Slashdot Mirror
Slashdot Asks: Should Tech Companies End the One-Year Software Update Cycle?
Software giants Google, Microsoft, Apple and others release a major software update to their desktop and mobile operating system (and OS for other platforms they have) each year. This model seemed viable -- to a consumer -- until a few years ago -- the days when shiny new features were exciting -- but of late the number of bugs that companies are failing to patch before shipping these operating systems has seemingly gone off the roof. For instance, Apple has released more than 10 software updates since seeding out iOS 11 in September this year (up from seven last year). Similar is the case with macOS.
The situation has gotten so dire that IT admins in many corporate environments are waiting for as long as six months before they are certain that it is fine to get the staff to move to the "newer" major software update. For companies like Apple, new software update also means a business opportunity. Several of the new features that they ship with the new update doesn't work with older iPhone and iPad models. And as we learned this week, new major software updates could hinder the performance of old gadgets. With these things in mind, should industry at large consider prolonging the duration between two major software updates? Or should they stick with a one-year software cycle model?
The situation has gotten so dire that IT admins in many corporate environments are waiting for as long as six months before they are certain that it is fine to get the staff to move to the "newer" major software update. For companies like Apple, new software update also means a business opportunity. Several of the new features that they ship with the new update doesn't work with older iPhone and iPad models. And as we learned this week, new major software updates could hinder the performance of old gadgets. With these things in mind, should industry at large consider prolonging the duration between two major software updates? Or should they stick with a one-year software cycle model?
I just want the names to make sense. I'm not sure if my OS-X "Namibian Tiger" is supposed to be updated to "Mount Rushmore" or vice versa, and I'm not sure if either one is compatible with Hasta-la-vista. And I've completely given up trying to understand whether my red hat is a fedora or not, or whether peppermint comes before chocolate chip, or after.
Yes /thread
Now that software companies are hooked on the recurring revenue of subscription-based pricing and their end users have seemingly accepted it with little fanfare, I don't see the subscription model going away any time soon.
The trap is that software companies now want to be seen as giving continual improvements (and therefore value) to their customers, so they push out annual updates (as most subscriptions are an annual subscription) just so that people are using WhateverApp 2018 instead of WhateverApp 2017. It's got a bigger number in it's name, it must be more better. Or, why am I paying a subscription for WhateverApp 2015 and it's nearly 2018? What has the vendor been doing for the last two years to deserve my money?
Specialist Mac support for creative pros, Melbourne
they're for habituation. They want you in the habit of buying on a schedule so it feels 'off' if you miss a beat. Starbucks uses this to keep folks drinking their coffee flavored sugar water. Let it go too long and consumers forget about you. That's why we got Windows ME & Vista.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
/thread
Internally all these companies preach "Agile" and "continuous software delivery". Guess that's just all to pacify upper management, since it isn't really working.
Worse than even annual releases are the much more frequent releases of web browsers, mainly FF. Early on, FF used to have relatively infrequent major releases, but when they did come out they were good news. They brought lots of great improvements, and new FF releases were something to look forward to. Then around FF 4 they started moving toward more frequent releases. I think it has been awful, cumulating in what has been the worst release for me yet, the recent FF 57 that broke nearly all of my extensions and that ruined the UI. All that these frequent releases do is let the FF developers shovel shitty changes on to us users every few weeks. Rapid releases don't encourage doing a good job. They just encourage lots of unwanted change for no good reason that's then forced on users who never asked for these changes and who don't want them. The ESR releases don't even help because they're just specific versions of the rapid releases. They're afflicted with the same flawed development model as the frequent releases.
I see these iterations as consumers filling the os makers need for recurring revenue, and it can be disruptive. Most businesses need a foundation of policy and procedure. The way they print, scan, and even read email attachments often changes when a new os comes out. Often their mission critical software doesnâ(TM)t support the os, and in order to upgrade work around and compromises have to be made to a system that was secure, reliable, and predictable. I know at least one government is still using Windows 7. Most of the bugs and security issues have been worked out. Expensive custom made software remains compatible. Companies need stability, and a new OS is invariably disruptive. This is why many kiosks mobile computing systems and telephone systems are still using NT, CE, and OS/2. The investment of integrating these systems into a highly secure and well documented infrastructure is just too expensive or impractical to do every year, or every 5 years. Microsoft moving to a subscription based scheme is probably a good compromise. Clients can keep using the systems they have in place, people can be trained, and documentation doesnâ(TM)t need to be recreated every year. Of course the OS makers keep trying to push these organisations to use the new systems by taking away support, and creating new applications incompatible with older OSâ(TM)s. This will probably always be a point of contention.
