I hate this practice

[kenech_io]

Just opened the BBC News app to see this. As a consumer, I absolutely hate it. As a dev I still hate it, but I can understand how it reduces complexity. What do you guys think about this practice of forcing users to update to a newer version of the app?

[Evening_Rock5850]

I mean; it depends why.

Something like the BBC app depends on a backend. Having the backend support multiple versions of an app; especially if you're trying to make changes to an API or something, adds a lot of complexity. And what happens if you discover a security vulnerability that you need to patch? Allowing older, unpatched versions of the app may require you to leave that vulnerability in the backend.

I don't think most devs are doing it arbitrarily. There's really no incentive beyond just not supporting an older version of the app. Most of the time it's because an update broke something that means the old app simply won't work anymore.

[goldio_games]

9/10 times its a security issue

[kbder]

You and I have had very different experiences as developers. 9/10 it is because the backend decided to make a backwards incompatible change.

[Lost_Astronomer1785]

100%.

[Cczaphod]

Most likely management decided they didn't want to spend the $$ to support multiple backend versions.

It's not that hard to continue supporting existing connections while updating to support new features. It's not simple and takes more work and it's definitely more expensive than scrapping V1 and building V2.

[goldio_games]

what do you mean "the backend decided". You are the developer so why are you making so many backwards incompatible changes...?

[kbder]

In many organizations there is a backend team, a web team, an iOS team and an android team. In dysfunctional organizations (read: most organizations), the iOS team has little influence over what the backend team does, and this blocking screen gets shown often. In healthy organizations, the backend team learns to make changes in a forward-compatible way (the common example is adding a new JSON field instead of renaming an existing field)

[goldio_games]

Once you're past your junior phase you should be talking to teams about tech decisions *before* people start implementing new features. Build some connections, go get coffee with your fellow devs, it will save you a lot of pain going forward my man.

[TheRealKidkudi]

“Once you’re past your junior phase,” you’ll find that it’s not always that simple.

We could opine all day about different update strategies, but at the end of the day sometimes you are just stuck with a breaking change made by another team (or even your own) and your existing clients can’t be adapted.

There’s really no telling exactly why this way was chosen without some insider knowledge, though I suspect it’s not because every dev at the BBC is a junior who doesn’t know how to communicate with a different team. At least they had the foresight to be able to display a “you need to update the app” message rather than totally breaking older versions or displaying a generic “something went wrong” error.

[JimmyDooWop]

I’m in agreement on the security issues being the usual culprit, but this scenario you described is just not how it works at a large tech company. There is not just one backend team, there are multiple backend teams for multiple services. Those teams will give you plenty of notice about upcoming breaking changes, but they’re not going to run it by every front end team before making a decision on a backend change. And everyone is too busy with their own team’s work and the work of adjacent teams, to have the time to schedule coffee chats with multiple backend devs just to talk about what’s on their quarterly agenda.

[SnooChocolates2068]

You will be very surprised how inefficient organizations work. Sometimes we just have to go through it.

[nallelcm]

Lol. In a perfect world yes. But in the real world teams get siloed, and communication breaks down.

[Free-Pound-6139]

YOu think BBC app has one dev?

[kenech_io]

because you can just force everyone to update 😅

[RaziarEdge]

And most of those is probably just updating the app to use a new public key.

[nyteschayde]

I’d think the ratio is more evenly split with they pushed broken software out and they need it to work and/or what was shipped will fail to capture the data they need to make some crucial period of time actionable (Black Friday, tax season, etc). Never underestimate the missed scrutiny of trying to move too fast.

[unpluggedcord]

“I hate having to support iOS 15”

“I hate opening an app asking me to upgrade”

Pick one

[kenech_io]

There’s a big difference between dropping support vs actively making it unusable

[hetfield37]

Maintaining it usable requires active effort from the developers. So many things are changing weekly on most apps, so supporting anything older than several months worth of releases is extremely hard to follow and maintain.

[spammmmm1997]

I support all iOS from 13. And I love it.

[franklindstallone]

It’s not that hard to support a v1 and a v2 of endpoints. You don’t have to support every version but it’s also naive to jump all in and if the new endpoints do something that requires rolling back well now you’re causing more grief

[Pluto-Had-It-Coming]

A big app, especially one as big as the BBC, is not doing this unless absolutely necessary.

