That sounds like a good idea. Unless you’re the vendor, and instead of 1000 support requests for version N, you’re now facing 100 support requests for version N, 100 for N−1, 100 for N−2, …, and 100 for N−9.
The answer is a support window. If they are in bounds and have active maintenance contracts, support them.
If not, give them an option to get on support, or wish them luck.
Then the other answer is to really think releases through.
None of it is cheap. But it can be managed.
And anyone who does will find a percentage of users figure it out and then just get back to work.
Apart from, maybe, Linux distros, neither Apple or Microsoft are providing anything to handle updates that isn’t a proprietary store with shitty rules.
For sure the rules are broken on desktop OSs but by the meantime, you still have to distribute and update your software. Should the update be automatic ? No. Should you provide an easy way to update ? I’d said that at the end it depends on if you think it’s important to provide updates to your users. But should you except your users or their OSs to somehow update your app by themselves ? Nope.
For the vast realm of <300$/year products, the ones that actually use updaters, all your suggestions are completely unviable.
Auto-updates mostly ever practically happen for software used at home or SMB which might not have a functioning IT. If security is the concern why not use auto-updates only for security updates? Why am I gaining features I explicitly did not want, or losing the ones which were the reason I bought the software in the first place? Why does the dev think I am not capable of deciding for myself if or when to update? I have a solid theory of why and it involves an MBA-type person thinking anyone using <$300 software just can't think for themselves and if this line of thought cuts some costs or generates some revenue all the better.
Sure, virii were with us since the early 80's, but they mostly targetted the OS, and there were no rapid security patch release cycles back then. You just had 'prevention' and mostly cleanup.
Sure. I’d rather have it be provided by the platform. It’s a lot of work to maintain for 5 OSs (3 desktop, 2 mobile).
> we should try our best to release complete software to users that will work as close to forever as possible
This isn’t feasible. Last I tried to support old systems on my app, the vendor (Apple) had stopped supporting and didn’t even provide free VMs. Windows 10 is scheduled for non-support this year (afaik). On Linux glibc or gtk will mess with any GUI app after a few years. If Microsoft, Google and Apple can’t, why the hell should I as a solo app developer? Plus, I have 5 platforms to worry about, they only have their own.
> Touching files on a user's system should be treated as a rare special occurrence.
Huh? That’s why I built an app and not a website in the first place. My app is networked both p2p and to api and does file transfers. And I’m supposed to not touch files?
> If a server is involved with the app, build a stable interface and think long and hard about every change.
Believe me, I do. These changes are as scary as database migrations. But like those, you can't avoid them forever. And for those cases, you need at the very least to let the user know what’s happening. That’s half of the update infrastructure.
Big picture, I can agree with the sentiment that ship fast culture has gone too far with apps and also we rely on cloud way too much. That’s what the local first movement is about.
At the same time, I disagree with the generalization seemingly based on a narrow stereotype of an app. For most non-tech users, non-disruptive background updates are ideal. This is what iOS does overnight when charging and on WiFi.
I have nothing against disabling auto updates for those who like to update their own software, but as a default it would lead to massive amounts of stale non-working software.
I'm pretty sure you know what I meant, it's obvious from context. System program files. The files that are managed by your user's package manager (and by extension their IT department)
Which leaves you with self-updaters. I definitely agree ideally it shouldn’t be the applications job to update itself. But we don’t live in that world atm. At the very least you need to check for updates and EOL circuit breakers for apps that aren’t forever- local only apps. Which is not a niche use-case even if local-first infra was mature and widely adopted, which it very much isn’t.
Anyway, my app works without internet, pulls no business logic at runtime (live updates) and it uses e2ee for privacy. That’s way more than the average ad-funded bait-and-switch ware that plague the majority of commercial software today. I wish I didn’t have to worry about updates, but the path to less worries and healthy ecosystem is not to build bug-free forever-software on top of a constantly moving substrate provided largely by corporations with multiple orders of magnitude more funding than the average software development company.
they avoid mentioning it, but the Microsoft managed package format (MSIX) works just fine without the Microsoft Store. create an App Installer manifest, stick it on a website, and get semver-d differential updates across multiple architectures for free: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/msix/app-installer...
msft have woefully underinvested in the ecosystem and docs though. I wish they'd fund me or others to contribute on the OSS side - electron could be far simpler and more secure with batteries-included MSIX
EDIT: I think your link answered some of these questions. I’m on .msi myself so can’t benefit from it yet anyway.. basically these things need to be managed by the app bundlers like electron & tauri otherwise we’re asking for trouble. I think..
Why do you need "free VMs" as a professional software company. A couple of legacy machines is pocket change comparet to the salary of even a signle developer.
> Windows 10 is scheduled for non-support this year (afaik).
So? People are still releasing new software for XP. It's not that hard.
> On Linux glibc or gtk will mess with any GUI app after a few years.
glibc provides extreme long-term backwards compatibility so isn't a problem as long as you build against the oldest version you want to support.
gtk is a problem but also doesn't change as often as you are implying - we are only at version 4 now. And depending on what software you are building you can also avoid it.
> If Microsoft, Google and Apple can’t, why the hell should I as a solo app developer? Plus, I have 5 platforms to worry about, they only have their own.
So that your users have a reason to choose you over Microsoft, Google and Apple.
Auto-updaters are the most practical and efficient way of pushing updates in today's world. As pointed out by others, the alternative would be to go through app store's update mechanism, if the app is distributed via app store in the first place, and many people avoid Microsoft store/MacOS app store whenever possible. And no developer likes that process.
Linux, I got burned again yesterday. Proxmox distribution has no package I need in their repository.
I am trying to use Ubuntu package - does not work.
I try to use debian - too old version.
How do I solve this? By learning some details of how the Linux distributions and repositories work, struggling some more and finding customly built version of .deb. Okay, I can do it, kinda, but what about non-IT person?
Software without dependencies is awesome. So, docker is something I respect a lot, because it allows the same model (kinda).
It is your duty to make sure _all_ of your users are able to continue using the same software they installed in exactly the same way for the reasonable lifetime of their contract, the package, or underlying system (and that lifetime is measured in years/decades, with the goal of forever where possible. Not months).
You can, if you must, include an update notification, but this absolutely cannot disrupt the user's experience; no popups, do not require action, include an "ignore forever" button. If you have a good product with genuinely good feature improvements, users will voluntarily upgrade to a new package. If they don't, that is why you have a sales team.
Additionally, more broadly, it is not your app's job to handle updates. That is the job of your operating system and its package manager. But I understand that Windows is behind in this regard, so it is acceptable to compromise there.
We go a step further at my company. Any customer is able to request any previous version of their package at any time, and we provide them an Internet download page or overnight ship them a CD free of charge (and now USB too).