"has seemingly gone off the roof."
That's it, enough internet for me today.
The answer is yes, but tech companies won't do it, because these things have nothing to do with consumer needs, but are instead strictly tied to stuff like marketing, and advertising. And it has huge sprawling effects that are hard to predict and figure out.
For companies like Google, Apple and Microsoft, software cycles don't live in a vacuum. They are tied to advertisement campaigns, keynotes, presentations, relationships with press, developers, business contracts, and a whole ton of other stuff people might not be aware of.
It takes far more than what the article is complaining about to tip the scale.
Just modularize the OS the same way others have already. Android is Linux based. Decouple the kernel from the UI API from the UI implementation. Same goes for other hardware layers of abstraction too. One of the biggest thing hurting Android to date is the lack of updates that need to be approved by both handset manufacturers and cell network carriers. We're stuck waiting months to years for updates, assuming we even get any at all. I'm currently on an Android device that can run every app I've downloaded from the market without a hitch, yet I'm still stuck on "Security Patch Level: March 1st, 2017" - and there have been countless vulnerabilities exploited between then and now. If not for handset and carrier bullshit, I'd be able to update individual packages on my own device to their current versions to solve this increasingly important security issue.
Debian takes approx 2 years between releases and has at least a ~6 months freeze before releasing, sometimes longer. Great for commercial applications.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
At the same time, they have a sort of rolling release for people who want new stuff in testing branch so everyone can continously test, and a bleeding edge for all the cool kids who need to brag in sid/unstable
From the OSes/distros I use, Debian ist always the best to actually use and by far the easiest to upgrade when a new version rolls around. I only install Debian when I change to a new disk/ssd. My homeserver runs on a 80GB Barracuda IV parallel ATA (the thick ribbon cables) from ~2003. After installation: forever simply dist-upgrades no "reinstall since the damn thing BSODs on boot" or whatever. The only reason this is possible cause Debian takes a lot of time preparing the releases (those >=6 month freeze times).
Ubuntu which is the most like Debian instead has a 6 months release cycle and they constantly have shit-tons of problems with every new release, same with Windows which also moved to a 6 months cycle now.
Fleece Slobbynuts (horn part)
Fleece Slobbynuts (horn part)
Fleece Slobbynuts
Prospero anus on Phylicia Rashad!!
They should spend the time fixing problems instead of making gratuitous interface changes. Useful major features only come along every few years anyway.
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
And all the barely changed version caused totally superfluous fragmentation, compatibility and thus end user nightmare.
Major releases are for revenue enhancement. Bug fixes are there to keep the customer from getting totally pissed off. Quite frankly, it doesn't matter what package it is, fix the damn bugs. I need to get my work done, not build workarounds.
The only way to fix all the bugs they cause is to release MORE often, not less.
Visual Studio 2017 for instance didn't even make it a full 24 hours to release a patch to version 15.5.
So golly sakes, how about a release every 5 minutes, guys? I have nothing better to do than to stare at that spinning cursor all day and watch your empty promises of "We're almost done!"
I'm tired of updates that change everything just for the sake of changing it. Security updates, bug fixes, etc. should be rolled out as soon as they've been Q & A'd for not breaking something else. But redoing the entire UI for a program or OS every year just for the hell of it pisses most people off. If a software company is going to do that, then at the very least give the customers the option to revert to the legacy UI, or something close.
I understand that Microsoft wanted to grab the mobile/tablet market using Metro. But what they ended up doing was not only giving their customers the middle finger, they poked them in the eye with it. Why couldn't they simply do all of the under the hood updates on the Windows 7 UI? It's stupid to just change things for the sake of change. When there's a truly useful change, they it's great. But giving us the UI from the hospital scene in Idiocracy is not it.
Firefox has been guilty of this to the point that they pissed away their market share. Constantly breaking add-ons with each update on a weekly basis is just dumb. Copying the Chrome UI is also stupid
I understand the desire to have a cleaner UI, but I wish all software companies would stop cleaning up the interface to the point of making it less usable. If there's a button that's going to be used more than once, don't hide it three levels into a contextual menu.
They use yearly releases to switch things around in the interface and change around options, as well as reset preferences.
If there was consistency and refinement then that would be much more user friendly, not to mention carrying forward preferences and selected defaults as opposed to the big upheaval of installing a new version of Windows for example.
Twinstiq, game news
Would be thrilled if Apple actually had a yearly update cycle.