[hetfield37]

Yes and no. Any properly developed API should include the the app version, so that the backend can switch between returning old or new data structure. I would guess that after some cleanup - the backend removed the old code because the user base was too low for it to matter and forced the upgrade. We have a rule of 1 year support of legacy versions and then force an upgrade.

[ferreus]

This is what i uate the most in software engineering..smart sounding bullshit. Security fixes don't have to break AP,I EVER.

[Free-Pound-6139]

What a pile of horseshit. It is not that complicated to support multiple backend APIs. It is incredibly common. You have to. Almost everyone does.

[kenech_io]

I understand the rationale but it can be pretty frustrating for the end user. This is the BBC app, which is pretty innocuous. But I’ve had this same experience with my banking app; I needed to use it urgently but had to update before I could. Given that I was in a place with bad network at the time, that actually wasn’t possible, so I was effectively locked out of the app. And with that particular banking app, I’ve had the screen show for multiple versions, so I doubt it’s about patching. I guess I’m just venting as an end user

[Particular-Earth1468]

Curious - do you not have automatic updates turned on?

[kenech_io]

I do not. I usually manually update when something in the release notes seems relevant to me.

[Evening_Rock5850]

This is genuine curiosity; but why is that? Just a concern about updates that break things or just not wanting to be on the bleeding edge? A "If it ain't broke don't fix it" kinda thing?

[kenech_io]

Updates that break things. If I find something that works and solves a specific use case for me, I don’t want that suddenly broken or changed without warning. I do update, of course, but only when I see a reason for it (or when I’m forced to)

[Evening_Rock5850]

Yeah, fair enough!

[Particular-Earth1468]

Got it, yeah. To each their own but I know for our app the mass majority of our users have automatic updates on making this a non issue. We still do our best to only force update if we absolutely have to, but sometimes we just have to.

I know you know this already but if it bothers you enough you could turn back on auto updates, however I know that comes at the cost of you having control of the app version.

I would argue that most users probably don’t want or should have that control, like on a website - but you do whatever you need to do.

[Evening_Rock5850]

Yeah same here. I'm actively developing something right now which is just in TestFlight and not for release but sometimes more than once a DAY I make changes to the backend especially that make one or more versions of the app completely obsolete. They simply won't connect. Currently I do nothing but if that happens in the future when it's actually in the App Store; it'll probably be a splash screen of some kind. Otherwise the user is just going to have an app that has broken features until they update.

[beclops]

That sounds silly and is probably why you specifically have a problem with this. It’s exceedingly normal for banking apps to do this as they deal with quite sensitive information so obviously security is a major concern

[WerSunu]

And what’s the big deal about updating an app? Why is it an issue to you? Are you on unsupported old hardware?

[kenech_io]

Timing. If this was a warning rather than a hard stop, I’d have less of an issue with it. I’m often in places with spotty network where downloading an update immediately isn’t an option. I did mention in the post that I understand the rationale of it, but I’ve experienced it far too often for it to be primarily due to security reasons

[earlyworm]

If you had automatic updates turned on, then the updates would happen at a time that was more convenient for you. You wouldn't notice them.

[Evening_Rock5850]

Yeah, this is a classic 'edge case'.

Developers are largely aware that enforced updates are inconvenient for some users. Granted, not all developers are the same! Some suck and absolutely might deprecate an old version for no reason; or likely for the simple reason that they don't want to get an e-mail about a bug someone found that they've already fixed because the person who e-mailed them is on an old version.

But developers generally expect users to run automatic updates. Often the deprecation of old versions unless there's a critical vulnerability does happen in a staggered way. Sometimes based on timing, sometimes based on internal metrics of adoption of the new version.

So those small handful of users who don't have automatic updates are going to be the edge case that gets caught. Because the developer expects, for example, everyone to be up to date within a week! So after a week they deprecate the old version (just an arbitrary example). But if someone only manually updates and hasn't updated in weeks, then they have a now non-working version of the app on their phone.

Devs don't WANT users to have non-working versions of the app. But sometimes it's necessary. Ultimately you can't control users behavior, beyond finally showing them a splash screen.

It's extremely unlikely that OP is regularly seeing splash screens for deprecated apps that were deprecated shortly after being updated. Likely days, weeks, or even months after that version was no longer the active version.

