5 ms·

While it's not clear what the exact problem is in this case, the Triumph motorcycle company seems also to have issued a message about not updating iOS because o

While it's not clear what the exact problem is in this case, the Triumph motorcycle company seems also to have issued a message about not updating iOS because of a bluetooth connectivity issue with it (https://superbike-news.co.uk/triumph-motorcycles-ios16-update-advice/ https://superbike-news.co.uk/triumph-motorcycles-ios16-updat...). It is annoying that Apple breaks existing apps. System updates should keep existing apps working as they are, and only impose changes to those that are rebuilt/updated after the release.

sfvegandude 4y ago
Why does a motorcycle need an app
- gregoriol 4y ago
  It's actually in the link: to show the turn-by-turn navigation on the bike's display. Useful or not, that's for users who will not be able to use it to judge.
ChrisMarshallNY 4y ago
> Apple breaks existing apps. They have a pretty long beta program (source: Apple dev., since 1986). If your app doesn't work with the upcoming release, it's not Apple's fault. Some companies will refuse to start testing, until the OS is officially released. That's a corporate process problem, and not Apple's. I'm not an Apple apologist, though I am often accused of being so (because I develop Apple apps, that is enough to categorize me as a "fanboi"). It's just that Apple (and many, many other companies) goes well out of their way to accommodate prerelease testing of apps on their operating systems, and many many companies don't bother to avail themselves of the opportunity. I do have a problem with people that consider themselves to be "professionals," having these issues, and blaming the operating system, when the fault is PEBCAK. I tend not to do very much testing of prerelease, beyond a simple "make sure it doesn't crash" test. I will turn up an issue, from time to time, but it's rare. When I do get an issue, it is often that I rely on a certain order of calls, in delegate protocols, and they can change, with OS releases (the fact I rely on the order is a bug, and this just exposes my bug, so I need to fix it). This is because I take a very conservative approach to writing apps, use native Swift, but not "bleeding edge," and support one version back. I have deprecation warnings turned on, and all warnings as errors, so I can't compile, if I have stuff that Apple sees will break (usually, the deprecation warnings start a couple of major releases in advance). I also don't use dependencies, or write, using hybrid systems. That helps a lot.
- nindalf 4y ago
  You’re saying it’s their fault for not testing their app on a pre-release OS that breaks the app. The people you’re replying to say that an OS shouldn’t break an app unless it’s absolutely unavoidable.
  - CharlesW 4y ago
    > You’re saying it’s their fault for not testing their app on a pre-release OS that breaks the app. The notice doesn’t say that iOS 16 breaks the app. It’s extremely unlikely that it does, unless they’re using private APIs (bad), or they’ve hardcoded an “iOS 15 or lower” version check (bad). What the notice does say is “we couldn’t be bothered to test the app with iOS 16, even though it’s been available to developers for months”.
- dahfizz 4y ago
  That's exactly the issue. Writing an app once shouldn't mean a lifetime of maintenance. You shouldn't have to test and rewrite once a year (!!). If I gave you a three month warning before punching you in the face, it doesn't make it reasonable for me to punch you in the face.
  - noirbot 4y ago
    The issue is the other end of this is Microsoft having essentially eternal backwards compatibility for everything in Office and Windows and the major security risks and code baggage that come with that.
  - ChrisMarshallNY 4y ago
    If you need to rewrite your app, every year, then the problem is not the operating system vendor. If you don't want to write apps for a platform, then the solution is simple; don't support it. Most folks like to support Apple, because it's a really lucrative user base. People make a lot of money from users of Apple devices. People use Apple devices, because they like the assurance they get, of certain things. Most of the folks that complain about Apple are not exactly representative of the huge majority of folks that use Apple devices; who don't have much interest in going out on social media, and making noise about their devices. If someone gives me a three-month punch warning; I have no one to blame, but myself, if my face is still there, when the punch comes. Whether or not the punch should be thrown, is another matter, and not really relevant (or appropriate) to the discussion.
londons_explore 4y ago
Especially in Apples case, because Apple have a copy of every binary ever signed to run on iOS. That means they can theoretically make every app run exactly the same on new or old OS, and they could totally have a fuzzer to ensure this.
LocalH 4y ago
That's a road straight to library hell. You'd basically have to manage multiple versions of libraries, some of which would likely be system libraries that depend on other system libraries. Are you trying to suggest Apple's iOS should be more like Nintendo/BroadOn's IOS for the Wii? Way to waste users' storage. Sometimes things break when things are updated, especially across major versions. This has been true for the entirety of computing. Microsoft, who have one of the best track records in the industry regarding backwards compatibility, still break countless programs with major Windows updates. Every platform I can think of that isn't an 8-bit system running BASIC has made breaking changes over time. What is your suggested solution?
- ChuckNorris89 4y ago
  >Microsoft, who have one of the best track records in the industry regarding backwards compatibility, still break countless programs with major Windows updates Do you have any examples of these countless programs broken by updates?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
dasil003 4y ago
Sure it's annoying, but backward compatibility has a non-trivial cost. In terms of tech behemoths, Apple and Microsoft are on opposite ends of the spectrum. I think it's a pretty easy argument to make that Apple should do a little more for backwards compatibility. But on the other hand if they had had the Microsoft commitment to compatibility, the quality and modern features of iOS would be nowhere near what they are today.

sfvegandude 4y ago

Why does a motorcycle need an app

gregoriol 4y ago
It's actually in the link: to show the turn-by-turn navigation on the bike's display. Useful or not, that's for users who will not be able to use it to judge.

