This may be the current sucky reality of SaaS, but it could be fixed if the market demanded it.
I'm not so much angry about server-based apps changing things, although I see your point, but I am angry about too many server-based apps in the first place. At least when it's not necessary. Hard to argue when it's literally for a social network.
* Although in practice this only works for so long as it gets more and more painful as time passes.. there are still users of Windows XP! But I'm sure it's far from a pleasant experience these days.
Meaning, effectively, that it will not be fixed.
I understand the frustration. I work on a mobile application that, like Uber, relies on a lot of server-side communication and deliberately stops working if the client is out of date. And I do know that this sucks.
But the reality is, our API is non-public, and so there is no pressure from anyone to maintain backward compatibility. And I have a thousand features that need to ship, with not enough time as it is, or I will start getting heat from management. Abandoning the cadence of "constant breaking changes bundled with client updates" would slow development considerably, for no gain except the one-hundredth-of-one-percent of HN weirdos who care about this stuff. It's just not going to happen.
The market (my mom for example) is unaware there is a fix.
> there is no pressure from anyone to maintain backward compatibility.
You and your manager are both part of the problem. And the phone makers, because they invented a market place for shit companies that wants to ship unfinished software and push daily updates to their users to eventually reach a point where their API is stable.
There used to exist software developers who took great pride in (API) backwards compatibility. These days, where are they? My guess is they have been overrun by the a huge crowd of new people who have never maintained a backwards compatible API and who don't know how to. Management love fast-moving people who say "yes sir" and "not a problem sir".
This is an admirable sentiment. Thank you for making HN a better place.
> But everything comes at a cost that has to be weighted against the corresponding benefit, and the apparent benefit (to management) in this case is near-zero
Software can have virtues that do not present short-term benefits, but instead contribute to a wholesome UX, even to captive users. It is the responsibility of the software developer to make these hard calls and stick to their guns in the face of management pressure.
1. Software that would work, un-modified, for decades.
2. Software that worked without access to some back-end.
3. Software that didn't require permission from a third party to run.
4. Software that didn't collect personal data from users.
5. Having root/admin access to your own computer/devices.
We can still prevent this from coming true, but it's going to happen if nobody pushes back on these practices.
Ignoring the lame slur, it's not just people that care about computing freedom. It's also people with terrible connections and extremely limited data plans. Being forced to download a 40MB app update just to look at a few KB of data is a deal-breaker for many people.
Now, you often buy only a license to use something until the company that made it decides not to let you use it anymore.
In some sense, we live at the mercy of people we've never met.