In other words if there was some actual reason to do an update, like a security flaw or serious bug, she wouldn't have been able to readily do so.
This seems to support Apple's policy to make developers update the app every once in a while.
Closing off APIs that facilitate fingerprinting is just one of many incompatible changes Apple has been making.
Some other reasons are deprecating power hungry technologies and asking for more permissions to access private data.
These are changes that benefit users on a massive scale. Why shouldn’t a developer be expected to respect users needs?
Also - “windows does it” is obviously irrelevant when we are talking about a mobile OS.
I won't continue this discussion about maintaining compatibility. This is fundamentally a philosophical issue. I agree with the sibling comment that it is the job of an OS to provide stable APIs across versions. It requires some effort (as a long-term library maintainer, I'm very well aware of this), but it is not an impossibility at all.
The job of the computer is to serve the end user. The job of the OS is to manage the computer’s resources on the users behalf.
API stability can contribute to that goal, but this is not an absolute.
Apple balances their view of what is good for users over what is good for developers and themselves.
Your preference is to prioritize developer comfort over both end users and Apple.
If you think there are no insecure or inefficient APIs in older versions of operating systems, then you are simply wrong.
API stability sometimes serves the end user, and sometimes does not. When it does not, it should not be maintained.
Isn't this supposed to be why the App Store has a manual approval process? So Apple can actually check if developers are doing malicious things?
By all means, apply extra scrutiny if an old API is in use. Maybe allow the API only in updates to old apps, and not new ones.
> By all means, apply extra scrutiny if an old API is in use. Maybe allow the API only in updates to old apps, and not new ones.
If the developer is updating the app, there is no reason they shouldn’t adopt a more user friendly api.
(1) There wasn't.
(2) "After 4 hours of work to re-compile my app and 44 hours waiting in the review queue"
The biggest obstacle here isn't the developer, it's Apple.
So another way to look at it is Apple requires developers to once every 3 years do the absolute minimum amount of maintenance, and they get a 90 day window to do it in.
Developers needing to demonstrate once every 3 years that they still have the source code and it compiles should not be an obstacle at all.
You say "Developers" without qualification, missing the crucial exemption: for some bizarre reason, developers of apps that are above a certain download threshold do not have to demonstrate that their code still compiles. Does that make sense?
So when you ask but why are popular apps exempt? - well, they already told you exactly why, because they're popular. People still want the app.
I feel like the actual reason you're against this policy is left unstated.
1) The criteria do not include "crappy". Apple didn't claim that the article author's app is crappy.
2) What's the difference between "old" and "outdated"? The article author's app was recompiled but otherwise not changed.
3) The app is now back in the App Store. So if Apple's goal was to remove the app from the App Store, then Apple failed.
> People still want the app.
Alternatively, they could be scams that are getting downloads from keyword stuffing, fake reviews, search ads, and other well-known methods.
> I feel like the actual reason you're against this policy is left unstated.
Not at all. The same reason as the article author:
"The decision to remove outdated apps places a disproportional burden on indie developers and hobbyists"
Apple has said, in response to anti-trust claims that "developers, from first-time engineers to larger companies, can rest assured that everyone is playing by the same set of rules." But that's clearly a lie, is it not?
I said that was part of their intention, indicated by "follow current review guidelines". Go ahead now and try to put Apple's intention into your own words. What do you feel is Apple's intention behind this policy?
> "... everyone is playing by the same set of rules." But that's clearly a lie, is it not?
Large developers also have to resubmit their very unpopular, obscure apps every three years. Small developers with popular apps also do not. Everyone is playing by the same rule. You made the claim, what developers are not subject to this same policy?
> "The decision to remove outdated apps places a disproportional burden on indie developers and hobbyists"
Explain why you feel a few minutes every three years is a burden. Literally the only thing Apple is requiring you do is recompile your unpopular app and submit it as an update once every three years.
It's not disproportional on indie developers and hobbyists unless you feel they have more unpopular apps that they also almost never update. Hobbyists can make popular apps, such as that Japanese guy's side-by-side calculator app that was on the HN front page the other day and they often put more love and effort into updating their apps, even the old ones. Frankly this view that hobbyists are oppressed by needing to recompile once every three years reads like an insult.
I can't read Apple's mind. You can't either.
> Large developers also have to resubmit their very unpopular, obscure apps every three years.
Oh give me a break. I'm done here, this is not a good faith argument.
> Explain why you feel a few minutes every three years is a burden.
A few minutes. Again, this is not a good faith argument. Your reply is not serious.
> Literally the only thing Apple is requiring you do is recompile your unpopular app and submit it as an update once every three years.
Your reply is contradicting itself, because you claim Apple's intention is to get rid of apps, but you also claim that it's incredibly easy to not get removed.
> Frankly this view that hobbyists are oppressed by needing to recompile once every three years reads like an insult.
Do you think the original article author was insulting herself?
What a bad faith, insulting reply.
I asked what your understanding was, not what Apple actually was thinking, and you absolutely can say what you believe about Apple and their intentions; this goes to Theory of Mind that is a cornerstone of being a functional person.
> give me a break ... not a good faith ... reply is not serious .. bad faith, insulting reply
It's now clear to me that you have unstated reasons because when calmly asked to explain your reasons you went off crazy like this rather than simply state those beliefs. You feel it's a burden, but why is effort so minimal a burden? You won't say.
Your expression of concern over the blog author's character, your inability to explain your views, and those views being irrational leads me to conclude that you are simply white-knighting.