Click bait headline. They removed apps that haven’t been updated in 3 years. This means the apps won’t support the latest devices, screen sizes, etc. why would Apple continue selling apps which will work poorly on a customers phone?
Yet they keep apps that haven't been updated for even longer periods of time that just get more downloads. Why do they keep letting people download apps that work poorly on a customers phone?
Start with the low download apps so that the more “important” apps get the message and update. If an app is downloaded lots it’s a toss up between giving customers the best experience and keeping an app they need available.
Remember that people like basisword believe they know better than normal people what is good for them, and so in their mindset they seriously believe that it is somehow doing right by users to protect them from their beliefs about what they "need".
This comment seems uncalled for. it’s a different sort of experience and different people like different things.
I don’t like it when I download an app, only to find that it opens in a weird size because it hasn’t been updated in years. I’d rather not have that as an option to download ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Yes, Apple should control all of our choices. I'm not sure why there even is an app store. They could just add and remove apps from our devices as they deem fit. Less hassle and we would have all the hot new apps.
I get the feeling, but at the same time I personally disagree with it as well as disagree that the store should be run that way.
Aside from the fact that it further restricts what it means to “buy” and app (it’s not just a license to use it for as long as apple deems it good looking enough) there’s the bigger issue of purpose.
I don’t download an app so that I have a nice looking UI. I download an app to DO something, to solve a problem. If the app does it in style (or in line with the newest ui fads) that’s nice. But it’s not why I’m looking for an app.
If my options are between a bad looking app and no app, then I’ll take the bad looking one 100% of the time.
>> Remember that people like basisword believe they know better than normal people what is good for them, and so in their mindset they seriously believe that it is somehow doing right by users to protect them from their beliefs about what they "need".
The sheer arrogance of thinking you know what a person believes based on one comment. A store owner has every right to not sell broken products. It’s as simple as that.
Because some of these apps are artistic works, and making artistic works effectively unusable arbitrarily is unconscionable.
Because there are many niche audiences which can't afford constant software updates and having an application that doesn't perfectly support a new device is better for them than not having a application at all.
I would not have a single solitary problem with what they're doing if they allowed side loading, but if they don't allow side loading, this shit isn't okay. I know there's a whack of unmaintained apps out there which are meant to help people with a disability, if somebody relies on such an app, fuck them I guess, they should use a new app that supports the newest screen sizes regardless of if that app exists or not.
> Because some of these apps are artistic works, and making artistic works effectively unusable arbitrarily is unconscionable.
I have an apps on there in the art context. I think with software as your medium, if you want your art to live on, you need to keep it updated. Doom is constantly being updated to run on new systems, and valve still updates old games (for example).
Bit rot is something you need to battle with in work production systems too. Even if you wrote something in assembly, you’d eventually have to update it.
It’s the nature of software. Am I misunderstanding what you think should be happening?
It's the nature of developers that don't value other developers' time and effort. Somehow the Linux kernel manages not to break userspace every release.
I recently downloaded the old Gold Box games on Steam. They're about 30 years old and still work fine, thanks to a bit of effort from the DOSbox developers.
Apple could also make their platform backwards compatible.
Bits don't rot. If a software that worked fine when it was released no longer works on the latest version of the platform, it is entirely the fault of the platform developer who failed to maintain backward compatibility. It is the consequence of deliberate platform choices and we should not try to shift the blame onto individual 3rd party developers or conjure up mystical forces like "bit rot".
>> Because some of these apps are artistic works, and making artistic works effectively unusable arbitrarily is unconscionable.
Don’t be ridiculous. They’re software products for sale on a store. If the developers consider them art and care deeply about that they can release the code and anyone can install the app on their device then.
How many of these apps were actually broken? I haven't use iOS in a long time, but on Android I use plenty of apps that haven't been updated in 3+ years. They all work fine.
Or tell whether the app you are viewing / downloading is "compatible" with your devices like Google Play Store, right.
Also for instance, when I try to install certain apps on the Early 2011 MacBook Pro that I use, there are some apps that have a block/stop icon on the bottom-right of the app icon itself that indicates that it is either not compatible or would not run the the device (It's good start).
