Apple to bin apps that go three years without updates | Hacker News Reader

Apple to bin apps that go three years without updates

theregister.com

23 pointszinekeller21 comments

It's not just that the software has gone years without updates, but also if there have been no or very few downloads. Reading the actual update from Apple: https://developer.apple.com/news/?id=gi6npkmf it states specifically "minimal download threshold — meaning the app has not been downloaded at all or extremely few times during a rolling 12 month period "

The Register fulfills its role as a beacon of misleading tech sharebait.

The only reason I can think that you could be getting downvotes for this, is that you left out the bit about them also being weeks late with the "news". As usual.

It mentions downloads at the beginning of the second paragraph - the same quote as given above. The first paragraph is a single sentence.

Anyone who stops reading that early into a post is going to be mislead by a lot of other news sources as well.

I have many problems with this definition, especially that they haven't explained what counts as "download". Are re-installations counted as downloads? Plus, what is the threshold of "very few"? What if the application is geographically specific that it isn't downloaded very often (usually government or local apps), but isn't qualified for enterprise distribution? Unless Apple has expounded on what counts as "download" and give even an approximate count of what they consider as "very few", that caveat basically excludes approximately no non-updated apps.

Apple also said that the developer can also contest the removal by reaching out to ask for an exception.

Honestly, this sounds like a black hole of never working out in your favor. Their standard practices are very ambiguous and it often depends on the staff member. There is little consistency. I wouldn't expect this new exception to be any different. If you're hoping for an exception you're already fighting Apple's way of doing it.

>minimal download threshold

Limited number, Extremely Small Number, very small number, a very small percentage. Those are all direct quotes of standard Apple PR language used when announcing recalls for

iphone 5 battery

iphone 6 battery/throttling

iPhone 12 sound

MacBook, Air Pro keyboards

etc etc. Its always minimal threshold, extremely small number, very small percentage, even when they recall 50% of released products (keyboards).

This is good for developers as well as users.

Developers releasing new products are competing with 100,000 new/updated apps per week. Old, unmaintained, and worthless apps pollute search results, making it more difficult to find good apps from good developers. These same crusty apps inevitably result in poor user experiences that punish people who try new apps. Users and current developers shouldn't be saddled with the burden of competing with the ghosts of developers who gave up in 2017.

I generally agree, but think there is a pretty easy middle ground here that is better. For example, to default that the app is unavailable but have a toggle in the App Store that shows such dead apps. That reduces clutter and allows newer apps to shine, but if a user is specifically looking for some old app that is important and not otherwise available for some reason, they can still get it.

I genuinely like that idea, and for simplicity's sake I can see it being a separate app. (I'm wondering how quickly it would earn the nickname "Crapp Store".)

Not every app needs to be actively maintained. Some are feature complete and work just fine. I have a few of those apps and see no reason to remove them.

Games & Utility apps often don’t need constant updates.

iOS changes, phone form factors change. That's why apps need updates.

The notch, HiDPI etc. all require at the very least a recompile with the latest SDK.

Glad I already left the Apple platform as a developer. IF non-existent documentation, overly restrictive environment and the never ending changes requiring app changes and re-submission were not enough.

If you want to make money on the app store you have to either write a game, a gambling app or a social media app.

Will they at least let people side-load them on Apple's devices?

user to bin Apple for going three years without being halfway decent

If the fee is being paid why not let it be? There are many nonprofits that have apps that they don’t have the money to update every year or two. Let it be.

What a developer and user-hostile move. If a software has value to the user, Apple has no role here to dictate that a user cannot use it.

I'm not an Apple user, but that has been pretty much the role of Apple since ever: dictating what you can and can't do in the name of "good user experience". This decision makes sense in the POV of forcing apps to use newer and safer SDKs, and better integration with accessibility features and whatnot.

I don't agree, which is why I don't use Apple, but if anything they are consistent in their values.

I wouldn't say that's always been the case. I used Mac OS from 7.6 to OS X 10.6. It never stopped you from installing programs from whatever source you wanted, even if the hardware was controlled and most applications did all look pretty similar due to the provided UI libraries and the strict UI guidelines. You were also able to mess with and delete random parts of the OS; I managed to break Finder entirely, which is how I ended up learning how to use the terminal and vim.

It was Mac OS X 10.7 when they disabled unsigned apps by default to try to force people to use the store and pressure developers into paying them an annual fee. That was also when I stopped using Mac OS.

I was really happy with Apple ruling their little UI fiefdom with an iron fist because there were alternatives. I do not like them having total platform control down to the silicon.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com