3 ms·

I think it has. On Windows, famous for its backwards compatibility, you still have software that shows ancient dialogs, have graphics at a resolution for 640×48

I think it has. On Windows, famous for its backwards compatibility, you still have software that shows ancient dialogs, have graphics at a resolution for 640×480 monitors, or that work with 8.3 file names, and only with those (so, you can’t save docs with long names, and have to guess at the short names of files and directories with long names) Yes, banning such apps is a loss for the customer experience of being able to run such applications, but there are disadvantages, too. For many of those applications, users would be happier _if_ those applications were maintained and adjusted to modern hardware and new OS capabilities. Now, of course, that’s an _if_. Apple makes a different choice than Microsoft there. They think losing applications isn’t a big problem (presumably as long as replacements exist, but even that isn’t strictly necessary for some tools. The public at large can do without a Kermit program or RSS reader, for example, because it has alternative ways to download files or access news)

Brian_K_White 5y ago
1) The customer who does not need a Kermit app is not forced to use one. Nor even are they forced to live with a crappy OS just so that old apos can keep working. The customer who does need a Kermit app, is forced to live without. 2) Even worse, they are forced to live without even though the work was done to create one and they had it yesterday. This is not all explained my mere inevitable and unavoidable compatibility creep, nor by the sensible goal not to be Microsoft with their mountains of Rube Goldberg code to deal with countless obscure backwards compatibility quirks. That will make things break eventually, but this an arbitrary and voluntary choice driven by goals other than serving the needs of users as well as possible in trade for their money. Apple values their appearance and their revenue stream above all else. Setting aside malware and other demonstrably legitimate security topics, because we aren't talking about apps that are no longer safe to use for some reason, or that are no longer compatible with the OS because of security-related changes in the OS.: Purging all apps that are "ugly" or have any sort of undesired ux, or that aren't generating income for Apple one way or another, benefits Apple, not the users. The users would prfectly happily simply not use an app that sucked. If any are using it, then it must be supplying some function that the user wants. Whatever that function is, obviously it matters more to the user than any of the excuses for removing it. It only benefits Apple to purge them, not the user, and it's not a case of "What's good for Apple is good for is good for all Apple users" I don't claim it's just Apple either. Google increasingly does the same thing, just a bit less.

Brian_K_White 5y ago

1) The customer who does not need a Kermit app is not forced to use one. Nor even are they forced to live with a crappy OS just so that old apos can keep working. The customer who does need a Kermit app, is forced to live without. 2) Even worse, they are forced to live without even though the work was done to create one and they had it yesterday. This is not all explained my mere inevitable and unavoidable compatibility creep, nor by the sensible goal not to be Microsoft with their mountains of Rube Goldberg code to deal with countless obscure backwards compatibility quirks. That will make things break eventually, but this an arbitrary and voluntary choice driven by goals other than serving the needs of users as well as possible in trade for their money. Apple values their appearance and their revenue stream above all else. Setting aside malware and other demonstrably legitimate security topics, because we aren't talking about apps that are no longer safe to use for some reason, or that are no longer compatible with the OS because of security-related changes in the OS.: Purging all apps that are "ugly" or have any sort of undesired ux, or that aren't generating income for Apple one way or another, benefits Apple, not the users. The users would prfectly happily simply not use an app that sucked. If any are using it, then it must be supplying some function that the user wants. Whatever that function is, obviously it matters more to the user than any of the excuses for removing it. It only benefits Apple to purge them, not the user, and it's not a case of "What's good for Apple is good for is good for all Apple users" I don't claim it's just Apple either. Google increasingly does the same thing, just a bit less.