4 ms·

Something I have not seen yet: Apple has a significant part in this. To keep an app on the app store, the dev has to pay the yearly fee, and keep up to date w

Something I have not seen yet: Apple has a significant part in this. To keep an app on the app store, the dev has to pay the yearly fee, and keep up to date with Apple’s requirements (which they legally agree to do through agreeing to the updated TOS). To keep up to date with Apple’s requirements they must (sometimes) make a minor edit to their code and upload the new version. To upload the new version they must use the latest version of XCode. To use the latest version of XCode they must also be running the latest version of macOS (and sometimes must update their dev device(s) to the latest version of iOS). If they use the latest version of XCode their code must compile on it. To compile their code they must (most times) use Apple’s new internal APIs and remove references to old Apple APIs. Apple treats devs like consumers. The ever-advancing wall of “progress” pushes devs forward just like it pushes users forward. No one has the choice to stay behind peacefully.

pwinnski 4y ago
This is all true, and the interesting thing to me is that I don't think it's intentional. That is, it seems to be the natural result of steady innovation without special effort being made to keep things stable for those who want to avoid innovation. Should they make that extra effort? Sure, arguably they should. Apple's philosophy has always been to look forward, not back, though, and things like supporting 32-bit code on 64-bit architectures require a lot of effort for little perceived gain. Then again, that effort means people can jump off of the circular treadmill, so maybe it's worth it.
- joshspankit 4y ago
  You might be right about it not being intentional (putting aside the argument that lack of choice is itself a choice), but I would argue that putting in the effort is their responsibility as a part of the larger goal of sustainability. In this case Apple says they want their products to be completely sustainable, and yet they are choosing profit over sustainability by putting fences on either side of the circular treadmill.
  - pwinnski 4y ago
    I largely agree. I guess I would just say that every decision comes at a cost, and maintaining compatibility usually comes with a small performance cost, exactly the sort of cost Apple least wants to pay on their new devices.

pwinnski 4y ago

This is all true, and the interesting thing to me is that I don't think it's intentional. That is, it seems to be the natural result of steady innovation without special effort being made to keep things stable for those who want to avoid innovation. Should they make that extra effort? Sure, arguably they should. Apple's philosophy has always been to look forward, not back, though, and things like supporting 32-bit code on 64-bit architectures require a lot of effort for little perceived gain. Then again, that effort means people can jump off of the circular treadmill, so maybe it's worth it.

joshspankit 4y ago
You might be right about it not being intentional (putting aside the argument that lack of choice is itself a choice), but I would argue that putting in the effort is their responsibility as a part of the larger goal of sustainability. In this case Apple says they want their products to be completely sustainable, and yet they are choosing profit over sustainability by putting fences on either side of the circular treadmill.
- pwinnski 4y ago
  I largely agree. I guess I would just say that every decision comes at a cost, and maintaining compatibility usually comes with a small performance cost, exactly the sort of cost Apple least wants to pay on their new devices.