OS hyperproduction

[Elf7]

I know this is an ongoing theme, but i’m just trying to gather more opinions. 🤷🏻‍♂️

Why there is a trend of hyperproduction with software in general? It happens in every aspect of it and every new version seems like an 0.5 update, not even close to a new version. It also happens with audio software which i use a lot for my work.
I know it tends to give you the impression you’re getting something new and keeping you loyal, but from my point of view it just repels me. Producing something just for the sake of “inovation” where there is no true inovation, but only cosmetical one is really anoying. Take your time, develop something truly new and you’ll get your money either way, since certain brands became like a cult and users will follow no matter what.

I know this is too much, but i thought it might start a useful discussion. Or not. 🤷🏻‍♂️

Cheers!

 

[QuarterSwede]

I know this is an ongoing theme, but i’m just trying to gather more opinions. 🤷🏻‍♂️

Why there is a trend of hyperproduction with software in general? It happens in every aspect of it and every new version seems like an 0.5 update, not even close to a new version. It also happens with audio software which i use a lot for my work.
I know it tends to give you the impression you’re getting something new and keeping you loyal, but from my point of view it just repels me. Producing something just for the sake of “inovation” where there is no true inovation, but only cosmetical one is really anoying. Take your time, develop something truly new and you’ll get your money either way, since certain brands became like a cult and users will follow no matter what.

I know this is too much, but i thought it might start a useful discussion. Or not. 🤷🏻‍♂️

Cheers!

You kind of nailed it in your own thoughts. It’s the difference between creative and business. The business side knows how to market and keep the business in the users’ minds, which is essential to make money and keep the business going. The creative side doesn’t always understand that. They typically elevate the art higher and usually have a harder time making the money. To succeed they both need a balance.

 

[GMShadow]

Google is largely to blame for this, as they popularized the ship fast fix fast model, and the rest of the industry followed suit.

If a company tries to take their time with software, bloggers start talking about how slow their process is, which gets investors antsy. The goal isn’t quality, it’s frequency. Because they think Google is a well run enterprise (when it’s anything but), anyone who isn’t following their lead must be outdated and mismanaged.

 

[Elf7]

You kind of nailed it in your own thoughts. It’s the difference between creative and business. The business side knows how to market and keep the business in the users’ minds, which is essential to make money and keep the business going. The creative side doesn’t always understand that. They typically elevate the art higher and usually have a harder time making the money. To succeed they both need a balance.

Thanks.
And it’s not clear to me, why those conglomerates that have so much power and influence don’t revert it back to the old process, and still make the same profit. I bet that typical 2023 customer wouldn’t be immune to real inovations?

 

[Elf7]

Google is largely to blame for this, as they popularized the ship fast fix fast model, and the rest of the industry followed suit.

If a company tries to take their time with software, bloggers start talking about how slow their process is, which gets investors antsy. The goal isn’t quality, it’s frequency. Because they think Google is a well run enterprise (when it’s anything but), anyone who isn’t following their lead must be outdated and mismanaged.

Ha, didn’t know who started to whole avalanche, thanks for that info! Now i know why i don’t like them. 😂

 

[QuarterSwede]

Google is largely to blame for this, as they popularized the ship fast fix fast model, and the rest of the industry followed suit.

If a company tries to take their time with software, bloggers start talking about how slow their process is, which gets investors antsy. The goal isn’t quality, it’s frequency. Because they think Google is a well run enterprise (when it’s anything but), anyone who isn’t following their lead must be outdated and mismanaged.

This is a great hot take.

When you realize that companies run on investment money (private equity or public shares) understanding why companies do what they do makes a lot more sense most of the time.

 

[GMShadow]

I can’t imagine how the time between Tiger and Leopard would go over today. Leopard was even delayed because Apple admitted they were more focused on getting the iPhone done and shipped - it’s why Tiger got all the way up to 10.4.11 when most versions only did 10.x.8 or less.

Two and a half years for a major version update is unthinkable now.

 

[KaliYoni]

I know this is an ongoing theme, but i’m just trying to gather more opinions. 🤷🏻‍♂️

Why there is a trend of hyperproduction with software in general? It happens in every aspect of it and every new version seems like an 0.5 update, not even close to a new version. It also happens with audio software which i use a lot for my work.
I know it tends to give you the impression you’re getting something new and keeping you loyal, but from my point of view it just repels me. Producing something just for the sake of “inovation” where there is no true inovation, but only cosmetical one is really anoying. Take your time, develop something truly new and you’ll get your money either way, since certain brands became like a cult and users will follow no matter what.

I know this is too much, but i thought it might start a useful discussion. Or not. 🤷🏻‍♂️

Cheers!