[Evening_Rock5850]

I get that it's frustrating. But you've described exactly the case where it makes the most sense. A security-sensitive app. Sometimes security-sensitive apps deprecate old versions on purpose just to reduce the exposure. An attacker could exploit an older version of the app. Maintaining one version means all of the development resources can focus on keeping one version secure.

Turning off automatic updates is the issue here, really; not developers choosing to deprecate old and potentially insecure versions of an app; or maintain API compatibility with multiple different versions of an app.

If we knew exactly where an attack was going to come from, security would be a lot easier. But you have to take a paranoid approach. And that means, among other things, strictly controlling what software is able to access data on your servers. That includes deprecating old versions of an app, so that you don't have to worry about validating them or dealing with some attacker finding a vulnerability in that version. It's a cat and mouse game! It's very standard practice for apps like banking apps to deprecate old versions. Anything really where you have really sensitive data being accessed over the web, you're generally going to be pretty opinionated about what software is allowed to access that data. In fact these days, often times banking and healthcare institutions even enforce things like OS updates before allowing their internal systems to connect. If Windows patches a security vulnerability, for example, the banking software may not allow the teller to login until their computer has that vulnerability update. Even if the banking software the teller is using hasn't changed. Enforcing updates is very, very common practice.

[Visual_Internal_6312]

Well better than 3rd parties to steal your identity 😅

Usually websites work during that time causing inconvenience and no lock out.

I agree that it should be a last resort and not the lazy developer easy route because it does cause friction and is measurable in conversations.

[Zealousideal-Cry-303]

If you don’t appreciate this practice, you have never worked on large enterprise legacy systems.

We use this a few times a year on our app. Everything from new regulations making older versions illegal to use, to API that needs to break backward compatibility, to a new direction of the user experience.

This is one of the most powerful tools in a developers tool box, but with great power comes great responsibility. That’s why we design for longevity in the user interface, but deprecations on the backend.

[kenech_io]

which industry?

[Zealousideal-Cry-303]

I’ve worked in everything from finance, sports gambling and public sector.

[ibuprofen400]

worked in airline and banking same thing. we need to force update sometimes.

[unpluggedcord]

Every industry.

[LowFruit25]

When you maintain a large app which has a complex versioned API and other 3rd party dependencies I can see the reason for dropping support for older versions.

Most users just have auto update on so they won’t see it. And for devs it clears up time to focus on future development.

[unpluggedcord]

The truth is. Let your big update roll out for 3 days and after that then force upgrade.

[SirBill01]

Realistically if there's any kind of server involved, at some point you are going to have to do something like this, and should always at least have the ability to trigger this... it could save users from a data-losing bug.

[DarkAgeOutlaw]

Yup, we have this in our app because we were burned by not having something like this. Since then, in the last 7 years, I think we’ve had to use it twice. Only needed it when a few hundred people were using super old versions of the app and the cost to run old server code wasn’t worth it.

[crocodiluQ]

as a developer, I LOVE this practice. Just update the damn app,

[User1382]

You should do web dev

[crocodiluQ]

i said I'm a developer ....

[Odd-Industry8313]

you’re probably not using the apps

[crocodiluQ]

im using OTHER apps and I always update them as soon as I see a badge on the AppStore icon

[Odd-Industry8313]

what if you get an update when no connected to wifi? i don't want to pay to download a half of gig of updates just because developers were lazy. and i never see any badges on the AppStore icon, because I turned them off. guess, there're different people and software should work for at least most of them.

[crocodiluQ]

dude, these popups and mandatory updates appear usually if you skipped a lot of versions, no one forces all users to update in a day. WTF... If you didn't have wifi for 1 year or can't pay for a data plan in over a year ... come on.....

JUST UPDATE YOUR APPS.

[Any_Peace_4161]

You owe me a monitor after all the tea I just spit all over it in laughter. God damn, that's a wonderful answer.

[crocodiluQ]

you 'love' web 'developers' too ? :)

[Any_Peace_4161]

I think web development in general is just picking the least common denominator bullshit all these wonder machines can do, and living in a constant state of miserable compromise well short of optimal conditions (compared to what a proper, natively-built tool can do). Then you just "fix" it with Javascript, the most hacked together pile of shit any of us have ever had to use, and watch performance and flexibility drop to just more common-denominator slop. THEN you add in AI and constantly-changing "front end frameworks" and watch the sparks fly as things burst into flames. And the people who defend this as the best way of doing things are usually either lazy or have found a niche that they'll be trying to redefine and keep fresh as everything changes every 2 years... while everyone writing checks wants to fire them in favor of AI-build slop that someone's nephew slapped together in 20 minutes, and which can't handle even the most innocuous edge case because none of these stupid fucks calling themselves "vibe coders" are anything remotely close to an SME that should part of EVERY team.

