4 ms·

I don't know - I'm always amused at how companies will try all sorts of growth hacks to eke out an extra 1% of DAU or whatever, but won't prioritise building pr

I don't know - I'm always amused at how companies will try all sorts of growth hacks to eke out an extra 1% of DAU or whatever, but won't prioritise building products for human beings.

ryandrake 3y ago
Companies do all sorts of (IMO insane) things to their apps that reduce their reach. Ignoring accessibility is just one of them. I remember when I was in the app-writing business, and our devs would be constantly trying to bump up the minimum OS version supported. “See here, it says that only 10% of customer devices are on OS version 10.1 and below. We must bump our minimum version to 10.2 because us developers are tired of supporting this old shit and legacy code paths!” This seems to me to be a lot like a salesman simply hanging up on 1 out of 10 of their potential customers. Makes no sense to me, but the version bumpers seem to be winning. The number of apps that no longer support my iPhone 7 is growing and growing…
- swsieber 3y ago
  I suspect that stuff like accessibility and minimum OS version are not independent of the profitability of a customer, so it's not necessarily insane. For example, I'd suspect that people who stay on old iPhone's are less likely to spend money on apps. But it's a small, very unfounded suspicion. I'd be curious to see if anything works out though in how stuff like that lines up.
  - yurishimo 3y ago
    I'd imagine this is likely true. The other thing to consider, is that apps don't necessarily need to be updated. Many can continue to work on old versions forever if the developer takes care with planning. I'm thinking specifically of a 3rd party camera app, or maybe one of these modern 3D mapping apps that uses LIDAR to model a room. These apps can (and should!) continue to work on the hardware they were developed for, even if the author bumps the minimum version past what is supported. If the app author builds in reliances on a web api that expects an up-to-date companion app, that was/is shortsighted and should be discouraged.
  - kuchenbecker 3y ago
    If you lose 5% of your customer base every min version bump, compounds fast.
- bitwize 3y ago
  See also: gating table-stakes features behind "download our app". E.g., messaging on Facebook and LinkedIn.
  - ryandrake 3y ago
    Exactly. “Hello, potentially revenue-generating customer. Now go away!” Insanity.
- atomicUpdate 3y ago
  > "See here, it says that only 10% of customer devices are on OS version 10.1 and below. We must bump our minimum version to 10.2 because us developers are tired of supporting this old shit and legacy code paths!" This makes sense if that 10% are costing more money than they generate, which seems especially likely since people that are frugal enough to (for example) hang onto an iPhone 7 are also unlikely to spend much on other frivolous purchases. Supporting those older devices can range from supporting multiple code paths due to different APIs, or fallbacks for missing HW performance and/or features. All of that adds up in terms of developer time, build/infra cost, etc.
  - eviks 3y ago
    Do you have any real estimate of what not breaking old devices cost? With so much effort being wasted on site/app redesigns that degrade user experience (and cut off old devices in the process) it's also easy to imagine that it's not about the costs
- neurostimulant 3y ago
  Except companies that produce apps and games for small kids. They would go out of their way to support old devices released more than 10 years ago because their customers (small kids) mostly use devices handed down from their parents.

I don't know - I'm always amused at how companies will try all sorts of growth hacks to eke out an extra 1% of DAU or whatever, but won't prioritise building products for human beings.

ryandrake 3y ago

Companies do all sorts of (IMO insane) things to their apps that reduce their reach. Ignoring accessibility is just one of them. I remember when I was in the app-writing business, and our devs would be constantly trying to bump up the minimum OS version supported. “See here, it says that only 10% of customer devices are on OS version 10.1 and below. We must bump our minimum version to 10.2 because us developers are tired of supporting this old shit and legacy code paths!” This seems to me to be a lot like a salesman simply hanging up on 1 out of 10 of their potential customers. Makes no sense to me, but the version bumpers seem to be winning. The number of apps that no longer support my iPhone 7 is growing and growing…

swsieber 3y ago
I suspect that stuff like accessibility and minimum OS version are not independent of the profitability of a customer, so it's not necessarily insane. For example, I'd suspect that people who stay on old iPhone's are less likely to spend money on apps. But it's a small, very unfounded suspicion. I'd be curious to see if anything works out though in how stuff like that lines up.
- yurishimo 3y ago
  I'd imagine this is likely true. The other thing to consider, is that apps don't necessarily need to be updated. Many can continue to work on old versions forever if the developer takes care with planning. I'm thinking specifically of a 3rd party camera app, or maybe one of these modern 3D mapping apps that uses LIDAR to model a room. These apps can (and should!) continue to work on the hardware they were developed for, even if the author bumps the minimum version past what is supported. If the app author builds in reliances on a web api that expects an up-to-date companion app, that was/is shortsighted and should be discouraged.
- kuchenbecker 3y ago
  If you lose 5% of your customer base every min version bump, compounds fast.
bitwize 3y ago
See also: gating table-stakes features behind "download our app". E.g., messaging on Facebook and LinkedIn.
- ryandrake 3y ago
  Exactly. “Hello, potentially revenue-generating customer. Now go away!” Insanity.
atomicUpdate 3y ago
> "See here, it says that only 10% of customer devices are on OS version 10.1 and below. We must bump our minimum version to 10.2 because us developers are tired of supporting this old shit and legacy code paths!" This makes sense if that 10% are costing more money than they generate, which seems especially likely since people that are frugal enough to (for example) hang onto an iPhone 7 are also unlikely to spend much on other frivolous purchases. Supporting those older devices can range from supporting multiple code paths due to different APIs, or fallbacks for missing HW performance and/or features. All of that adds up in terms of developer time, build/infra cost, etc.
- eviks 3y ago
  Do you have any real estimate of what not breaking old devices cost? With so much effort being wasted on site/app redesigns that degrade user experience (and cut off old devices in the process) it's also easy to imagine that it's not about the costs
neurostimulant 3y ago
Except companies that produce apps and games for small kids. They would go out of their way to support old devices released more than 10 years ago because their customers (small kids) mostly use devices handed down from their parents.