4 ms·

No disrespect intended, but I’d just like to point out- “I don’t like app stores because they don’t have quality” and yet here they are trying to ensure qualit

No disrespect intended, but I’d just like to point out- “I don’t like app stores because they don’t have quality” and yet here they are trying to ensure quality, and you’re upset about it because they’re trying to stop users from having a bad experience by losing content they cared enough to curate? I’m not entirely sure the problem is in the review process here...

jbk 9y ago
Exactly my point: they annoy us over a slight bug, and yet avoid upgrade to a stable version that fixes around 2000 bugs, over 2 years. So, for a small bug, they let thousands get unfixed. And go on the appstores: how many scams, fake VLC and so on, do you see? They claim to do reviews to get quality, and yet so many apps are fake, scams, and got approved nevertheless. It's the same on Apple, Windows, Android and Amazon.
- lowtolerance 9y ago
  A bug that results in data loss is not “slight” or “small”. I’d honestly rather have an unstable beta app than a production release that doesn’t offer a proper data migration. I’m disappointed that the VLC team would rather remove their app from an app store (again) than fix an issue with their app. At least Google is trying to look out for their users.
  - flyingcircus3 9y ago
    Troll me once shame on you, troll me twice shame on me. What if the older, available version, which he just claimed had 2000 bugs, had 2000 bugs that resulted in data loss? How can you legitimately argue that he's not looking out for his users?
  - godzillabrennus 9y ago
    Hard to shame the developers who donate their time to open source software. How about we shake the App Store for trying to decide that 2,000 bugs are better for their users than losing a playlist.
  - lowtolerance 9y ago
    If that were the case and the developers knew it, then they should have pulled it from the store long before now. Think about it - they didn’t pull the app because of the bugs. They pulled the app because they don’t agree with Amazon (of all people) that releasing a major version update with a bug known to cause personal data loss is totally unacceptable. They’d rather not provide an app for the platform at all than work out a solution to a “slight bug” that would cause their users on that platform from losing their playlists during an update. It seems to me that this is a case of a diva developer getting his feelings hurt, not a reasonable decision based on an unconsistent approval process. I can’t imagine a more used-hostile attitude than that. Edit: somehow got it in my head that they pulled VLC from the Google Play Store.
    - flyingcircus3 9y ago
      To me it sounds like you've essentialized the target of your ire, while contextualizing what you prefer. Even google shouldnt be above your reproach in a situation like this. VLC is one of the shining beacons of the open source community, in my opinion. Just like every successful project that retains it's core values, compromise is key. The dude is all over this thread calmly explaining everything to anyone who asked. How does any of his behavior fit into any reasonable definition of diva?
      - lowtolerance 9y ago
        Above reproach? For what? Enforcing their quality standards? You are placing the “shining beacon of the open source community” above approach reproach, without a hint of awareness of the irony. Having a calm demeanor when explaining that they pulled the plug on VLC for FireTV because they couldn’t be bothered with fixing a “slight bug” that causes data loss (and which Amazon views as a “blocker”) doesn’t make the decision any less diva-like. Unless a core value of VLC’s dev team is “egos over users”, I don’t see how you could possibly argue that this is a compromise. A compromise would have been leaving the old, buggy version of the app up with a note in the description that it is no longer supported. I find it really disheartening that this is even a contentious opinion in the HN community. If the developer had come right out and said, “we just don’t have the resources to dedicate to fixing a major issue with the way playlists are exported from the current version of our app for FireTV, so we are discontinuing the app, effective immediately”, that would have been perfectly acceptable. Instead, he diminished the severity of the bug and blamed the removal of the app on Amazon’s uneven approval process, despite the fact that the app does not meet one of the most basic criterion of Amazon’s approval process: “Apps do not put customer data at risk once installed”. It’s the developer equivalent of knocking the Monopoly board off the table because you lost a turn. I don’t care how highly regarded the VLC development team is, this kind of behavior should be scorned rather than excused.
swiley 9y ago
Just because they try to ensure it doesn’t mean they actually achieve that. App stores really are pretty terrible, I feel like the average palm pilot app had much more quality than the average smartphone app for any platform.
JohnTHaller 9y ago
They're forcing users to use an old buggy (and likely insecure) beta version of an app because a new stable version can't incorporate the old buggy beta version's playlists.

