Tired of software companies making their software their last version incompatible with apple os upgrades

[cateye]

Hardware + OS + Software is an interrelated system. None of those pieces work independent of the other. When one changes one of those items, its relationship to the other items change. Examples:

New Hardware -> New minimum OS version -> Software updates required for compatibility with hardware + OS combination

New OS -> Support for older hardware dropped -> Some older software no longer supported due to API changes

New Software -> Support for older OS dropped due to changed/removed APIs, or to take advantage of new APIs

And so on, and so forth. As others have suggested: The only way to not have to pay attention to these relationships is to arrive at a stable arrangement of all three then stop upgrading all three. This, however, comes with its own set of trade-offs and risks in terms security and having no "plan B" if the hardware you're using fails.

 

[orionquest]

Why did you update your OS as it is causing you software and productivity issues? Were there some other benefits to risk loss of software usage?

 

[calliex]

I have not updated my OS yet. I would like to but just frustrated I have to upgrade Reunion when the current version I am using does what I need. I understand that is the way of world, just frustrated decided to rant about it.

 

[2021]

It’s great that it does what you need, but if you’ve been using the software continuously for years it’s not unreasonable to pay further for ongoing development and support. It’s not just about your needs.

 

[Edgecrusherr]

I'm was/am in the same boat as you, having to finally upgrade from Catalina to Monterey / Apple Silicon.

Going from Intel to Apple Silicon aside, I think the real problem is Apple's yearly OS upgrade cycle is not good for tradition desktop computers. Apple often changes a lot within their OS on a yearly basis, and software developers have to keep up with this, which incurs costs. Is often doesn't make financial sense for a developer to fix a version, then charge you for an upgrade. Sure some software developers use this as an excuse to charge you more again, but they wouldn't have an excuse if Apple upgraded their OS ever 1.5-2 years, like they used to do.

I say give us a new macOS every 2 years, and let each version mature and stabilize, and support it for 4 years total. That makes much more sense, and would be better for the end users. I think iOS and iPadOS are getting to the point where we don't need a new OS yearly as well, but don't see Apple even remotely considering a change there any time in the foreseeable future.

 

[Macky-Mac]

... I no longer need Ms Office for example. I understand developers need to make money. The problem is some of the current software packages have all the features I need. For example Ms Word ver 1 would probably serve all my needs but it doesn't exist....

perhaps using the online version of Microsoft would work for you? IIRC You can use it for free by signing up for a microsoft account (which you may already have since you've had Ms Office in the past) or signing up for a free outlook email address

 

[rappr]

The yearly MacOS upgrades come from the era where the media was claiming Apple didn't care about the Mac, because they paid so much more attention to the iPhone and iPad. This was helping to reaffirm their commitment (I think).

At this point, it may be harder not to update MacOS yearly with the way the core components are shared across the various operating systems.

 

[Literate]

Of course the other side of the argument is that if Apple didn't keep breaking APIs then apps would happily run without modification.

This is caused by the OS developer (Apple in this case) breaking API compatibility.

This is untrue. Apple very seldom introduces breaking changes. When such changes are made, suitable advisories are given many years ahead of time.

What occurs far more often is that developers see shiny new functionality (available only on the latest macOS/iOS versions), and make use of it to simplify their lives. That, or the deployment target is simply raised because some developers can't be bothered to test on older OS versions (due to feasibility, company policy, laziness, etc.).

Consider the lifetime of Carbon, and how practically no applications were making use of it (having switched to Cocoa) long before it was removed (macOS 10.15). OpenGL is in a similar boat, having been deprecated years ago but still remaining functional for a significant amount of time afterwards.

So long as your application is updated to account for significant technology shifts every 8~12 years, it should remain viable going forwards.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

"forced march'? huh? not getting that at all...

apple keeps the tech (hardware, software) moving forward, and i, for one, am grateful for it. 👍

And no one is forced. There are people that, due to their psychological makeup, must have the most recent of anything and everything. For them, a “newer thing existing” means they need it, they don’t feel complete without it, thus they feel “forced” to have it even if it’s not even a good idea for them to have it. But, to be clear, there’s absolutely nothing that Apple is doing to “force” someone to upgrade. They make a suggestion, perhaps put a red dot somewhere as a reminder, but anyone that doesn’t want to upgrade doesn’t have to upgrade.

At the same time, I know folks that don’t have that psychological makeup that are happy running on old computers/phones OR running old systems. Those do what they want them to do… all the bugs that are there they understand and can live with and they’d like to keep it that way.

 

[orionquest]

Well that was clear as mud. Just stay with a working system on Monterey. Again what benfit does upgrading to Ventura have over a functioning system? Besides being the new shiny.

 

[calliex]

It’s great that it does what you need, but if you’ve been using the software continuously for years it’s not unreasonable to pay further for ongoing development and support. It’s not just about your needs.