It's not like a 2 year release cycle would mean 1 year of developing the same features, followed by 1 year of beta testing.
It would only mean 2 years of developing more new features followed by 6 months of patches instead of the 4 months of patches we get today.
What is needed is more focus on testing, and less focus on new "features" that most people don't even want!
...are these vendors to stay attached to their "income is the most important thing in the world" mindset, or do they take the more mature view that "customer satisfactions is vital to survival?" Clearly, most of all major industry is focused on the first, at the expense of long-term survival.
There's a reason that some automobiles are preferred over others, but many customers will STILL buy the cheaper model...only to become disgusted with it's quality in due time. Same issue, same ultimate result: Mercedes outlives the likes of virtually all domestic automobile companies (aka "Detroit"). Business success is measured by the number of customer who COME BACK, rather than try to find another vendor (who, in this renewal of the "Gilded Age") who will dazzle them with trinkets to sell them junk that needs to be replaced every few years, and an ever-increasing price.
Who is the Mercedes of the Operating System market? (My assessment: Nobody trying to make a profit fulfills that role, as more customers take the attitude: "If it's going to be junk, why shouldn't I just rely on what's free? At least I'm paying a fair price for it!"
If customer satisfaction were the standard by which they judged their success, "free software" would just be a testing ground for new ideas to gain a foothold, not a significant fraction of the adopting population.
The assumption here is that with longer release cycles there will be less bugs.
This just does not follow at all. You may think "but they would have more time to fix bugs", sure, but they will also have more time to add new bugs. Every new feature will have a corresponding number of bugs, having larger releases means having more features per release. Maybe you think "keep the amount of features the same just do more testing" sure, but they can do that with smaller releases as well.
If a company releases every 2 years, that means that a bug will be sitting there unpatched for 2 whole years. The new release may fix all those bugs, but it will also introduce a whole set of new bugs that will stay there for 2 more years. If the same company releases every month, then the worst bugs will be squashed within a month or two. The bugs that survive longer are the low priority ones. By having frequent releases and prioritizing the defects properly, the same company can keep a higher overall quality.
A customer may decide to upgrade only every 2 years, in which case, the customer is not affected by how many releases are made, so they are not worst off.
If you do software development right, the real question is not "is the software ready to be shipped?". Your software should ideally always be ready to be shipped. The real question is "which features are ready to be shipped", you would simply merge the features that are ready and tested. Anything that is half baked will be left for future releases. This model decouples release cycle and quality. The quality question then becomes an issue of how much testing each individual feature has (automated testing FTW).
Although there are many things that are contributing to the ongoing decline in software quality, I think "rapid release" and similar Agile-inspired release cycles have done more to speed up the problem than any other single factor.
Ditch it.
The high, mighty and the wise people, otherwise known as the sales team, have pushed for and won three month release cycles. Planning meetings are immediately followed by progress review meetings with no time in the interim to make any progress.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Otherwise you'll get a reputation for rush jobs and mistakes.
I guess I just proved you're a north american pavement ape.
With Windows 10 Microsoft wants everyone to adopt an even more frequent update cycle, as the spring and fall versions of the OS will only be supported for 18 months.
This actually makes more sense than you might think, because fewer Windows versions and patch levels means testing is easier, which in turn reduces the risk of undetected problems with the upgrade process in the released version.
There is still a long term stability option for organizations with strict certification demands, but that branch obviously won't get the benefit of updated features and technology everybody else can enjoy.
I'd hate to be a third-party vendor though, they will need to adapt much faster than today. Then again, if I was a customer of the third party vendor I'd want to put more pressure on them to stay current and keep my product working.
Would this be possible? It would simplify things a great deal, at least from a user's perspective...
Hey, Sundar, it's 'through the roof.' When you're using Americanisms, get it right.
windows 10 can use stuff like SP X or 10.X.X for the updates if just to give an quick way for people to see if they are up to date the build numbers are ok but not easy as say MAC OSX numbers or most linux distros have easy numbers like say centos 7.X. At least it's better then windows 8.
windows 7 and 2012r2 really need an SP or update rollup the long list gives issues with windows update now days.
Ubuntu LTS still get SP like updates to it with an easy move update to the next LTS.
Centos / redhat is an LTS of fedora.
With things like Ubuntu Snaps I see the release cycle getting shorter. It's now easier to push out updates, and the user receives them automatically.
I want my OS updates as fast as they are checked in and compiled, dammit!