jbk 9y ago

Exactly my point: they annoy us over a slight bug, and yet avoid upgrade to a stable version that fixes around 2000 bugs, over 2 years. So, for a small bug, they let thousands get unfixed. And go on the appstores: how many scams, fake VLC and so on, do you see? They claim to do reviews to get quality, and yet so many apps are fake, scams, and got approved nevertheless. It's the same on Apple, Windows, Android and Amazon.

lowtolerance 9y ago
A bug that results in data loss is not “slight” or “small”. I’d honestly rather have an unstable beta app than a production release that doesn’t offer a proper data migration. I’m disappointed that the VLC team would rather remove their app from an app store (again) than fix an issue with their app. At least Google is trying to look out for their users.
- flyingcircus3 9y ago
  Troll me once shame on you, troll me twice shame on me. What if the older, available version, which he just claimed had 2000 bugs, had 2000 bugs that resulted in data loss? How can you legitimately argue that he's not looking out for his users?
- godzillabrennus 9y ago
  Hard to shame the developers who donate their time to open source software. How about we shake the App Store for trying to decide that 2,000 bugs are better for their users than losing a playlist.
- lowtolerance 9y ago
  If that were the case and the developers knew it, then they should have pulled it from the store long before now. Think about it - they didn’t pull the app because of the bugs. They pulled the app because they don’t agree with Amazon (of all people) that releasing a major version update with a bug known to cause personal data loss is totally unacceptable. They’d rather not provide an app for the platform at all than work out a solution to a “slight bug” that would cause their users on that platform from losing their playlists during an update. It seems to me that this is a case of a diva developer getting his feelings hurt, not a reasonable decision based on an unconsistent approval process. I can’t imagine a more used-hostile attitude than that. Edit: somehow got it in my head that they pulled VLC from the Google Play Store.
  - flyingcircus3 9y ago
    To me it sounds like you've essentialized the target of your ire, while contextualizing what you prefer. Even google shouldnt be above your reproach in a situation like this. VLC is one of the shining beacons of the open source community, in my opinion. Just like every successful project that retains it's core values, compromise is key. The dude is all over this thread calmly explaining everything to anyone who asked. How does any of his behavior fit into any reasonable definition of diva?
    - lowtolerance 9y ago
      Above reproach? For what? Enforcing their quality standards? You are placing the “shining beacon of the open source community” above approach reproach, without a hint of awareness of the irony. Having a calm demeanor when explaining that they pulled the plug on VLC for FireTV because they couldn’t be bothered with fixing a “slight bug” that causes data loss (and which Amazon views as a “blocker”) doesn’t make the decision any less diva-like. Unless a core value of VLC’s dev team is “egos over users”, I don’t see how you could possibly argue that this is a compromise. A compromise would have been leaving the old, buggy version of the app up with a note in the description that it is no longer supported. I find it really disheartening that this is even a contentious opinion in the HN community. If the developer had come right out and said, “we just don’t have the resources to dedicate to fixing a major issue with the way playlists are exported from the current version of our app for FireTV, so we are discontinuing the app, effective immediately”, that would have been perfectly acceptable. Instead, he diminished the severity of the bug and blamed the removal of the app on Amazon’s uneven approval process, despite the fact that the app does not meet one of the most basic criterion of Amazon’s approval process: “Apps do not put customer data at risk once installed”. It’s the developer equivalent of knocking the Monopoly board off the table because you lost a turn. I don’t care how highly regarded the VLC development team is, this kind of behavior should be scorned rather than excused.

swiley 9y ago

Just because they try to ensure it doesn’t mean they actually achieve that. App stores really are pretty terrible, I feel like the average palm pilot app had much more quality than the average smartphone app for any platform.

JohnTHaller 9y ago

They're forcing users to use an old buggy (and likely insecure) beta version of an app because a new stable version can't incorporate the old buggy beta version's playlists.