I blame the culture of “radical disruption”, “move fast and break things”, "keep shipping", and “it’s better to ask for forgiveness than permission” that began with Zuckerberg, Musk, and Kalanick and has now spread to pretty much every tech company including Apple. Adding to the problem is that many developers rely on how devices are always connected to the Internet now, making a constant flow of updates and patches possible.

In short, it’s assumed that anything that is done incorrectly or sloppily or that is not re-enabled after being “temporarily” turned off can be quickly fixed in the next update. Speed, not quality, is the objective these days.

 

[Elf7]

I blame the culture of “radical disruption”, “move fast and break things”, "keep shipping", and “it’s better to ask for forgiveness than permission” that began with Zuckerberg, Musk, and Kalanick and has now spread to pretty much every tech company including Apple. Adding to the problem is that many developers rely on how devices are always connected to the Internet now, making a constant flow of updates and patches possible.

In short, it’s assumed that anything that is done incorrectly or sloppily or that is not re-enabled after being “temporarily” turned off can be quickly fixed in the next update. Speed, not quality, is the objective these days.

That scenario seems pretty impossible if self driving cars become majority of traffic.
“We’re sorry for your loss, that steering bug will be fixed in the next update”.

 

[KaliYoni]

“We’re sorry for your loss, that steering bug will be fixed in the next update”.

Sadly, that is already happening!

California DMV cuts Cruise’s fleet after S.F. crashes involving its driverless cars

California state regulators ask Cruise to cut its fleet of driverless taxes after crashes.

www.sfchronicle.com

Cruise blames Outside Lands for driverless car traffic fiasco in San Francisco

A day after regulators approved use of robotaxis in San Francisco, Cruise said its cars were immobilized by wireless issues caused by crowds at Outside Lands

www.sfchronicle.com

S.F. says incidents by Cruise, Waymo driverless taxis are ‘skyrocketing.’ What is the city’s plan?

San Francisco officials say driverless taxi incidents by Cruise, Waymo are 'skyrocketing.' What is the city's plan to address the growing problem?

www.sfchronicle.com

 

[Elf7]

Sadly, that is already happening!

California DMV cuts Cruise’s fleet after S.F. crashes involving its driverless cars

California state regulators ask Cruise to cut its fleet of driverless taxes after crashes.

www.sfchronicle.com

Cruise blames Outside Lands for driverless car traffic fiasco in San Francisco

A day after regulators approved use of robotaxis in San Francisco, Cruise said its cars were immobilized by wireless issues caused by crowds at Outside Lands

www.sfchronicle.com

S.F. says incidents by Cruise, Waymo driverless taxis are ‘skyrocketing.’ What is the city’s plan?

San Francisco officials say driverless taxi incidents by Cruise, Waymo are 'skyrocketing.' What is the city's plan to address the growing problem?

www.sfchronicle.com

All for the profit. 🤮

 

[Chuckeee]

Thanks.
And it’s not clear to me, why those conglomerates that have so much power and influence don’t revert it back to the old process, and still make the same profit. I bet that typical 2023 customer wouldn’t be immune to real inovations?

Timing is driving a lot of this. Part is to get the money NOW, the whole what does it do for THIS quarter balance sheet and let’s worry about long term growth next quarter. The other part is “first to market”, lock in the customer before he goes to a competitor.

 

[Elf7]

Timing is driving a lot of this. Part is to get the money NOW, the whole what does it do for THIS quarter balance sheet and let’s worry about long term growth next quarter. The other part is “first to market”, lock in the customer before he goes to a competitor.

I’m familiar with the whole system, but i was wondering why wont one of the most influential players shift and still make profit. Why it seems like someone is stalling on purpose.
I always remember this when i talk about phone inovations:

Nokia Morph Concept

 

[floral]

I have to admit... even as a bystander, the OSes from the last 4 years don't look any different... They all just appear like minor patches of Big Sur... so we would be on 11.2 right now, realistically, I think?... and almost on 11.3.

When looking at all of the "OS X" releases, I see a mild change in all of them. However, 11-13 just look the exact same to me.

 

[MRMSFC]

Google is largely to blame for this, as they popularized the ship fast fix fast model, and the rest of the industry followed suit.

If a company tries to take their time with software, bloggers start talking about how slow their process is, which gets investors antsy. The goal isn’t quality, it’s frequency. Because they think Google is a well run enterprise (when it’s anything but), anyone who isn’t following their lead must be outdated and mismanaged.

It feels like “ship fast, fix fast” has become “ship fast, fix never”.

As someone working in v&t now it seems impossible to get anyone to plan ahead. It’s always “last minute fixes” that don’t fix anything and just kludges together things “temporarily.

