> Although this backwards incompatible policy causes short term pain for developers on their platform, Apple made this conscious decision because in the long-te

> Although this backwards incompatible policy causes short term pain for developers on their platform, Apple made this conscious decision because in the long-term it leads to an overall healthier ecosystem. From all evidence I've seen it's more likely they 1) don't care because people are willing to put up with it and 2) don't have the proper type of process/system/codebase/culture to allow such a move (and would rather spend that effort on something else). One of Microsoft's top 3 selling points in the enterprise is backwards compatibility... They go as far as implementing run-time patches for 20 year old 3rd party DOS binaries that they don't have the source code to when they get crash reports in and it crosses a certain threshold. > We only have to look at Microsoft's third-party ecosystem to see the alternative. A developer that targets Windows breaks compatibility with a previous version of his software, then...? What does that have to do with Windows/Microsoft?