4 ms·

I agree that this may be the point. Software changes, and being able to compile with latest libraries is somewhat of a minimum requirement. To Apple's defense,

I agree that this may be the point. Software changes, and being able to compile with latest libraries is somewhat of a minimum requirement. To Apple's defense, are they supposed to wait until the app breaks, starts receiving many complaints from customers, before it triggers the review process for them (which they would be forced to look at as somewhat high priority) before they then take action to remove the offending app? That hurts the customer experience from their perspective. Better for them to institute a policy preemptively addressing these issues (arbitrary as the timeframe may be). And four hours is a good chunk of time, but what percent of time is it compared to the amount of time for the app to be designed and implemented in the first place?

lapcat 4y ago
> To Apple's defense, are they supposed to wait until the app breaks, starts receiving many complaints from customers Except that Apple is exempting apps with more downloads, and only punishing apps with fewer downloads, which is the opposite of worrying about "many complaints".
- throwaway292939 4y ago
  This is still in line with their thinking from a prioritization perspective. For an app with more downloads, they can dedicate more labor/resources to it.
  - lapcat 4y ago
    > For an app with more downloads, they can dedicate more labor/resources to it. What resources? For older apps with more downloads, Apple is doing exactly what you said they shouldn't do: wait until the app breaks, and start receiving many complaints from customers.