Well that was clear as mud. Just stay with a working system on Monterey. Again what benfit does upgrading to Ventura have over a functioning system? Besides being the new shiny.

I agree, I was on Sierra on my 2012 because I could not afford to upgrade filemakerpro when it went subscription. I did not move to a newer OS until I bought the M1. I found a work around for filmmaker

 

[MBAir2010]

The cycling manufacture business is worse!
2006 cycling parts are obsolete in 2018, I was told.

 

[solq]

This is untrue. Apple very seldom introduces breaking changes. When such changes are made, suitable advisories are given many years ahead of time.

If only! Every time I upgrade MacOS my apps folder is littered with greyed out apps with the "forbidden" icon.

 

[Literate]

If only! Every time I upgrade MacOS my apps folder is littered with greyed out apps with the "forbidden" icon.

Ahah, that's honestly a bit impressive!

If I may ask — purely out of curiosity — what sort of apps do you generally encounter this with? (or rather, what domain do you work with?)

I don't entirely doubt you, but this experience should be far from the norm. Newer apps may not be expected to run on older OS versions, but the reverse is generally fine, barring at least major transitions like removal of 32-bit support.

edit: I could definitely see this experience being more prevalent if you do seldom update, which honestly we can't fault anyone for given shaky quality of recent releases.

 

[jaw04005]

Adobe Photoshop Elements is like that, making you update every year, especially the last two versions…Corel too (and others). Companies will make you “pay” if you don’t want their slavery subscriptions.

Parallels & VMWare fusion do the same thing. Every single year.

It's even worse with printer manufacturers. Still waiting on a Ventura compatible HP driver. Generic AirPrint driver doesn't support 1/2 the printer's functions.

 

[ian87w]

This is one reason why many software companies just went subscription. It helps them keeping things updated while maintaining revenue since Apple keeps changing things on a yearly basis. And for consumers who really use the software, it's a better route as well, having access to the latest version no matter what.

But for some who prefer pay-once/perpetual license model, well, this is what you have to do, pay up for upgrades. When nothing on the OS changes so older version of the software can keep working, this is the better deal. But then this things come up.

This is why I decided to go with Office 365. Since I'm using Office programs all the time, might as well just subscribe to it and not having to worry about versioning. But on other software where I don't use as often like Adobe, I dropped them and get alternatives.

 

[v0lume4]

Join the club. I’ve had the same macOS woes, but in a reversed situation. I was running an “old” version of macOS (10.12) and apps wouldn’t work on it anymore. I couldn’t even download some applications at all, not even outside the Mac App Store.

Then I would boot into my Windows 7 install and run the same program just fine. Exact same computer.

I got fed up with it and made sure my new machine was a Windows machine. At least I won’t have that worry ever again. I’d argue the real culprit is Apple. The underlying code base stays largely the same, so why is legacy support so poor with macOS? I concur with @Nermal ‘s post (post #3).

 

[Literate]

The underlying code base stays largely the same, so why is legacy support so poor with macOS? I concur with @Nermal ‘s post (post #3).

Except it's exactly the opposite problem. It's not Apple dictating the deployment target for these apps or somehow breaking them, but rather developers who either leverage features only found in newer macOS versions or simply bail on supporting old versions.

It's really annoying but that's what happens when a culture arises where the general mode of operation includes shrugging off the effort to gracefully degrade and test on older versions, instead saying "eh, update adoption rate is high enough to bother."

For similar reasons, web browsing can be painful on barely aged versions of Safari; web developers assume everyone is running the latest major version or two, and few bother testing outside Chrome. (often this is automated too using something like a browserslist config, so build tools are practically eager to break UX for older versions)

 

[Nermal]

Except it's exactly the opposite problem. It's not Apple dictating the deployment target for these apps or somehow breaking them, but rather developers who either leverage features only found in newer macOS versions or simply bail on supporting old versions.

I think you've misread/misunderstood the premise (your earlier post made the same argument). The problem is not that the latest third-party apps don't run on the old OS, but that older third-party apps don't run on the new OS. The third-party apps can't be leveraging features in the new OS, because the new OS didn't even exist when the apps were released.

 

[Literate]

I think you've misread/misunderstood the premise (your earlier post made the same argument). The problem is not that the latest third-party apps don't run on the old OS, but that older third-party apps don't run on the new OS. The third-party apps can't be leveraging features in the new OS, because the new OS didn't even exist when the apps were released.

I acknowledged OP's premise but had to refute the incorrect basis which #3 and #8 asserted responsibility for breakage of apps; it's not Apple sporadically breaking APIs. Frameworks/APIs remain, for the most part, entirely backwards-compatible. Only once in a rare few blue moons is a feature dropped entirely (x86, Carbon, ...), which is what ultimately ends up breaking (quite aged) legacy software, albeit with significant notice ahead of time.

In recent memory though, there haven't been breaking API changes that would cause OP's problem. In fact, Reunion 12 works fine on Ventura, even through Rosetta.

