4 ms·

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

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 Clearly the intention stated is to remove old, unpopular, outdated, crappy apps from the App store.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 Clearly the intention stated is to remove old, unpopular, outdated, crappy apps from the App store. 1) The criteria do not include "crappy". Apple didn't claim that the article author's app is crappy. 2) What's the difference between "old" and "outdated"?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 The same reason as the article author: "The decision to remove outdated apps places a disproportional burden on indie developers and hobbyists" Apple has said, in response to anti-trust claims that "developers, from first-time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?
    - bsdetector 4y ago
      > 1) The criteria do not include "crappy". I said that was part of their intention, indicated by "follow current review guidelines". Go ahead now and try to put Apple's intention into your own words. What do you feel is Apple's intention behind this policy? > "... everyone is playing by the same set of rules." But that's clearly a lie, is it not? Large developers also have to resubmit their very unpopular, obscure apps every three years. Small developers with popular apps also do not. Everyone is playing by the same rule. You made the claim, what developers are not subject to this same policy? > "The decision to remove outdated apps places a disproportional burden on indie developers and hobbyists" Explain why you feel a few minutes every three years is a burden. Literally the only thing Apple is requiring you do is recompile your unpopular app and submit it as an update once every three years. It's not disproportional on indie developers and hobbyists unless you feel they have more unpopular apps that they also almost never update. Hobbyists can make popular apps, such as that Japanese guy's side-by-side calculator app that was on the HN front page the other day and they often put more love and effort into updating their apps, even the old ones. Frankly this view that hobbyists are oppressed by needing to recompile once every three years reads like an insult.
      - lapcat 4y ago
        > Go ahead now and try to put Apple's intention into your own words. What do you feel is Apple's intention behind this policy? I can't read Apple's mind. You can't either. > Large developers also have to resubmit their very unpopular, obscure apps every three years. Oh give me a break. I'm done here, this is not a good faith argument. > Explain why you feel a few minutes every three years is a burden. A few minutes. Again, this is not a good faith argument. Your reply is not serious. > Literally the only thing Apple is requiring you do is recompile your unpopular app and submit it as an update once every three years. Your reply is contradicting itself, because you claim Apple's intention is to get rid of apps, but you also claim that it's incredibly easy to not get removed. > Frankly this view that hobbyists are oppressed by needing to recompile once every three years reads like an insult. Do you think the original article author was insulting herself? What a bad faith, insulting reply.

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?
  - bsdetector 4y ago
    > 1) The criteria do not include "crappy". I said that was part of their intention, indicated by "follow current review guidelines". Go ahead now and try to put Apple's intention into your own words. What do you feel is Apple's intention behind this policy? > "... everyone is playing by the same set of rules." But that's clearly a lie, is it not? Large developers also have to resubmit their very unpopular, obscure apps every three years. Small developers with popular apps also do not. Everyone is playing by the same rule. You made the claim, what developers are not subject to this same policy? > "The decision to remove outdated apps places a disproportional burden on indie developers and hobbyists" Explain why you feel a few minutes every three years is a burden. Literally the only thing Apple is requiring you do is recompile your unpopular app and submit it as an update once every three years. It's not disproportional on indie developers and hobbyists unless you feel they have more unpopular apps that they also almost never update. Hobbyists can make popular apps, such as that Japanese guy's side-by-side calculator app that was on the HN front page the other day and they often put more love and effort into updating their apps, even the old ones. Frankly this view that hobbyists are oppressed by needing to recompile once every three years reads like an insult.
    - lapcat 4y ago
      > Go ahead now and try to put Apple's intention into your own words. What do you feel is Apple's intention behind this policy? I can't read Apple's mind. You can't either. > Large developers also have to resubmit their very unpopular, obscure apps every three years. Oh give me a break. I'm done here, this is not a good faith argument. > Explain why you feel a few minutes every three years is a burden. A few minutes. Again, this is not a good faith argument. Your reply is not serious. > Literally the only thing Apple is requiring you do is recompile your unpopular app and submit it as an update once every three years. Your reply is contradicting itself, because you claim Apple's intention is to get rid of apps, but you also claim that it's incredibly easy to not get removed. > Frankly this view that hobbyists are oppressed by needing to recompile once every three years reads like an insult. Do you think the original article author was insulting herself? What a bad faith, insulting reply.