It was reported here earlier today that Apple forced OS upgrades for some users without asking (https://www.macintouch.com/post/37381/macos-sonoma-forced-installs/).
There is also situation when upgrades remove features. For example 1Password deliberately crippled perfectly fine password sync for users because they wanted to force them to new, cloud (and subscription) based version.
Is there any legal way to fight against this ? I am in EU, but I am interested in other legislative as well
I always enjoyed macOS (at least pre-Catalina) because it's Unix but without the requirement to constantly hack on the OS and userland like you have to do with Linux. That means I have all the development tools I appreciate but I can focus on what I actually want to do instead of fixing system-level bugs.
When Catalina came out I stopped updating so I can't speak for how the OS is nowadays.
The updates aren’t for my benefit, because my TVs worked fine from day one. Instead, the updates are to push more and more advertising and recommendations. It’s to the point where my TVs are slow, bloated, half broken trash. They’re definitely not what I bought off the store shelf.
And there is nothing that forces you (the vendor) to keep security upgrades separate from features. So in practice you can force upgrades that then cripple features (for monetization) and in the name of cybersec.
:/
If we just make bugs illegal, there will be no more bugs.
Dead Comment
Also, a shout out to Duolingo who did exactly what is described here. I paid for the app and woke up one day to find I was forced to upgrade and when I did the app became something completely different where the previous "game" I was playing was gone. They of course ignored my complaints about it, and their app sucks anyway for learning so in a way I'm glad they broke the cycle. It's still a terrible way to treat customers.
I’m unhappy with 1Password’s direction and I’m no longer a user, but it’s important to note that at least on macOS and iOS they never forced anyone to update to the new versions. I didn’t stop using 1Password 7 when version 8 was relased. It continued to work fine even on Apple Silicon (without the need for Rosetta) and it will probably continue to do so for a good while.
I can see a case against forced software upgrades, but it doesn’t seem right that a company should be unable to remove features. What if something turned out to be insecure, confusing, or detrimental? Should 99.999% of users be forced to deal with a feature they despise because one person wants it?
Your example doesn’t make sense, the share sheet wasn’t implemented in 1Password 8.
https://1password.community/discussion/122959/where-is-share...
https://1password.community/discussion/129044/share-sheet-ex...
That definitely sounds like a bug to me, not a product decision. Real shitty though. Apple definitely better than Microsoft when it comes to shoving updates down your throat, but as others have said, yes the ultimate answer is to use FOSS. For my use, I appreciate regular updates, they rarely cause me trouble, and don’t want to have to be a linux sysadmin for my daily driver anymore. But I understand the desire for crystal clear control. Apple is usually pretty good about this, so this failure really is a stain. I hope they fix it.
1. Almost every consumer agreement contains an arbitration clause. This means the number of consumers that actually can sue becomes incredibly small.
2. Security updates are real. In which case, let's say a company wants to add or remove a feature you may, or may not, want. If there was such an obligation to support exactly the same feature set, the company would be obliged to bring security patches to every major version of a software platform - which is possibly, technically, impossible. Imagine Apple being forced to provide individual security updates for iOS 15.4, 15.5, 15.6, 16.0, 16.1, 16.2... all the way back to iOS 11 I suppose. Most likely, this actually would slow down innovation. Let's make modern WebKit run on iOS 11 - what could go wrong?
3. Some features may need to be removed in the future due to patent lawsuits (like Apple vs Massimo removing the Blood Oxygen sensor in future models). Other times, the design of a system needs to be changed, or wireless compliance logos need to be updated, or radio strength needs to be reduced (Apple in France lawsuit), or so forth. There's also public interest reasons for updates - for example, if a flaw was found in iOS that allows bypassing anti-theft locks. There's also legitimate corporate interests in the eyes of the law - like fixing a copy protection loophole. There's also features in a platform that have recurring costs and licensing from third parties, that may expire [1]. Then what?
4. As much as we gripe about Apple and 1Password, they are really the exception to the rule right now. The main problem that legislators are concerned about is that most devices don't get updated, particularly cheap IoT devices or Android phones after a few years. Putting new rules on getting updates out is the opposite of the public interest concern at the moment.
[1] Edit for this hypothetical: Imagine that your music player shows cover art. That's almost always provided by a company called Gracenote and it requires a license. Let's say a manufacturer's device, 8 years down the road, has that license expire. Is that reasonable, or does Gracenote need to be paid for, by the manufacturer, forever, for using their API? It's removing a feature "you paid for" if it goes away. You can see how this becomes sticky quickly.