5 ms·

> My old code simply did not work anymore with the latest versions of Xcode. In other words if there was some actual reason to do an update, like a security fl

> My old code simply did not work anymore with the latest versions of Xcode. In other words if there was some actual reason to do an update, like a security flaw or serious bug, she wouldn't have been able to readily do so. This seems to support Apple's policy to make developers update the app every once in a while.

layer8 4y ago
Apple is causing this issue in the first place by breaking compatibility and requiring projects to be updated for each new Xcode version.
- newtritious 4y ago
  That’s because the platform is actually changing.
  - layer8 4y ago
    That’s not a reason, unless the platform is changing in incompatible ways, which is exactly the problem, and a largely avoidable one, as other platforms demonstrate.
    - newtritious 4y ago
      Other platforms don’t care if applications fingerprint the device without the user’s consent. Closing off APIs that facilitate fingerprinting is just one of many incompatible changes Apple has been making. Some other reasons are deprecating power hungry technologies and asking for more permissions to access private data. These are changes that benefit users on a massive scale. Why shouldn’t a developer be expected to respect users needs?
      - layer8 4y ago
        There are ways to still maintain API compatibility in that case (Windows does it all the time), and it’s also not a reason to require projects not affected by those changes to recompile with the newest Xcode version each year. I’m maintaining a Swift library/framework that doesn’t use any iOS APIs at all, only basic Swift standard library calls, and I still have to produce a new build each year from unchanged source code so that the library can be consumed with the new Xcode version. That’s just insane.
        newtritious 4y ago
        Why is it insane? Do you not test your library with new versions of the OS? Also - “windows does it” is obviously irrelevant when we are talking about a mobile OS.
        layer8 4y ago
        Testing with a new OS version shouldn’t (and usually doesn’t) require rebuilding the project. The need to rebuild is imposed primarily by the Xcode releases here, not by the OS. And that seems entirely unnecessary. Note that breaking compatibility and having to rebuild for new Xcode versions are two independent and orthogonal issues here. I won't continue this discussion about maintaining compatibility. This is fundamentally a philosophical issue. I agree with the sibling comment that it is the job of an OS to provide stable APIs across versions. It requires some effort (as a long-term library maintainer, I'm very well aware of this), but it is not an impossibility at all.
        newtritious 4y ago
        The sibling and you are entitled to this preference, but I don’t see anything philosophical about it. The job of the computer is to serve the end user. The job of the OS is to manage the computer’s resources on the users behalf. API stability can contribute to that goal, but this is not an absolute. Apple balances their view of what is good for users over what is good for developers and themselves. Your preference is to prioritize developer comfort over both end users and Apple.
      - Wowfunhappy 4y ago
        > Other platforms don’t care if applications fingerprint the device without the user’s consent. Isn't this supposed to be why the App Store has a manual approval process? So Apple can actually check if developers are doing malicious things? By all means, apply extra scrutiny if an old API is in use. Maybe allow the API only in updates to old apps, and not new ones.
        newtritious 4y ago