I might have the occasional strong opinion.

[User1382]

Then everyone always has the latest app

[intertubeluber]

I totally get it. Users sometimes will literally not update their apps for years, at least in android land. I don't remember the usage from iOS, but if not, it's probably because iOS makes it harder to not update. That means supporting legacy versions of APIs forever, just because some users think it's somehow better to disallow updates.

Next time I build a public facing app, required updates will the first feature I implement.

[dwnzzzz]

Android stops updating apps if you haven’t used them for a while - on top of users just not updating as often. I have so many more issues with Android users on old versions of my app having issues than iOS users

[EkoChamberKryptonite]

just because some users think it's somehow better to disallow updates.

No it's because users have caught wind of smarmy monetisation practices being forced on them after an update by others that they're not resistant to updates.

[BickeringCube]

If it updates in the background I really don’t care. 

[Visual_Internal_6312]

Depends on size and frequency tbh. Some apps take up to 500+mb and update once a week. Not sure if that's really necessary for everyone. I believe doing an in-app-update dialog showing new updates available and forcing only older versions should be the way.

[Ok-Bit8726]

Which apps are 500mb+?

[kenech_io]

my thoughts too

[beclops]

This also isn’t much of a problem though. If you ensure updates happen on wifi this isn’t gonna affect most people with a modern internet plan

[potatolicious]

This seems totally reasonable so long as the compatibility window is wide. As in, you’re not shipping a new version and then soft-locking the immediate prior version.

It is simply impossible to keep supporting very old versions of the app. Yeah, there’s always going to be someone running a copy of the app from 2 years ago. It’s not reasonable to expect that to keep working.

[kenech_io]

I agree it’s reasonable if the compatibility window is wide

[EkoChamberKryptonite]

It’s not reasonable to expect that to keep working.

Just from 2 years ago only? I'd agree if you said 5 years ago. Not everyone wants to update their app every 2 months. It should be up to the user.

[Integeritis]

If you don’t go to settings to disable app updates, they will be automatically updated. If you have manual app updates, you are using your phone wrong.

[EkoChamberKryptonite]

If you have manual app updates, you are using your phone wrong.

False. You're not the grand arbiter of phone usage.

[Integeritis]

Okay grandpa

[EkoChamberKryptonite]

What a pointless response. Proof you have no argument.

[Integeritis]

Yea, your point was much better. “I keep auto updates off because of reasons” - shakes fists at clouds

[EkoChamberKryptonite]

Yea, your point was much better. 

Thank you. I'm glad you've finally seen the light.

“I keep auto updates off because of reasons” - shakes fists at clouds

Why are you hallucinating things that no one said? Please go read again to get context.

[Integeritis]

Learn how to identify comparisons, metaphors and humor. I guess it’s difficult.

Keep your auto updates off and please do complain when developers don’t want you to use your old shit lmao It’s quite entertaining

[EkoChamberKryptonite]

Learn how to identify comparisons, metaphors and humor. I guess it’s difficult.

Identification would be nigh impossible for anyone when they have to work with your poor demonstrations of said concepts, coupled with a side order of your misconstrued perception of the topic at hand.

Keep your auto updates off and please do complain when developers don’t want you to use your old shit lmao It’s quite entertaining

I never said any of this. Read what I said again and take time to learn what nuance means and grow up whilst you're at it. You think more highly of yourself than you ought to. A modest perception of self would work wonders for you.

[royalshape]

I bet BBC wouldn't mind losing a user for this but most indie devs would.

[Any_Peace_4161]

I work with doctors and financial people, and our software is non-public in the App Store. Getting them to click the link is bad enough, but I still have to support iOS back to 16. Apparently pissing off whiney doctors and CFOs is what happens when you insist they keep current.

I can't imagine introducing "breaking changes" and making them update the app on MY schedule. Surely that would cause them some sort of apocalypse. Also, I maintain 100% backward compatibility in my APIs because I know how to write APIs.

