Apple is causing this issue in the first place by breaking compatibility and requiring projects to be updated for each new Xcode version.

That’s because the platform is actually changing.

That’s not a reason, unless the platform is changing in incompatible ways, which is exactly the problem, and a largely avoidable one, as other platforms demonstrate.

Other platforms don’t care if applications fingerprint the device without the user’s consent.

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?

There are ways to still maintain API compatibility in that case (Windows does it all the time), and it’s also not a reason to require projects not affected by those changes to recompile with the newest Xcode version each year. I’m maintaining a Swift library/framework that doesn’t use any iOS APIs at all, only basic Swift standard library calls, and I still have to produce a new build each year from unchanged source code so that the library can be consumed with the new Xcode version. That’s just insane.

Why is it insane? Do you not test your library with new versions of the OS?

Also - “windows does it” is obviously irrelevant when we are talking about a mobile OS.

Testing with a new OS version shouldn’t (and usually doesn’t) require rebuilding the project. The need to rebuild is imposed primarily by the Xcode releases here, not by the OS. And that seems entirely unnecessary. Note that breaking compatibility and having to rebuild for new Xcode versions are two independent and orthogonal issues here.

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 sibling and you are entitled to this preference, but I don’t see anything philosophical about it.

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.

Being able to continue using an older not actively maintained app they still want to use is pretty good for the end user...

Maybe a tiny minority of end users, where the breaking changes benefit everyone else.

New features in the API indirectly benefit the end users (once apps start using them). But those new features don't have to be breaking, and that part doesn't help the users at all. It does help Apple spend less resources on maintenance, though.

Changes to old features also benefit the end users, and they do have to be breaking in a significant number of cases.

If you think there are no insecure or inefficient APIs in older versions of operating systems, then you are simply wrong.

The whole point of an OS is to provide a stable API to use.

This has never been true. The point of an OS is to manage the resources of the computer on behalf of the user.

API stability sometimes serves the end user, and sometimes does not. When it does not, it should not be maintained.

Being able to use the app you want to use serves the end user pretty well.

Yes, that’s the point here. A few end users can use an app the developer has abandoned, at the expense of the millions.

If I'm aware of an issue (be it tracking, or power consumption, or ...) with the older version of the app and want to run it despite that, that should be my prerogative as a user.

It’s clearly delusional to expect iOS users to keep track of the deficiencies of all the old APIs their apps are using.

> Other platforms don’t care if applications fingerprint the device without the user’s consent.

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.

No. The manual approval process covers the visible features, not shady stuff the reviewers can’t see.

> 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.

Why not ask for those things specifically rather than saying "old is bad?"

In practice, it amounts to the same thing. To make use of the APIs with the enhanced privacy etc., you have to use the latest SDKs.

Keeping apps up to date with modern privacy concerns is a good thing. Why is anyone arguing in favor of developers abandoning apps?

> 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.

(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.

The most basic, first step of maintenance is: does it still compile? Not in this case.

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.

> Developers needing to demonstrate once every 3 years

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?

What Apple actually stated is the policy is for "discoverability of apps" for "the majority of users". Clearly the intention stated is to remove old, unpopular, outdated, crappy apps from the App store.

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.

> Clearly the intention stated is to remove old, unpopular, outdated, crappy apps from the App store.

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?

> 1) The criteria do not include "crappy".

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.

> 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?

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 can't read Apple's mind. You can't either. ... Do you think the original article author was insulting herself?

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.