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?

1 of 187 comments (clear)

  1. Re: Use the Debian model by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Debian isn't a good example. Systemd was forced into Debian against the wishes of its users. Systemd caused a lot of Debian users a lot of problems. Many had to even move away from GNU/Linux completely, to FreeBSD or even Windows in some cases. Debian's longer release cycle did nothing to prevent the systemd disaster that ruined Debian for so many of its best users and contributors.