2 ms·

The real issue is that some people are relying on unmaintained software. If they want to serve customers, IMO, the platform vendor should make a best-effort at

The real issue is that some people are relying on unmaintained software. If they want to serve customers, IMO, the platform vendor should make a best-effort attempt to let unmaintained software keep working. I hear a lot of post hoc justifications from Apple fans about how hard to maintain the compatibility layers are. But. It strikes me that a job has fun and not so fun parts. If there is really an ongoing maintenance issue generating more work release-to-release maybe look to re-design how the compatibility layer works.

wtallis 7y ago
> If they want to serve customers, IMO, the platform vendor should make a best-effort attempt to let unmaintained software keep working. I agree. The problem is when the major ISVs abuse this and force Apple to keep doing high-priority QA to preserve binary compatibility with major applications that are mission-critical for many Apple users and are still maintained to some degree. Users of unmaintained applications are generally somewhat understanding or accepting of gradual breakage driven by real technical necessity. Users with an active subscription to Adobe CC rightfully have higher expectations that their software continue to work without being broken by OS updates - but Adobe was trying to make that entirely Apple's problem, just as they did for migrating away from PowerPC and Carbon APIs.