        No. The manual approval process covers the visible features, not shady stuff the reviewers can’t see. > By all means, apply extra scrutiny if an old API is in use. Maybe allow the API only in updates to old apps, and not new ones. If the developer is updating the app, there is no reason they shouldn’t adopt a more user friendly api.
      - noobermin 4y ago
        Why not ask for those things specifically rather than saying "old is bad?"
        nicky0 4y ago
        In practice, it amounts to the same thing. To make use of the APIs with the enhanced privacy etc., you have to use the latest SDKs.
        newtritious 4y ago
        Keeping apps up to date with modern privacy concerns is a good thing. Why is anyone arguing in favor of developers abandoning apps?
      - selfhoster11 4y ago
        If I'm aware of an issue (be it tracking, or power consumption, or ...) with the older version of the app and want to run it despite that, that should be my prerogative as a user.
        newtritious 4y ago
        It’s clearly delusional to expect iOS users to keep track of the deficiencies of all the old APIs their apps are using.
lapcat 4y ago
> In other words if there was some actual reason to do an update, like a security flaw or serious bug, she wouldn't have been able to readily do so. (1) There wasn't. (2) "After 4 hours of work to re-compile my app and 44 hours waiting in the review queue" The biggest obstacle here isn't the developer, it's Apple.
- bsdetector 4y ago
  The most basic, first step of maintenance is: does it still compile? Not in this case. So another way to look at it is Apple requires developers to once every 3 years do the absolute minimum amount of maintenance, and they get a 90 day window to do it in. Developers needing to demonstrate once every 3 years that they still have the source code and it compiles should not be an obstacle at all.
  - lapcat 4y ago
    > Developers needing to demonstrate once every 3 years You say "Developers" without qualification, missing the crucial exemption: for some bizarre reason, developers of apps that are above a certain download threshold do not have to demonstrate that their code still compiles. Does that make sense?
    - bsdetector 4y ago
      What Apple actually stated is the policy is for "discoverability of apps" for "the majority of users". Clearly the intention stated is to remove old, unpopular, outdated, crappy apps from the App store. So when you ask but why are popular apps exempt? - well, they already told you exactly why, because they're popular. People still want the app. I feel like the actual reason you're against this policy is left unstated.
      - lapcat 4y ago
        > Clearly the intention stated is to remove old, unpopular, outdated, crappy apps from the App store. 1) The criteria do not include "crappy". Apple didn't claim that the article author's app is crappy. 2) What's the difference between "old" and "outdated"? The article author's app was recompiled but otherwise not changed. 3) The app is now back in the App Store. So if Apple's goal was to remove the app from the App Store, then Apple failed. > People still want the app. Alternatively, they could be scams that are getting downloads from keyword stuffing, fake reviews, search ads, and other well-known methods. > I feel like the actual reason you're against this policy is left unstated. Not at all. The same reason as the article author: "The decision to remove outdated apps places a disproportional burden on indie developers and hobbyists" Apple has said, in response to anti-trust claims that "developers, from first-time engineers to larger companies, can rest assured that everyone is playing by the same set of rules." But that's clearly a lie, is it not?