Instead, my point is that the reverse is much more frequently seen. The statement you've quoted me on was in reply to another user agreeing with the reverse situation, while using your argument from #3 as support (which of course doesn't make sense, since they're polar opposites; hence my "it's exactly the opposite problem [than that stated in #3]").

TLDR: "it's exactly the opposite problem" was in reply to "I concur with @Nermal ‘s post (post #3)," not the whole of #42.

(There are exceptions to the adequate disclosure pattern, e.g., where Java was pulled abruptly for legal reasons. Python received only a few years notice before removal. Though, neither Java nor Python were ever guaranteed to be fixed system components.)

 

[Jumpthesnark]

This is one reason why many software companies just went subscription. It helps them keeping things updated while maintaining revenue since Apple keeps changing things on a yearly basis....

Software companies trending toward the subscription model has little if anything to do with Apple.

They want a dependable revenue stream, a baseline of customers who they know are going to be spending every year. It's a simple business decision that allows them to better plan for expenses like payroll, R&D, expansion, etc., because they know they'll have a certain amount of income that's basically guaranteed. Likewise they don't need to spend as much money finding all new customers all the time.

It's like your local public radio station. They want you to subscribe and pay the same amount monthly or annually, and not just randomly one pledge drive because you like the design of their latest tote bag.

If Apple and MS didn't update their software as often as they do, businesses would still prefer the subscription model.

I'm not a fan, but I understand why they do it.

EDIT: You said "this is one reason" and I concur with that. I just don't believe it's anything like a main reason.

 

[ian87w]

Software companies trending toward the subscription model has little if anything to do with Apple.

They want a dependable revenue stream, a baseline of customers who they know are going to be spending every year. It's a simple business decision that allows them to better plan for expenses like payroll, R&D, expansion, etc., because they know they'll have a certain amount of income that's basically guaranteed. Likewise they don't need to spend as much money finding all new customers all the time.

It's like your local public radio station. They want you to subscribe and pay the same amount monthly or annually, and not just randomly one pledge drive because you like the design of their latest tote bag.

If Apple and MS didn't update their software as often as they do, businesses would still prefer the subscription model.

I'm not a fan, but I understand why they do it.

EDIT: You said "this is one reason" and I concur with that. I just don't believe it's anything like a main reason.

I concur with you, your statement is exactly correct. I just added Apple in context of the topic

 

[thejadedmonkey]

This is what Microsoft did:

During the development of Windows 95 (which released to the public ten years ago today), application compatibility was of course a very high priority. To make sure that coverage was as broad as possible, the development manager for Windows 95 took his pick-up truck, drove down to the local Egghead Software store (back when Egghead still existed), and bought one copy of every single PC program in the store.

He then returned to Microsoft, unloaded all the software onto tables in the cafeteria, and invited every member of the Windows 95 team to come in and take responsibility for up to two programs. The ground rules were that you had to install and run the program, use it like a normal end user, and file a bug against everything that doesn’t work right, even the minor stuff.

Buying an entire Egghead Software store - The Old New Thing

During the development of Windows 95 (which released to the public ten years ago today), application compatibility was of course a very high priority. To make sure that coverage was as broad as possible, the development manager for Windows 95 took his pick-up truck,

devblogs.microsoft.com

Compare that to Apple who just tells you to buy newer software.

 

[cateye]

Compare that to Apple who just tells you to buy newer software.

And? Different engineering, marketing, and procedural goals. It's not some some huge revelation that Microsoft emphasizes backward compatibility and maintaining a broad software catalog. There are pros and cons to this approach, both to the end user and to the platform as a whole, just like Apple's approach to advance the platform at the expense of supporting a "long tail" of software compatibility has its own benefits and problems. This choice has always existed.

Not one of Apple's platform shifts—0x0 to PPC, PPC to Intel, Intel to Apple Silicon, could have gone as smoothly as they did, or have, if Apple made the sanctity of its software catalog paramount. There are certain efficiencies that come from making a clean break, but also certain very real costs to the end user. If Apple's approach feels like an unmanageable burden, it may be a sign the platform you're on does not match your priorities. We are not beholden to any one brand.

 

[Boyd01]

I agree, I was on Sierra on my 2012 because I could not afford to upgrade filemakerpro when it went subscription.

I still use FileMaker Pro 11! I stayed on Sierra for a very long time but finally upgraded to Catalina, which broke it. I can now run it in my Sierra virtual machine. However, the interesting thing is that my original Filemaker license allowed one install on MacOS and one install on Windows. And guess what? FileMaker Pro 11 still runs just fine on Windows 10.

I use a Windows VM heavily on my Mac, so that's what I do for FileMaker most of the time now. As much as I love the Mac (got my first in 1985), Windows really does seem to have better compatibility with legacy software.

BTW, FileMaker still has a non-subscription standalone version. Not sure if I will go that route when I finally do upgrade, since it will no doubt break after a few MacOS updates.