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?

Comments

Re:Yes

[reanjr]

No one really sells operating systems to consumers, via subscription or otherwise. MS sells OEM licenses. Apple sells computers with free OS upgrades. Linux vendors sell support. No one is paying fees to subscribe to OS releases.

Re:I just want the names to make sense.

[Dragonslicer]

Third-party stuff for Ubuntu is just as bad. "Use download link x if you're running Lounging Lizard, link y if you're running Moping Marmot." What the f--k is that? I've got 16.04. Do I need link x or link y?

Code names are cute and all, but come on, publishers, focus on something useful: cite version numbers.

That's more an issue with the third parties than with Ubuntu. For the most part, Ubuntu only uses version numbers on user-facing stuff, with version names used in things like the package repository names. They definitely aren't perfect about it, but they seem to be better than Apple.

Connecting names to numbers can be annoying, but the names are always in alphabetical order, so at least you know which version is newer than the other (unless you're going back 10+ years).

Re:FF's frequent releases have ruined it

[Dayze!Confused]

I recall reading blog posts about app development and the author encouraging developers to release often so that users know your project is active. Personally I turned off auto update, and check through the list occasionally to see if an app I'm using has an update, and what features they have added. If all they say is "more bug fixes and features", or "we'll let you know of the features in the app", that app doesn't get updated, and may eventually be uninstalled. To me the frequent call for updates is annoying. Unless I'm actually experiencing a bug, or it's a security patch, I don't really care about the latest feature. If I did I would check if an update has been made available.

I did have a bank force an update on me so it would be compatible with iPhone X, even though I'm using an iPhone 6s.

I figure I've saved perhaps 100Gb of unneeded downloads for apps like YouTube, Facebook (while, this one is now uninstalled), and the various bundled iOS apps that are 500-1000 Mb.

From my experience at Intel when they were trying to get into Android phones we start a cycle on a new version with everything broken and barely get everything working again just in time for Google to release yet another update which breaks something again. The point updates would take a couple weeks maybe to fix, but the major version updates were hell.

My other experience from a user study which was for Intel's health and technology showed that it wasn't just Google that makes it shitty, and perhaps it wasn't Google at all, but every time we tested something and filed a bug the next day they would have marked all bugs as fixed and told us to test on the new version where we would inevitably find the same bug. Bug fixing makes them seem like they are making progress and looks like a good metric to management, where really they are just sweeping shit under the rug.