3 ms·

>It doesn't cost anything or hurt to keep older versions First, it affects my app ratings in the application store/shop. Some user with 15-year-old device give

>It doesn't cost anything or hurt to keep older versions First, it affects my app ratings in the application store/shop. Some user with 15-year-old device gives me 1-star rating because of some annoying bug that was already fixed 10 years ago but he can not upgrade because that newer version is using a newer API. Also, what about bugfixes and support? I do not want to have to support (answer emails/calls and deal with bad reviews on all platforms) my ancient version of an app. This would make my app unaffordable for 99% of my users.

cassepipe 2y ago
That could easily be fixed by preventing people using old versions to give feedback. I guess no app store currently allows that right ?
myaccountonhn 2y ago
Yeah this is an important perspective for coming up with a solution, because it’s a very legitimate reason to not want to support old hardware…
ClumsyPilot 2y ago
> First, it affects my app ratings in the application store/shop good example of systemic failure - we are destroying a real thing (functionality) to optimise for a fictional thing (rating). There is plenty of old windows software with no support, I have a game that is old enough to drink and it still works and I still sometimes fire it up out of nostalgia. There is no reason software cannot be like an old motorbike - a 40 year old Honda motorbike can still work, if that’s what the user wants.
- latexr 2y ago
  > we are destroying a real thing (functionality) to optimise for a fictional thing (rating) Ratings are quite real. They influence if new people buy your app at all, which influences how viable it is as a business, which influences the app’s future, which influences current customers.
  - immibis 2y ago
    They are constructed reality as opposed to inherent reality. We invented a fake metric then created incentives (adjusting the allocation of real resources) to optimise the fake metric.
    - latexr 2y ago
      It’s not a “fake metric”. It exists, measures something, and it has an effect on the world. It is real. It’s a subpar metric¹, probably even a harmful metric², but that doesn’t make it fake or fictional. ¹ At best it only measures those who rate and it can be gamed (true for every media). ² For the bad incentives you mention.
      - davemp 2y ago
        Semantics/pedantry. I’m sure you’re capable of inferring what the OP means.
        latexr 2y ago
        > I’m sure you’re capable of inferring what the OP means. And it’s that I’m disagreeing with. I’m sure you’re capable of understanding that too. Words matter. By being against something and calling it fake or fictional, you’re doing more harm to your cause than by recognising the impact it has on the real world and those who inhabit it.
    - atonse 2y ago
      They're not a fake metric. Sure, ratings can be gamed and are gamed. But ratings and accompanying reviews inherently aren't fake, and are the closest proxy to "word of mouth"
      - ClumsyPilot 2y ago
        They are artificial. You could have a separate metric for each platform, for older version, you can use different algorithms and to calculate, etc.

cassepipe 2y ago

That could easily be fixed by preventing people using old versions to give feedback. I guess no app store currently allows that right ?

myaccountonhn 2y ago

Yeah this is an important perspective for coming up with a solution, because it’s a very legitimate reason to not want to support old hardware…

ClumsyPilot 2y ago

> First, it affects my app ratings in the application store/shop good example of systemic failure - we are destroying a real thing (functionality) to optimise for a fictional thing (rating). There is plenty of old windows software with no support, I have a game that is old enough to drink and it still works and I still sometimes fire it up out of nostalgia. There is no reason software cannot be like an old motorbike - a 40 year old Honda motorbike can still work, if that’s what the user wants.

latexr 2y ago
> we are destroying a real thing (functionality) to optimise for a fictional thing (rating) Ratings are quite real. They influence if new people buy your app at all, which influences how viable it is as a business, which influences the app’s future, which influences current customers.
- immibis 2y ago
  They are constructed reality as opposed to inherent reality. We invented a fake metric then created incentives (adjusting the allocation of real resources) to optimise the fake metric.
  - latexr 2y ago
    It’s not a “fake metric”. It exists, measures something, and it has an effect on the world. It is real. It’s a subpar metric¹, probably even a harmful metric², but that doesn’t make it fake or fictional. ¹ At best it only measures those who rate and it can be gamed (true for every media). ² For the bad incentives you mention.
    - davemp 2y ago
      Semantics/pedantry. I’m sure you’re capable of inferring what the OP means.
      - latexr 2y ago
        > I’m sure you’re capable of inferring what the OP means. And it’s that I’m disagreeing with. I’m sure you’re capable of understanding that too. Words matter. By being against something and calling it fake or fictional, you’re doing more harm to your cause than by recognising the impact it has on the real world and those who inhabit it.
  - atonse 2y ago
    They're not a fake metric. Sure, ratings can be gamed and are gamed. But ratings and accompanying reviews inherently aren't fake, and are the closest proxy to "word of mouth"
    - ClumsyPilot 2y ago
      They are artificial. You could have a separate metric for each platform, for older version, you can use different algorithms and to calculate, etc.