layer8 4y ago

Apple is causing this issue in the first place by breaking compatibility and requiring projects to be updated for each new Xcode version.

newtritious 4y ago
That’s because the platform is actually changing.
- layer8 4y ago
  That’s not a reason, unless the platform is changing in incompatible ways, which is exactly the problem, and a largely avoidable one, as other platforms demonstrate.
  - newtritious 4y ago
    Other platforms don’t care if applications fingerprint the device without the user’s consent. Closing off APIs that facilitate fingerprinting is just one of many incompatible changes Apple has been making. Some other reasons are deprecating power hungry technologies and asking for more permissions to access private data. These are changes that benefit users on a massive scale. Why shouldn’t a developer be expected to respect users needs?
    - layer8 4y ago
      There are ways to still maintain API compatibility in that case (Windows does it all the time), and it’s also not a reason to require projects not affected by those changes to recompile with the newest Xcode version each year. I’m maintaining a Swift library/framework that doesn’t use any iOS APIs at all, only basic Swift standard library calls, and I still have to produce a new build each year from unchanged source code so that the library can be consumed with the new Xcode version. That’s just insane.
      - newtritious 4y ago
        Why is it insane? Do you not test your library with new versions of the OS? Also - “windows does it” is obviously irrelevant when we are talking about a mobile OS.
        layer8 4y ago
        Testing with a new OS version shouldn’t (and usually doesn’t) require rebuilding the project. The need to rebuild is imposed primarily by the Xcode releases here, not by the OS. And that seems entirely unnecessary. Note that breaking compatibility and having to rebuild for new Xcode versions are two independent and orthogonal issues here. I won't continue this discussion about maintaining compatibility. This is fundamentally a philosophical issue. I agree with the sibling comment that it is the job of an OS to provide stable APIs across versions. It requires some effort (as a long-term library maintainer, I'm very well aware of this), but it is not an impossibility at all.
        newtritious 4y ago
        The sibling and you are entitled to this preference, but I don’t see anything philosophical about it. The job of the computer is to serve the end user. The job of the OS is to manage the computer’s resources on the users behalf. API stability can contribute to that goal, but this is not an absolute. Apple balances their view of what is good for users over what is good for developers and themselves. Your preference is to prioritize developer comfort over both end users and Apple.
    - Wowfunhappy 4y ago
      > Other platforms don’t care if applications fingerprint the device without the user’s consent. Isn't this supposed to be why the App Store has a manual approval process? So Apple can actually check if developers are doing malicious things? By all means, apply extra scrutiny if an old API is in use. Maybe allow the API only in updates to old apps, and not new ones.
      - newtritious 4y ago
        No. The manual approval process covers the visible features, not shady stuff the reviewers can’t see. > By all means, apply extra scrutiny if an old API is in use. Maybe allow the API only in updates to old apps, and not new ones. If the developer is updating the app, there is no reason they shouldn’t adopt a more user friendly api.
    - noobermin 4y ago
      Why not ask for those things specifically rather than saying "old is bad?"
      - nicky0 4y ago
        In practice, it amounts to the same thing. To make use of the APIs with the enhanced privacy etc., you have to use the latest SDKs.
        newtritious 4y ago
        Keeping apps up to date with modern privacy concerns is a good thing. Why is anyone arguing in favor of developers abandoning apps?
    - selfhoster11 4y ago
      If I'm aware of an issue (be it tracking, or power consumption, or ...) with the older version of the app and want to run it despite that, that should be my prerogative as a user.
      - newtritious 4y ago
        It’s clearly delusional to expect iOS users to keep track of the deficiencies of all the old APIs their apps are using.

lapcat 4y ago

> In other words if there was some actual reason to do an update, like a security flaw or serious bug, she wouldn't have been able to readily do so. (1) There wasn't. (2) "After 4 hours of work to re-compile my app and 44 hours waiting in the review queue" The biggest obstacle here isn't the developer, it's Apple.

bsdetector 4y ago
The most basic, first step of maintenance is: does it still compile? Not in this case. So another way to look at it is Apple requires developers to once every 3 years do the absolute minimum amount of maintenance, and they get a 90 day window to do it in. Developers needing to demonstrate once every 3 years that they still have the source code and it compiles should not be an obstacle at all.
- lapcat 4y ago
  > Developers needing to demonstrate once every 3 years You say "Developers" without qualification, missing the crucial exemption: for some bizarre reason, developers of apps that are above a certain download threshold do not have to demonstrate that their code still compiles. Does that make sense?
  - bsdetector 4y ago
    What Apple actually stated is the policy is for "discoverability of apps" for "the majority of users". Clearly the intention stated is to remove old, unpopular, outdated, crappy apps from the App store. So when you ask but why are popular apps exempt? - well, they already told you exactly why, because they're popular. People still want the app. I feel like the actual reason you're against this policy is left unstated.
    - lapcat 4y ago
      > Clearly the intention stated is to remove old, unpopular, outdated, crappy apps from the App store. 1) The criteria do not include "crappy". Apple didn't claim that the article author's app is crappy. 2) What's the difference between "old" and "outdated"? The article author's app was recompiled but otherwise not changed. 3) The app is now back in the App Store. So if Apple's goal was to remove the app from the App Store, then Apple failed. > People still want the app. Alternatively, they could be scams that are getting downloads from keyword stuffing, fake reviews, search ads, and other well-known methods. > I feel like the actual reason you're against this policy is left unstated. Not at all. The same reason as the article author: "The decision to remove outdated apps places a disproportional burden on indie developers and hobbyists" Apple has said, in response to anti-trust claims that "developers, from first-time engineers to larger companies, can rest assured that everyone is playing by the same set of rules." But that's clearly a lie, is it not?