|
|
|
|
|
|
by incrudible
899 days ago
|
|
|
Most software is written for ten year business cycles. Maybe the Apple approach makes sense for most consumers and the few little apps they use, but there's reasons why Microsoft is so strong in the enterprise, and backwards compatibility is a huge part of that. |
|
|
But you’re right in that a lot of enterprise software is/was written with ten years or more in mind.
Having seen it in action, I wonder if that’s the right course of action just in terms of security and what passed as acceptable UI alone, but I suppose that’s a topic for another time. For most enterprises, it’s a cost consideration where there’s a high tolerance for crap as long as it means that it saves money.
While Apple is nowhere near as uncommon in the enterprise world as it used to be, it’s no secret that enterprise is far down Apple’s priority list. Backward compatibility (or rather lack of motivation to facilitate that) might very well be a factor in that, but it seems to be more a matter of not needing to tap into that market.