ChrisMarshallNY 4y ago

> Apple breaks existing apps. They have a pretty long beta program (source: Apple dev., since 1986). If your app doesn't work with the upcoming release, it's not Apple's fault. Some companies will refuse to start testing, until the OS is officially released. That's a corporate process problem, and not Apple's. I'm not an Apple apologist, though I am often accused of being so (because I develop Apple apps, that is enough to categorize me as a "fanboi"). It's just that Apple (and many, many other companies) goes well out of their way to accommodate prerelease testing of apps on their operating systems, and many many companies don't bother to avail themselves of the opportunity. I do have a problem with people that consider themselves to be "professionals," having these issues, and blaming the operating system, when the fault is PEBCAK. I tend not to do very much testing of prerelease, beyond a simple "make sure it doesn't crash" test. I will turn up an issue, from time to time, but it's rare. When I do get an issue, it is often that I rely on a certain order of calls, in delegate protocols, and they can change, with OS releases (the fact I rely on the order is a bug, and this just exposes my bug, so I need to fix it). This is because I take a very conservative approach to writing apps, use native Swift, but not "bleeding edge," and support one version back. I have deprecation warnings turned on, and all warnings as errors, so I can't compile, if I have stuff that Apple sees will break (usually, the deprecation warnings start a couple of major releases in advance). I also don't use dependencies, or write, using hybrid systems. That helps a lot.

nindalf 4y ago
You’re saying it’s their fault for not testing their app on a pre-release OS that breaks the app. The people you’re replying to say that an OS shouldn’t break an app unless it’s absolutely unavoidable.
- CharlesW 4y ago
  > You’re saying it’s their fault for not testing their app on a pre-release OS that breaks the app. The notice doesn’t say that iOS 16 breaks the app. It’s extremely unlikely that it does, unless they’re using private APIs (bad), or they’ve hardcoded an “iOS 15 or lower” version check (bad). What the notice does say is “we couldn’t be bothered to test the app with iOS 16, even though it’s been available to developers for months”.
dahfizz 4y ago
That's exactly the issue. Writing an app once shouldn't mean a lifetime of maintenance. You shouldn't have to test and rewrite once a year (!!). If I gave you a three month warning before punching you in the face, it doesn't make it reasonable for me to punch you in the face.
- noirbot 4y ago
  The issue is the other end of this is Microsoft having essentially eternal backwards compatibility for everything in Office and Windows and the major security risks and code baggage that come with that.
- ChrisMarshallNY 4y ago
  If you need to rewrite your app, every year, then the problem is not the operating system vendor. If you don't want to write apps for a platform, then the solution is simple; don't support it. Most folks like to support Apple, because it's a really lucrative user base. People make a lot of money from users of Apple devices. People use Apple devices, because they like the assurance they get, of certain things. Most of the folks that complain about Apple are not exactly representative of the huge majority of folks that use Apple devices; who don't have much interest in going out on social media, and making noise about their devices. If someone gives me a three-month punch warning; I have no one to blame, but myself, if my face is still there, when the punch comes. Whether or not the punch should be thrown, is another matter, and not really relevant (or appropriate) to the discussion.

londons_explore 4y ago

Especially in Apples case, because Apple have a copy of every binary ever signed to run on iOS. That means they can theoretically make every app run exactly the same on new or old OS, and they could totally have a fuzzer to ensure this.

LocalH 4y ago

That's a road straight to library hell. You'd basically have to manage multiple versions of libraries, some of which would likely be system libraries that depend on other system libraries. Are you trying to suggest Apple's iOS should be more like Nintendo/BroadOn's IOS for the Wii? Way to waste users' storage. Sometimes things break when things are updated, especially across major versions. This has been true for the entirety of computing. Microsoft, who have one of the best track records in the industry regarding backwards compatibility, still break countless programs with major Windows updates. Every platform I can think of that isn't an 8-bit system running BASIC has made breaking changes over time. What is your suggested solution?

ChuckNorris89 4y ago
>Microsoft, who have one of the best track records in the industry regarding backwards compatibility, still break countless programs with major Windows updates Do you have any examples of these countless programs broken by updates?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

dasil003 4y ago

Sure it's annoying, but backward compatibility has a non-trivial cost. In terms of tech behemoths, Apple and Microsoft are on opposite ends of the spectrum. I think it's a pretty easy argument to make that Apple should do a little more for backwards compatibility. But on the other hand if they had had the Microsoft commitment to compatibility, the quality and modern features of iOS would be nowhere near what they are today.