I hate the push to get something new out the door every single calendar year. On the corporate I.T. side, it's a huge time waster and hassle for I.T. staff, even if every one of those new releases was given away free. It's not just about the "big items" like new operating systems. It's all of the supplementary stuff that kills you with a thousand paper cuts. For example, we've had to start paying for the latest annual update to TeamViewer for our remote control software. Otherwise, if you decide you're "just fine staying on version X"? They start rolling out version Y and all of your users get prompts to update their clients. Once they do, your older version can't connect and remote control them anymore. It's not realistic to expect everyone you deal with to constantly reject the update prompts, so you just give in and buy the upgrade.
I think there was a time when most people got excited about new product releases, at least for the apps or OS they used regularly. But most software has hit the point of diminishing returns now. New versions not only bring bugs but hassles re-learning how to do tasks you could do just fine before things were moved around. New features are often not even relevant for the way you use the product. I mean, even with something as popular as Microsoft Office -- give somebody a copy of Office 2013 and then have them try Office 2016 on a different PC, and ask them to give you reasons the new version is noticeably improved. I'd bet money they can't find a single thing, beyond noting the need to "sign in" to use the Office 365 subscription payment model in it. (Pro tip: There ARE new features, such as the ability for multiple users collaborating on a Word document to see the changes in real-time as someone types them. But how often did you CARE about that?)
M$ now typically releases two versions per year for Windows 10. Ubuntu does the same.
Do you expect your annual salary every calendar year (in biweekly or monthly increments)? Or that the salary is paid "when the business is ready".
Me not at all, but I know other people were really excited. And, importantly for MS, those are people who were moving to GoogleDocs because it had that feature.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
Remember when you would upgrade software because it actually had additional features or bug fixes that were useful? Rapid release cycle schedules have stifled true product innovation, as upgrading is more often mandatory for perceived/enforced compatibility. "We support all our software for 1 year after the next release (which is every X months)" No need for us to innovate, you have to keep paying to use our product as we'll just make it non-functional in 9-12 months! Dont get me started on the paradigm shift AWAY from standards and interoperability...
Software giants Google, Microsoft, Apple and others release a major software update to their desktop and mobile operating system (and OS for other platforms they have) each year.
I'm fine with annual software updates if someone can explain to me the relationship between the need for a software update and the time it takes to orbit the Sun once. Otherwise just release the updates when they are ready to be released. If that is more often or less often than 1 year I don't care either way. Release it when it has been adequately tested and debugged and not a moment earlier except to consenting beta testers.
Why this bullsjit back on front page
The companies I work for usually only upgrade Windows close to the point that software support is ending. This was the same for Win XP, and Windows 7. The fact that they are now doing 6 months for macOS and iOS.... seems insignificant in comparison.
As an individual I move almost right away to a new version, but if I were a company I would not move until at least 2 patch cycles have completed -- and maybe longer (for macOS that is close to 3 months) -- and that is what I would consider fairly aggressive. Even before the recent spate of issues, you would have to be a fool to try and move quicker than that IMHO.
Half the crap that get's introduced in upgrades is worthless junk features anyway. I would rather have a stable more mature OS then the latest and greatest still in a alpha beta test status. Microsoft especially have completely degraded Windows 10 with this obsession over six month upgrades. Apple has at least toned down the upgrade cycle, although users still upgrade and then complain things don't work. Many times the user has the option to avoid a upgrade and yet they can't stop themselves.
How about going through the roof
Windows 10 build numbers are stupid simple. They're just the release time in yyMM format.
The current build number is 1709, released in September 2017. The one before that was 1703, released in March 2017. The one before that was 1607, released in July 2016.
And they're listed on the System screen.
Even though "Alphabet" is the name of Google's parent it is still a good concept even when dealing with other companies. If you understood the alphabet you would know that N comes after M.
Good to know. I was about to finally upgrade my Utopic Unicorn-- old but classic-- but now you have explained it to me, I understand that Aardvark would be a giant step back
Except 1709 was released in late October. It sets in stone their failures forever.
The Tab Bar shit is in Mixed case instead of ALL UPPER CASE?
Office 2010 was the last version of Office that worked (more or less) correctly. It has been a race to remove previously working features since then.
As a older IT professional, imho
The cycle of patches, updates, new versions will not end.
Marketing has to have something "New & Improved !!! Now with IPv6 plus !!!" to sell.
The fear of it just working and no one paying for support.
The fear of a competitor having one feature more than your product,
Management chiselling away at costs & headcount.
Trying to meet a schedule dreamed up without regard to staff or past history input.
Demoing products on short notice without any previous plan of doing so.
