4 ms·

It's a wonderful half-measure, but also serves to highlight a problem with cloud-based installs that I'm not optimistic will ever go away. When software was di

It's a wonderful half-measure, but also serves to highlight a problem with cloud-based installs that I'm not optimistic will ever go away. When software was distributed physically, the consumer always had the freedom to use any version of an application they liked. Want to run a lightweight version of Word because you don't need all the latest features, or maybe you just hate the new UI? No problem. Did you like some video game better before they "improved" it? Just get the old disk out and play it. Some people will argue that software developers should be able to require that their customers always have the latest versions of their product. I personally believe that decision should be in the hands of the user. I'd love to see Apple allow side-loading for consumers, at the very least. The best solution, in my opinion, would be to also allow users to access some kind of "advanced" menu that would let them choose whichever older version of an app they choose.

arn 13y ago
This is actually an advantage of cloud distribution. What if you want to run an older version of Word but haven't bought it yet? It can be a pain to find an old copy to buy. Whereas Apple has all the old versions on their servers and can deliver the exact one that will run on your system.
- pdpi 13y ago
  Provided Apple (or whatever other provider) actually distributes the old versions. Somehow, that never seems to be the case.
  - iwasakabukiman 13y ago
    What do you mean? The whole purpose of this new feature is that Apple is giving users older versions when they need them...
    - pdpi 13y ago
      Which is novel enough to be a news article.
      - melange 13y ago
        That's why we're discussing the news.
- untog 13y ago
  Whereas Apple has all the old versions on their servers and can deliver the exact one that will run on your system. "The one that will run on your system" is not necessarily "the one you want", though. It's still not in your hands.
snom380 13y ago
As long as you keep a backup of your old app bundles on your computer (for instance using Time Machine) I don't think it's a problem to load old apps. The exception being if some of those apps require online services that are no longer available.
- EvanAnderson 13y ago
  Keeping and installing old copies of app bundles doesn't seem like a very viable option for non-technical users.
  - briandear 13y ago
    Of course the non technical user is not generally the one complaining.
  - pilif 13y ago
    Using outdated and unsupported versions of software doesn't seem like a very viable option for non-technical users.
    - adsche 13y ago
      I don't like your comment. You use the same words to directly counter the parent, but these words don't match the case. What do you mean by "viable option" here? Some "options" for non-technical users are in this thread's first comment.
  - mikeash 13y ago
    Maybe not, but it is exactly how software has worked since approximately the dawn of time, and it is exactly what the grandparent comment was proposing should be allowed.
methodin 13y ago
It should be your choice but most people aren't knowledgeable enough to manage versions themselves. You would certainly give up any rights for support in doing so as well.
zyb09 13y ago
Well that was in a time when Apps were self-contained software, before they started talking to the Internet and require a wide array of specific webservices to be online and functional. As developer you don't want to keep old services running forever, because you want to evolve the app and eventually change something that breaks older versions.
kenrikm 13y ago
What if your backend APIs have changed and you never expected to support that older version? I can see a lot of the older apps not working at all in that case.
- e1ven 13y ago
  How is this scenerio different from one where the user installed your app a year ago, and hasn't upgraded to the newest version? You'd need to handle it in either case.
  - simonholroyd 13y ago
    It's different because prior to this change, you could make an educated decision about whether to support an older version of your API based on usage of your app. When the legacy version reached some threshold percentage of your user base you could be fairly confident that you were inconveniencing a small and dwindling fraction of users and drop support. With this change you can no longer be confident that app usage for legacy versions will always decrease. If your app suddenly becomes very popular (as most app developers are aiming for), you might have a substantial contingent of users who are on an old OS downloading an outdated version that you no longer support.
    - themartorana 13y ago
      This was my immediate fear. We're geared up to take offline versions 1.0-1.3 of our API, which are used by less than 2% of users (and we gave them a nice banner urging them to update with a future cut-off date). This announcement has me worried, mostly from the customer support standpoint.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
Aldo_MX 13y ago
> Some people will argue that software developers should be able to require that their customers always have the latest versions of their product. I personally believe that decision should be in the hands of the user. Did somebody say Internet Explorer 6? Now, being serious, I agree that the customers should be the ones to decide, BUT they must be conscious of the implications (lack of support, security issues, bugs that got fixed in a recent version, etc.).
Florin_Andrei 13y ago
> When software was distributed physically, the consumer always had the freedom to use any version of an application they liked. Want to run a lightweight version of Word because you don't need all the latest features, or maybe you just hate the new UI? No problem. Did you like some video game better before they "improved" it? Just get the old disk out and play it. In theory, the cloud could do this, too - if done right.