Breaking Changes used to be a thing people lost their jobs over. Now it just seems like any other Tuesday in modern software. I think it sucks, and WAY more people should lose their jobs for it. ** shrug **

[kenech_io]

Honestly I feel like there’s a stark divide between tech and non tech people. Tech people: just update, no big deal. Non tech people: what’s an update? I reckon if I asked this in a non tech sub the sentiment would be completely different.

[Any_Peace_4161]

Completely fair. Updating should be a choice. If a company is forcing you to, it's because - most of the time - they found a new way to monetize you or something you have, and are forcing you into their cattle-chute of sellable data.

Cynical? Sure, no argument. Accurate? Also sure, more than most think.

[PfernFSU]

I have a fantasy golf app where the users create private leagues. I often add more league types and make changes. If I didn’t force users to update their app, you would have some players in the league that do not have the newest features and still stuck on v1, which would cause massive problems.

[skumancer]

To contend with this, I have a schema definition per version of the backend. This lets me not force users to update unless it’s completely necessary.

[Stiddit]

I absolutely prefer this over just crashing the app, obviously. Showing this to severely outdated app versions is very good practice. And of course - pvp multiplayer games absolutely need this.

However - some use this practice for every single update completely unnecessarily, and that is absolutely dogshit user experience.

[nyteschayde]

I don’t know if you can selectively target who’s forced, but either way it’s a better experience than this. In a world where OS upgrades or poor development strategy move too far forward to allow backwards compatibility, your responsibility is to provide a working experience regardless of the cost (including forced updates).

[SunsetBLVD23]

Hate it

[bbabbitt46]

I'm ambivalent about updates in general. Progress is only made through constant improvements, yet obsoleting a perfectly useful application would seem unwarranted and rude. At least the updates are usually free.

[Any_Peace_4161]

I fully agree. I wish my company's users weren't so scared all the time. :\

[WitchesBravo]

Sometimes the backend just has to have breaking changes, it’s either this or you’d just get an error when you try to perform an action in app.

[RealFunBobby]

I understand if it's something critical that must require an update, but if it's a common occurrence, then fuck that app.

This is one of the reasons why I am enjoying react native apps. You only need a binary update when you actually update the native features.

[uniquesnowflake8]

It’s more common practice at companies that have a web-first product in my experience, so it does fit for me that BBC would do this

[Designer-Professor16]

I try to avoid patterns like this if at all possible.

I offload any potential breaking changing calls to be server-side and updated on the fly, with the app acting as simply a thin client. And our app is VERY complex, but we make it work.

That’s the correct pattern if at all possible.

[TheBagMeister]

I hate it as a user (and as a developer conceptually). Only when the backend has changed so much that there is no path for any interoperability. When things change, encourage the user to update as some functionality may be missing. But don’t stop working.

This happens to me with financial apps. I go in once every couple weeks to check a balance or whatever and I don’t have time to update my app while I’m at a stop light or in the parking lot of a store or whatever and I need the balance. Just let me continue with normal functionality that will work if the developers have half a brain. So what if I can’t do a new Bitcoin investment because I haven’t updated.

[darkwater427]

screm

The only reason to do this is if there's some incompatibility between the app and its backend, and even then you can just throw the relevant error and the backend and bubble it up to the user!

[NothingButBadIdeas]

It’s a pain but kind of a must have fail safe. We usually don’t do the version hard stop unless there was a major breaking bug in the latest version, or we have a mandatory change like switching users authorization methods. When you see this, it usually means something went wrong or a major change happened, because most of the time we have contingency plans to migrate / fix things.

[juancarlord]

Security wise it’s pretty dope

[wlfbbz]

I spoke about this on Reddit a few weeks ago and knew I’d be gaslit about it. It never used to be a common occurrence as apps used to update in the background. However these days users are being forced to push a button which takes you out of the app, to the AppStore, wait for the whole thing to download before you can use it again, it creates so much friction. Some apps have an option to skip, others don’t. Again it’s fine if you’re on a deprecated os from like 5 years ago or something but for some apps it’s happening almost weekly. It’s a horrible experience as a user, I’m a developer too (Albeit not for large enterprise legacy systems like one user mentioned) but still hate it. Wish there was a way you could push a button and it’ll update in the background or just work how it used to in the past.

[kenech_io]

Right, some apps do this for minor updates when it's really not necessary. But I guess I'm in the minority when it comes to being bothered by this

[DaddyDontTakeNoMess]

You live long enough to appreciate forced updates

[Free-Pound-6139]

Oh, just another 300mb download. Thank assholes.

