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

I just want the names to make sense.

[XXongo]

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

[PhunkySchtuff]

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?

One year cycles aren't for consumers benefit

[rsilvergun]

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.

Agile

[sunderland56]

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.

Basically, they can't.

[XSportSeeker]

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.

Re:release cadence

[leonbev]

You're not buying into that "Continuous Deployment, ship a new build to production every night!" BS, are you? Automated code testing is still no match for real end-user testing, and you're going to eventually release shit code to production if you rely on it.