[hungerstrike]

> App reviews aren't really empirical.

Yes they are. The definition of empirical is that you can observe the evidence. This is easily observable.

What have you presented besides your own anecdotes?

> "Apps like this" on Windows/Linux

It's called Google. The same thing I use to find iOS apps because Apples app store search and recommendations are horrible. None of the app store searches are really any good and I'm pretty sure Google is the number one place that people usually search for things. I don't know anybody who opens up their app store to search for an app.

Anyway, argue all you want - you're wrong. People care about updates that mess up their stuff whether you can bring yourself to acknowledge that or not.

[waivek]

Take any App on the store. Count the number of reviews. Then count the total number of installs.

The total reviews will be less than ten percent of the installs. The negative reviews are a fraction of that percentage.

As such you cannot observe via reviews what the majority of the users think of the app.

Then, by the definition you have just given, app reviews aren't empirical.

[hungerstrike]

Incorrect again. The fact that you can go onto any apps review history and see evidence that people are unhappy with updates that break their stuff is exactly the definition of empirical evidence.

Sorry, but none of your badly formed, hand-wavy reasoning has proven that wrong. Also, nobody is arguing that "the majority" think something - I'm arguing against your completely anecdotal and un-evidenced claim that it "rarely" happens.

What evidence do you have that it rarely happens? None that I can see so far...