Which then is ignored because we’re in another development cycle.

I’d like to rule out malicious intent though, and just point to a systemic issue with corporate management. When looking good for your boss involves “getting projects done and under budget”, verification is the first thing to be cut.

And on the customer side, we’ve been conditioned to accept mediocrity, and hope fixes come after we’ve purchased a half-assed project.

In the context of OS releases, I don’t feel that there’s any benefit to a yearly update cycle. A two or even three year cycle would, in my opinion, be more beneficial.

I certainly can’t think of any features that have come in Sonoma, or Monterey that I needed a year or two ago that couldn’t wait until now.

 

[Elf7]

It feels like “ship fast, fix fast” has become “ship fast, fix never”.

As someone working in v&t now it seems impossible to get anyone to plan ahead. It’s always “last minute fixes” that don’t fix anything and just kludges together things “temporarily.

Which then is ignored because we’re in another development cycle.

I’d like to rule out malicious intent though, and just point to a systemic issue with corporate management. When looking good for your boss involves “getting projects done and under budget”, verification is the first thing to be cut.

And on the customer side, we’ve been conditioned to accept mediocrity, and hope fixes come after we’ve purchased a half-assed project.

In the context of OS releases, I don’t feel that there’s any benefit to a yearly update cycle. A two or even three year cycle would, in my opinion, be more beneficial.

I certainly can’t think of any features that have come in Sonoma, or Monterey that I needed a year or two ago that couldn’t wait until now.

On point! 👌🏻

 

[GMShadow]

It feels like “ship fast, fix fast” has become “ship fast, fix never”.

As someone working in v&t now it seems impossible to get anyone to plan ahead. It’s always “last minute fixes” that don’t fix anything and just kludges together things “temporarily.

Which then is ignored because we’re in another development cycle.

I’d like to rule out malicious intent though, and just point to a systemic issue with corporate management. When looking good for your boss involves “getting projects done and under budget”, verification is the first thing to be cut.

And on the customer side, we’ve been conditioned to accept mediocrity, and hope fixes come after we’ve purchased a half-assed project.

In the context of OS releases, I don’t feel that there’s any benefit to a yearly update cycle. A two or even three year cycle would, in my opinion, be more beneficial.

I certainly can’t think of any features that have come in Sonoma, or Monterey that I needed a year or two ago that couldn’t wait until now.

Agreed. It would take a coordinated effort from several companies, however, to get the message out that "we're gonna take our time and slow down the release cadence for quality reasons".

 

[KaliYoni]

Agreed. It would take a coordinated effort from several companies, however, to get the message out that "we're gonna take our time and slow down the release cadence for quality reasons".

Which would lead to a classic game theory situation, where the gains from cheating outweigh the benefits from cooperating.
:-(

 

[chrono1081]

This crap starts where all bad ideas usually start: Project management teams. The idea is to "release every year!" to get new funds every year so tiny silly enhancements get pushed in favor of real, meaningful changes because bean counter types want to bring in more funds immediately instead of with a worthwhile release.

 

[XboxEvolved]

The old model of charging would be unsustainable, especially since Apple to my knowledge, makes the most unique OS builds out of any company out there with mac, watch, tv, iOS, iPadOS, CarPlay, now visionOS, not to mention all the services they have to maintain. They can’t just charge people for all of these things, and besides that it’s mostly going to be refinements anyways. It’s hard to perfect the closest thing to perfection I guess.

 

[Regulus67]

They can’t just charge people for all of these things, and besides that it’s mostly going to be refinements anyways.

Isn't this the so called Apple Tax on hardware?

At least we can choose to update, or not. And even reinstall an older version.
I appreciate that a lot. I still run Monterey on my macs. (El Capitan on my old Mac Pro 3.1)

I feel it is harder to justify Apple's stand on iOS / iPadOS verification. Forcing users to wait for an update that fixes issues, rather than going back to last known good version.

 

[Regulus67]

I used to build my own PCs for 20 years. Shopping around for whatever hardware I wanted. But I had to pay for the software, even the OS (Microsoft).

To avoid updating from Win7 to Win10, I had to install software that blocked updates. Apple never did that.
So I switched to the Apple ecosystem, and I am very happy with my choice.
In my specific case, I made the switch thanks to Microsoft and Samsung (phones).

The trend towards the subscription software model, worries me more. I prefer to buy software, and use it as long as I please. Updating to a newer version if I think I want/need the new features.
Subscription software is no longer usable, if I decide I can't afford it for a while. Or I have canceled the subscription because it is not being used for the time being.

Apple's choice to have subscription on Final Cut Pro for iPad might point to a change in this direction?