[vytautask]

>It doesn't cost anything or hurt to keep older versions

First, it affects my app ratings in the application store/shop. Some user with 15-year-old device gives me 1-star rating because of some annoying bug that was already fixed 10 years ago but he can not upgrade because that newer version is using a newer API.

Also, what about bugfixes and support? I do not want to have to support (answer emails/calls and deal with bad reviews on all platforms) my ancient version of an app. This would make my app unaffordable for 99% of my users.

[ClumsyPilot]

> First, it affects my app ratings in the application store/shop

good example of systemic failure - we are destroying a real thing (functionality) to optimise for a fictional thing (rating). There is plenty of old windows software with no support, I have a game that is old enough to drink and it still works and I still sometimes fire it up out of nostalgia.

There is no reason software cannot be like an old motorbike - a 40 year old Honda motorbike can still work, if that’s what the user wants.

[latexr]

> we are destroying a real thing (functionality) to optimise for a fictional thing (rating)

Ratings are quite real. They influence if new people buy your app at all, which influences how viable it is as a business, which influences the app’s future, which influences current customers.

[immibis]

They are constructed reality as opposed to inherent reality. We invented a fake metric then created incentives (adjusting the allocation of real resources) to optimise the fake metric.

[latexr]

It’s not a “fake metric”. It exists, measures something, and it has an effect on the world. It is real. It’s a subpar metric¹, probably even a harmful metric², but that doesn’t make it fake or fictional.

¹ At best it only measures those who rate and it can be gamed (true for every media).

² For the bad incentives you mention.

[davemp]

Semantics/pedantry. I’m sure you’re capable of inferring what the OP means.

[latexr]

> I’m sure you’re capable of inferring what the OP means.

And it’s that I’m disagreeing with. I’m sure you’re capable of understanding that too. Words matter. By being against something and calling it fake or fictional, you’re doing more harm to your cause than by recognising the impact it has on the real world and those who inhabit it.

[atonse]

They're not a fake metric. Sure, ratings can be gamed and are gamed. But ratings and accompanying reviews inherently aren't fake, and are the closest proxy to "word of mouth"

[ClumsyPilot]

They are artificial. You could have a separate metric for each platform, for older version, you can use different algorithms and to calculate, etc.

[agentultra]

What you might be missing in your interpretation is that “fictional,” didn’t mean what you’re saying it does.

The OP meant that the app ratings aren’t a measure of a tangible quality or effect. Like “heat,” or “number of tickets.” The unit of measure and what it means is “fictional,” in the sense that the scale and units are completely made up and arbitrary.

They’re not saying that it’s fictional in the sense that it doesn’t exist or isn’t real.

They’re aptly noting that by forcing developers to optimize for this rating system, app stores are incentivizing developers to support only the most recent OS releases and deprecate support for older devices.

The ratings have real consequences.

[cassepipe]

That could easily be fixed by preventing people using old versions to give feedback. I guess no app store currently allows that right ?

[myaccountonhn]

Yeah this is an important perspective for coming up with a solution, because it’s a very legitimate reason to not want to support old hardware…