arn 13y ago

This is actually an advantage of cloud distribution. What if you want to run an older version of Word but haven't bought it yet? It can be a pain to find an old copy to buy. Whereas Apple has all the old versions on their servers and can deliver the exact one that will run on your system.

pdpi 13y ago
Provided Apple (or whatever other provider) actually distributes the old versions. Somehow, that never seems to be the case.
- iwasakabukiman 13y ago
  What do you mean? The whole purpose of this new feature is that Apple is giving users older versions when they need them...
  - pdpi 13y ago
    Which is novel enough to be a news article.
    - melange 13y ago
      That's why we're discussing the news.
untog 13y ago
Whereas Apple has all the old versions on their servers and can deliver the exact one that will run on your system. "The one that will run on your system" is not necessarily "the one you want", though. It's still not in your hands.

snom380 13y ago

As long as you keep a backup of your old app bundles on your computer (for instance using Time Machine) I don't think it's a problem to load old apps. The exception being if some of those apps require online services that are no longer available.

EvanAnderson 13y ago
Keeping and installing old copies of app bundles doesn't seem like a very viable option for non-technical users.
- briandear 13y ago
  Of course the non technical user is not generally the one complaining.
- pilif 13y ago
  Using outdated and unsupported versions of software doesn't seem like a very viable option for non-technical users.
  - adsche 13y ago
    I don't like your comment. You use the same words to directly counter the parent, but these words don't match the case. What do you mean by "viable option" here? Some "options" for non-technical users are in this thread's first comment.
- mikeash 13y ago
  Maybe not, but it is exactly how software has worked since approximately the dawn of time, and it is exactly what the grandparent comment was proposing should be allowed.

methodin 13y ago

It should be your choice but most people aren't knowledgeable enough to manage versions themselves. You would certainly give up any rights for support in doing so as well.

zyb09 13y ago

Well that was in a time when Apps were self-contained software, before they started talking to the Internet and require a wide array of specific webservices to be online and functional. As developer you don't want to keep old services running forever, because you want to evolve the app and eventually change something that breaks older versions.

kenrikm 13y ago

What if your backend APIs have changed and you never expected to support that older version? I can see a lot of the older apps not working at all in that case.

e1ven 13y ago
How is this scenerio different from one where the user installed your app a year ago, and hasn't upgraded to the newest version? You'd need to handle it in either case.
- simonholroyd 13y ago
  It's different because prior to this change, you could make an educated decision about whether to support an older version of your API based on usage of your app. When the legacy version reached some threshold percentage of your user base you could be fairly confident that you were inconveniencing a small and dwindling fraction of users and drop support. With this change you can no longer be confident that app usage for legacy versions will always decrease. If your app suddenly becomes very popular (as most app developers are aiming for), you might have a substantial contingent of users who are on an old OS downloading an outdated version that you no longer support.
  - themartorana 13y ago
    This was my immediate fear. We're geared up to take offline versions 1.0-1.3 of our API, which are used by less than 2% of users (and we gave them a nice banner urging them to update with a future cut-off date). This announcement has me worried, mostly from the customer support standpoint.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]

Aldo_MX 13y ago

> Some people will argue that software developers should be able to require that their customers always have the latest versions of their product. I personally believe that decision should be in the hands of the user. Did somebody say Internet Explorer 6? Now, being serious, I agree that the customers should be the ones to decide, BUT they must be conscious of the implications (lack of support, security issues, bugs that got fixed in a recent version, etc.).

Florin_Andrei 13y ago

> When software was distributed physically, the consumer always had the freedom to use any version of an application they liked. Want to run a lightweight version of Word because you don't need all the latest features, or maybe you just hate the new UI? No problem. Did you like some video game better before they "improved" it? Just get the old disk out and play it. In theory, the cloud could do this, too - if done right.