But IMO, What Apple is doing is great and it has something to do with Security and Privacy to some extent. Imagine, there is one app has not been downloaded at all or have few downloads for the course of 12 Months for the past 3 years feels like it's a shady app waiting for a victim.
Sigh. Apple articles from Verge are clickbait garbage. If you want to read what's going on with this issue here's the official link to Apple's Developer page on this issue:
It's a nothing burger. First it's only old Apps that haven't been downloaded in years. Second, developers can show that the app runs well under current iOS and it's the end of the issue. Third they can apply for an extension in order to update the app.
> Apple removing these apps is a bit like it removing movies from the iTunes Store just because they show up with black bars on modern TVs
How is playing a movie the same as running an application?
Yes, to watch a movie you need an application, but this application can be updated to prevent the movie from doing harm or steal data from the user.
All they ask is to rwcompile the app with updated dependencies and run the latest checks against it. As a consumer I want this to make sure the software I run is ok to run on my connected device. And if I’m ok with outdated code i can still run the app. Removing it from the app store only prevents new installs.
24 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 65.3 ms ] threadThere is no toss up. Any move that removed “an app [people] need” is completely opposed “to giving customers the best experience”.
I don’t like it when I download an app, only to find that it opens in a weird size because it hasn’t been updated in years. I’d rather not have that as an option to download ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Aside from the fact that it further restricts what it means to “buy” and app (it’s not just a license to use it for as long as apple deems it good looking enough) there’s the bigger issue of purpose.
I don’t download an app so that I have a nice looking UI. I download an app to DO something, to solve a problem. If the app does it in style (or in line with the newest ui fads) that’s nice. But it’s not why I’m looking for an app.
If my options are between a bad looking app and no app, then I’ll take the bad looking one 100% of the time.
The sheer arrogance of thinking you know what a person believes based on one comment. A store owner has every right to not sell broken products. It’s as simple as that.
Because there are many niche audiences which can't afford constant software updates and having an application that doesn't perfectly support a new device is better for them than not having a application at all.
I would not have a single solitary problem with what they're doing if they allowed side loading, but if they don't allow side loading, this shit isn't okay. I know there's a whack of unmaintained apps out there which are meant to help people with a disability, if somebody relies on such an app, fuck them I guess, they should use a new app that supports the newest screen sizes regardless of if that app exists or not.
I have an apps on there in the art context. I think with software as your medium, if you want your art to live on, you need to keep it updated. Doom is constantly being updated to run on new systems, and valve still updates old games (for example).
Bit rot is something you need to battle with in work production systems too. Even if you wrote something in assembly, you’d eventually have to update it.
It’s the nature of software. Am I misunderstanding what you think should be happening?
Apple could also make their platform backwards compatible.
Don’t be ridiculous. They’re software products for sale on a store. If the developers consider them art and care deeply about that they can release the code and anyone can install the app on their device then.
Also for instance, when I try to install certain apps on the Early 2011 MacBook Pro that I use, there are some apps that have a block/stop icon on the bottom-right of the app icon itself that indicates that it is either not compatible or would not run the the device (It's good start).
But IMO, What Apple is doing is great and it has something to do with Security and Privacy to some extent. Imagine, there is one app has not been downloaded at all or have few downloads for the course of 12 Months for the past 3 years feels like it's a shady app waiting for a victim.
https://developer.apple.com/news/?id=gi6npkmf
It's a nothing burger. First it's only old Apps that haven't been downloaded in years. Second, developers can show that the app runs well under current iOS and it's the end of the issue. Third they can apply for an extension in order to update the app.
Who cares if the software is finished and hasn’t been downloaded? It is still of value for human culture.
If Apple must remove it, then make it easy for everyone to use apps that aren’t shiny enough… that would be a more human response.
How is playing a movie the same as running an application?
Yes, to watch a movie you need an application, but this application can be updated to prevent the movie from doing harm or steal data from the user.
All they ask is to rwcompile the app with updated dependencies and run the latest checks against it. As a consumer I want this to make sure the software I run is ok to run on my connected device. And if I’m ok with outdated code i can still run the app. Removing it from the app store only prevents new installs.