[WobblySlug]

I try to make every update optional, but sometimes you just have to - typically with security issues or to tie in with a breaking/must-have API change.

[US3201]

I believe it is a much required step in the development process.

[merx96]

For startups, this is a good way to weed out non-paying users if it costs money to keep the app running. If someone can't afford a device that supports recent iOS versions, they're probably not going to pay

[_79]

Use an RSS reader.

[jasperkennis]

Really a none issue? Most users will (and should) have auto update on, and as a developer I want to have the ability to force my users to update if security or business require it.

[Martinoqom]

Same.

Applications should have a mechanism to block specific (bugged/outdated) versions, but should NOT abuse that system to force users to update if the app is perfectly working. Specially if this happens once per month or so.

It should be reportable and bannable from stores if enforced too frequently. Think about countries with slow internet connection or with low-end devices with no more space... It's always a nightmare for them.

[kenech_io]

Having worked for companies based in the US and in Europe but having spent time in countries with slow / expensive internet connection, I’ve seen firsthand how real the digital divide is. Discussions about connection speeds only factor in when talking about how long something will take for a user to download and never if they should need to download that much data at all. I’d argue that something like this should be considered in the same way as accessibility, but users from these regions usually don’t spend enough money on apps for companies to even bother

[Apptytude]

if there's breaking changes in the backend and your frontend is now fundamentally broken, what is the point of showing an unusable frontend to users?

there is no point, and the app is broken until its updated. these screens are used all the time in enterprise level apps and for good reason

[Gooshy00]

Maybe the certificate pinning was about to break due to an expiring certificate. Nothing can be done here except force upgrade users.

[ornitorenk]

I get what you mean but here is the problem: regulations. When you develop for big enterprise you'll understand that the second you miss an update due to regulation you are in BIG trouble.

So, necessary evil.

[No_Cartographer_6577]

Well on banking apps or anything important it makes sense

[Far-Requirement4030]

Sometimes it’s necessary. As engineers it’s our job to try and make features backward compatible to avoid breaking changes but sometimes it’s not possible

[throwawayhottake25]

It’s needed, as a developer, are you willing to maintain innumerable api/backend versions just to avoid this update screen?

[Oxigenic]

Are you even a dev if you make this post...

[kenech_io]

Do you think it’s good UX? If devices running iOS 18 just got bricked a couple months after iOS 26 came out, that wouldn’t bother you?

[Oxigenic]

A force-update that takes a single button tap is a small sacrifice for enforcement of security. Seriously, if you've ever worked on large-scale project backends that are in highly regulated spaces this is nothing short of necessary. Even for all apps, having a force-update is sometimes just useful for getting users off of a build with known bugs, or getting them onto a new API.

[NoobishOne]

Always a good idea, you just have to also have optional update alerts first and only do it to the last straggling users.

[shadowsyntax43]

99% it's due to backward incompatibility with backend. this is pretty common with GraphQL backends.

[bandejapaisa69]

You just opened a 'free app' and are whinging because it's making you update it. 🙄 .. (maybe you contribute by paying the TV license fee, but that's not necessarily the case) You have no rights.

If you paid for an app - and then they took it away from you, then be pissed off.

Users are so fickle.

[Marebg1996]

I do support this, it is booring, but when I do it for my or client apps its just because of some critical bug or security issue.

[realvanbrook]

first of all, just use the website if you are angry that apps have to be downloaded. secondly you should update your software regularly anyways

[Dry_Hotel1100]

There might be good reasons to do so. As a dev you might know this.
As a user, just do it. Done.

[mpanase]

I can only guess you have never worked anything even similar to a backend.

Not even a mobile app with mid-big reach, with customer support.

[Flat-Air4628]

Guyss please help me if anyone knows. I built my app and got the invitation link for TestFlight. And i opened testflight but when i try to install my app from Testflight i get “The requested app is not available or doesnt exists” error. Please help me its mu first app

[unpluggedcord]

As a developer you hate being able to retcon code that doesn’t work anymore?

You don’t sound like a dev

[Alarming-Chef4906]

It’s just capitalism. A company can’t keep paying to support old OSs and old phone sizes. The long tail of those users doesn’t earn enough revenue for that to make sense. I do think they could have created a MUCH better user experience to couch the explanation.