For simplicity, I think it would be great to go with the notification option, rather than an in-app update. The upgrader 4.2.0 seems to be a good fit for this.

One comment to consider is if there are cases where we have released an update but it is not yet available for the user. Sometimes app updates are distributed over some time and not immediately. This could maybe cause false positives which would create more noise than benefit to the user. 🤔

One comment to consider is if there are cases where we have released an update but it is not yet available for the user. Sometimes app updates are distributed over some time and not immediately. This could maybe cause false positives which would create more noise than benefit to the user. 🤔

This is avoided (on Android) by using the in-app-update package, since it would only show a notification when an update is ready for the device. Does iOS have the same problem?

For simplicity,

Surely you mean simplicity for the developer (I would argue adding an extra package doesn't add much complexity for us).

For the user, the in-app updater simplifies updating the app to a single tap and we would see more users updating the app to the latest version.

I just read that iOS app updates can have a roll out period of seven days, so we would ask a user to update to a newer version if it is at least seven days old.

Regarding this discussion, here are the version stats from last week Jun 13 - Jun 19

I think what we can extract from this is that around 10% of our users (or a group of users using the app outside official opening hours) are on an older version.

For simplicity,

Surely you mean simplicity for the developer (I would argue adding an extra package doesn't add much complexity for us).

For the user, the in-app updater simplifies updating the app to a single tap and we would see more users updating the app to the latest version.

For me the complexity is 1) yet a library, we by taking in and using code from, thereby implicitly make a future promise to our app consumers will not break the app and the functionality will remain available. 2) Currently all our features are available cross-platform but the in-app update is an Android-only feature. That means we either agree to have a "technical feature debt" by having a mismatch in what features are available on which platform or somehow need to find another way going around this.
For me, there is simplicity in having all features and libraries cross-platform.

I somewhat accept if you believe this is a meta-discussion but the point here is that complexity can be more than the code - and why not try to keep it as KISS as possible for non-essential features? 😊

There is an upgrade alert in place now, when opening the app, that occurs once every 3 days, if the user has an outdated app-version (From #400)
I'm hesitant to close this issue, as we still need to resolve if we want a "minimum app-version" that would force the user to update if their app-version doesn't meet the requirement, instead of being able to dismiss the alert.

This does however require changes to the google play store deploy, as that is where the minimum app version would be defined.