? Do you even THINK about users? Do you?

You and everyone else in Silicon Valley seem to think that ANY change is a good change. Well, I have news for you. Sometimes it is not. In fact, most often it is not.

I went through the tedious process of upgrading iTunes, including spending about an hour deleting files and folders and starting and stoping processes to ensure I could upgrade since I kept getting install errors, but to what end? So I couldn't actually use the iTune interface to MANAGE my Apps?? What were you thinking? Who are the bozos in charge of this operation?

What a joke.

iPhone 7, iOS 11.2.6

Posted on Feb 25, 2018 8:39 PM

Reply

Answer 1

Best reply

javaliga

Level 10

119,409 points

Feb 26, 2018 10:33 AM in response to Karl Keller

If you do downgrade, consider iTunes 12.6.3:

iTunes 12.6.3 brings back App, Ringtone support

Also, pay attention to this paragraph from turingtest2's article:

Managing apps with iTunes 12.7 or later

which states:

Those that want to continue to manage apps in iTunes, for example to mange multiple devices from a common library, can see the support article Deploy apps in a business environment with iTunes - Apple Support for access to iTunes 12.6.3. This is an out of sequence release which restores these features, provides support for iOS 11 and iPhone 8, and will turn off automatic updating of iTunes. Windows users need to uninstall the current copy of the iTunes application first. See Empty/corrupt iTunes library after upgrade/crash for steps to revert to a pre-iTunes 12.7 version of your iTunes database.

Reply

Answer 2

Limnos

Level 10

411,223 points

Feb 25, 2018 8:42 PM in response to Karl Keller

Apple is not here, only other users like yourself. We do not know why Apple did this. You can try asking them but you may be lucky to get a reply.

http://www.apple.com/feedback/itunesapp.html

Changes in the new iTunes [12.7] - https://support.apple.com/HT208075

Managing apps with iTunes 12.7 or later - https://discussions.apple.com/docs/DOC-12234

Reply

Answer 3

Feb 26, 2018 8:40 AM in response to CroMagnum

CroMagnum wrote:

I recommend one of the ever-dwindling external forums.

Sending gripes to Apple, while they do work on issues – keeps any problems cloistered 'in the family.'

This forum is not where you send "gripes" to Apple. That should be done through the feedback page:

Product Feedback - Apple

Reply

Answer 4

Karl Keller Author

Level 1

10 points

Feb 26, 2018 10:38 AM in response to CroMagnum

Correct. They are supposed to be these design geniuses, but the evolution of the UI in iTunes has been nothing short of disastrous. Unfortunately, this inclination to make changes, often removing functionality, is endemic in the tech business. The motto seems to be "it isn't broke, so let's fix it!"

Reply

Answer 5

Feb 27, 2018 11:04 AM in response to Karl Keller

I wouldn't say that's a tech motto, but more of an Apple and Samsung motto as they both do this with good features with alarming regularity. It's pretty annoying especially considering they're as receptive to feedback as a brick wall.

Reply

Answer 6

turingtest2

Level 10

272,761 points

Feb 27, 2018 11:18 AM in response to Karl Keller

Addressing the why...?

The terms of use of these communities prohibit speculating about Apple's policies, but assuming I'm allowed a little latitude I suspect the answer is to cut down on the bandwidth used by updates. Since iOS 9 devices have been able to download the changes to the app from the previous version, and only the code applicable to that device's screen size, hardware, and firmware version, while iTunes would download a monolithic installer for the app capable of installing on any compatible iOS device. In short iTunes was in many cases downloading much more data, and it often wasn't used as apps would update on devices before being synced with iTunes. In my case, and others I'm sure, iTunes was also downloading updates for apps that I had uninstalled from my devices and had no intention of using again.

tt2

Reply

Answer 7

Karl Keller Author

Level 1

10 points

Feb 27, 2018 12:20 PM in response to turingtest2

@turingest2 Concern about bandwidth and bloat is reasonable, but addressing that by eliminating associated pieces of functionality brings new meaning to another motto that may be applicable -- i.e., "throwing out the baby with the bathwater." Meanwhile, bandwidth is faster, and storage is cheap, so why not provide a UI that takes advantage of both? Dial up and floppy disks are obsolete.

A good UI designer would allow the user as much control as possible in how the software interfaces with the device. I've been involved in design programs at the university level, and one key principle is that "Improvements" should always enhance user interfaces...and not eliminate accustomed -- and oft-used -- functionality. This principle holds true in the material as well as the software world. There's nothing wrong with altering the interface to make the functionality more efficient, and to enhance affordances for new users. But kill the functionality? Typically very bad.

Reply

Answer 8

turingtest2

Level 10

272,761 points

Feb 27, 2018 12:26 PM in response to Karl Keller

I don't necessarily disagree with you. Hiding the app management interface, with an explanation that updating via your device was much more efficient for all concerned, but allowing for the possibility of it to be enabled, together perhaps with advance notice that it might be removed later would have been much nicer that the unheralded fait accompli.

tt2

Reply