4 ms·
...plus, it becomes very cumbersome to manually update 'some apps' but not 'other apps'. The UI interface makes it nearly impossible to manage this because you
by DavideNL 6y ago
...plus, it becomes very cumbersome to manually update 'some apps' but not 'other apps'. The UI interface makes it nearly impossible to manage this because you can't click "update all apps" anymore;
So, you'd then have to manually click like 100 apps individually/one by one to update them.
- Silhouette 6y agoI have long argued that what we really need to fix this kind of problem is a very clear separation between essential updates for things like security fixes, where something in the original software was not working as intended, and any other updates that might change behaviour or look and feel in arbitrary (and possibly unwanted by the user) ways. IMHO, it would then be very beneficial from the user's perspective to have a system-wide default policy for updates along the lines of "install nothing without asking", "install essential updates automatically, ask about others" and "install all updates automatically". Of course, this would require software developers to actually fix older versions of the software they sold when it was broken, as they used to, instead of trying to make it the user's problem as the developers move on to whatever they want to do next, which has become a popular business model as we've moved to online updates being widely accessible and to web and mobile apps where "latest" is often the only version available to users. So it's obvious why developers aren't so keen. What's less obvious to me is why, given the damage caused by the more recent model, the rest of society tolerates that behaviour instead of holding developers accountable for their earlier mistakes like anyone else who sells us a defective product.