New programmers aren't learning lessons the older programmers already learned.
History is repeating again and again.
The industry doesn't value the experienced old IT people.
The knowledge is lost.
The internal program designs aren't designed to be modular & bulletproof with well thought out upgrade paths (i.e. consumer transparent)
The same can be said for file formats & inter program communication protocols.
Upgrades are changing the user experience constantly.
The documentation & error messages just plain suck.
The basic users want something understandable.
The advanced users need more details.
The expert users want all the details and bad data visible plus a dump.
Good, Fast, Cheap Pick Two
and if you miss a semicolon, period or comma.... your spacecraft fly's off into interstellar space silently...
Really your help queues fill up quickly, you get bad software review, sales go down and your company gets bought up for pennies on the dollar.
Plus all the employees are let go & jobs moved to a low cost location & the products are kept on life support until they can be dropped completely
-1, Lame
and very few people buy their coffee black or with just a hint of milk or sugar. They just won't admit it when they're drinking their Unicorn or Christmas Tree Fraps. This isn't me being a mean spirited person. There's a body of marketing research that shows folks don't like to admit their personal tastes when asked. It's why marketing and market research is so hard. The way it was put to me (in a speech by Malcolm Gladwell although it wasn't his idea) is this:
Ask anybody what their favorite coffee is and they'll tell you they like a bold, rich roast. But put them in front of a coffee machine and most will go for something less strong. That's because nobody likes to say they like their coffee milky and weak.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
There's a legitimate reason for upDATEs - fixing things, adding minor or extending features, etc. Those should happen regularly, and should not be graced with names - version numbers perhaps. The old system of maintaining a main version for several years was good for the users because it provided a measure of stability. It was bad for the company because it's hard to charge for ongoing updates and for security reasons (most updates are security and bug-related) you can't charge Joe Blow a subscription fee for those.
UpGRADEs on the other hand involve new functions and major changes in the UI. In the past, those happened every few years for operating systems, perhaps 1-2 years for major applications. If the changes are significant enough, it makes some sense to charge for them - if they actually add value to the system.
Unfortunately, it's gotten to where, for Windows at least, the upGRADEs (defined as a new o/s release that replaces rather than patches the previous release) happen twice a year - that's too often, especially since each new release seems to break something (violation of backward compatibility principle that previously drove Windows). Major appplications have an annual "upgrade" cycle now too, which is phony in many cases and in some (looking at you, ACD Canvas) actually has removed functionality. At best, it becomes an annual "subscription" because only the latest "version" gets any patches at all. Other commercial o/s like Android & Apple don't seem to have reached the semi-annual cadence of Windows yet, but they're trying. And FF is just trying to out-Chrome Chrome with a major version number every time there's a patch; it's really had maybe 3 upGRADEs in the last couple of years, meaning significant changes in the engine and/or UI, with most of the version number changes being upDATEs at best.
As for names, MS needs to upgrade their act. Apple & Ubuntu have been eating their lunch for years. How about the next W10 release (in spring 2018) starts the EColi line - say, "Elementary EColi?"
> The situation has gotten so dire that IT admins in many corporate environments are waiting for as long as six months before they are certain that it is fine to get the staff to move to the "newer" major software update.
I have been in Corporate IT for close to 20 years now. That we lag 2-3 years (sometimes even more) behind software version is pretty much standard.
Quite often we even move to major Version X only when major Version X+1 becomes available for the "public beta testers"
Most smart phone users are lucky if they get even two updates from their providers.
You live and learn, or you don't learn much.
Microsoft presumably releases a new version of Windows every three years (their schedule rather slipped after XP). RHEL and Debian also have multi-year cycles. Some software manages 2 releases each year.
Win7 has a service pack and update rollups.
Why aren't you including updates on your install media?
Regular users never ever say "I love my job, I'm not stressed out and overworked at all! I sure wish my computer would change in arbitrary ways so I could relearn the same process I've used for years. New menu systems are so fun!"
They also never say: "Well, I have a perfectly good printer, but I don't care if it goes into the trash and there isn't budget for a new one, since my computer has been changed so the start menu looks more like the Brady Bunch intro. It's so nice!"
Changing OS versions is like going to the dentist. You only do it if you have to, to stave off greater misery.
Witness BitZtream getting pwned!... twice.....three times..... four times!
How's life in the hypocrite lane?
If only we were so lucky. Windows 10, for one, has been getting 2 major updates a year since its release:
1507
1511
1607
1703
1709
but then again, i'm the guy on the left;
http://www.stickycomics.com/wp...
On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.