Hacker News Reader

> Why do developers feel entitled to hardware devices that will always work with legacy code?

"Entitled" isn't really the word I would use there. It's not like developers throughout history have forced poor platform vendors to provide backwards compatibility at gunpoint. It's that most platform developers have provided backwards compatibility because doing so helps them attract developers. This has been true literally for fifty years -- see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_System/360 for the first platform vendor to figure it out. Backwards compatibility is part of the work you do to convince people to use your platform over the alternatives. Omitting it can make developing your platform easier, but that ease comes at the cost of forcing you to work harder to convince people to get on board.

Apple's within their rights to decide they don't need to work hard to attract developers anymore, of course, but developers are every bit as much within their rights to decide to take their products elsewhere.

Whether it's smart business for Apple to decide they don't need to work hard to attract developers is another matter, of course. History suggests that is an attitude that eventually comes back to bite you. (Ask anyone at Microsoft, they can tell you alllllll about it.)

Why Microsoft as an example? They are pretty nuts about backward compatibility, including fixing other people bugs so their software would continue to run (the old SimCity bug). I believe I can still run Doom and, say, Ventura Publisher 3.0 on vanilla Windows 8 (although I'd prefer DOSBox, of course, at least for games).

It's true, MS cares more about back-compat than nearly anybody else. I was thinking there more of the "they'll use our platform whether they like it or not, because where else are they gonna go?" attitude that led to debacles like the Long IE6 Winter.

It makes sense to get out when it's not profitable. In this case, it's a small segment of their sales. They said so directly in their explanation. If there were no sales on iOS, would that be giving up, or just accepting it's not a profitable segment for your business?

> Why do developers feel entitled to hardware devices that will always work with legacy code?

First, I'm not sure where you are getting that sentiment from. They simply said they aren't going to support iOS devices, and listed why. They didn't complain Apple was doing something wrong.

Second, how is this in any way related to the hardware? An OS software revision caused the latest problem for them.

I think I got the sentiment from 2. and 3. Both seemed like the developer was blaming Apple's changes and the forced efforts they set on the developer for stopping iOS production. In reality however, the real problems surrounding the app not being financially viable don't seem to be hinged on Apple's changes here.

Hardware was just another instance from my own experience where Apple makes it a tinge more difficult with new device sizes/specs and so-on every year or so. This wasn't the case in this article, but it's something that Apple developers face, but come to think of it I guess this doesn't really apply solely to Apple.

It'd be enlightening to this conversation to know what caused their engine to break, before we assign blame.

> But as a developer, you suck it up, modify your content, and continue.

Or decide life's too short for this shit and make your money doing something more fun.

> Why do developers feel entitled to hardware devices that will always work with legacy code?

Because that's how the world outside Apple bubble works. You can still run older Windows software, you can still run older Linux software, you can still run older Android software.

Not forcing people to pay for new electronics (especially when it can represents their several months of earnings) just to keep their existing software running and services working is a GOOD thing.

I'm going to play devil's advocate and say that perhaps it's not a GOOD thing necessarily.

Maybe keeping existing software/services running on legacy mode isn't really GOOD... perhaps Apple indirectly forcing developers to keep their apps updated is an even better situation for the end user?

That's not to say we should drop backwards-support with every revision. But I think that there's plenty of occasions where it's acceptable to expect up-to-date software running on up-to-date devices being a norm.

I didn't really get that from the post myself - I read it more as just "the amount of effort we'd need to put in to get it working again just isn't worth it given the sales we have on the platform". It really just sounds like they don't have the time/resources to put into the port.

Which is fair enough. Still a shame though given how highly regarded the Spiderweb games are.

I disagree. Life and business are always about ROI and that is a personal gauge. The developer is stating the reasons they feel the ROI has tipped not in their favour anymore. I think it's perfectly valid if disappointing from the consumer's point of view.

And it makes sense to get out if the changes to the ecosystem cost you more (money/time/effort) than the income you get from it. No reason to "suck it up" if you have less painful alternatives.

Or:

Why do hardware companies feel so entitled to force developers to change working things for free?

"But as a developer, you suck it up, modify your content, and continue."

No, you're supposed to collectively bitch, moan, and whine, and if they still don't listen, you leave, taking as many people with you as possible.

Yours is the wrong attitude. We can do so much better. Developers shouldn't gather around platforms that are constantly shifting...

The entire software industry relies on changes in hardware and breaking changes in operating systems and libraries to create opportunity. Without the constant drumbeat of change, there's no need for new anything.

If you think about this as a small scale evolution it makes sense. On the other hand, I understand why the guy is unhappy. Apple os breaking compatibility for no good reason, mostly for promoting their new shiny things (like Swift), which does not bring that much to the table to justify breaking compatibility. Somebody pointed out in this thread that it is possible to roll with new platform that is compatible with the previous one and having new features at the same time. To summarize: platforms supposed to be stable, and backward compatible, only break compatibility when it is absolutely a must. Investing into a new stack is not cheap. I feel sorry for those who are at the mercy of Apple in this regard.