Apple failed to fix zero days and ignore person who found them.

[CTR640]

5 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

Ah right, with that anecdotal evidence of yours all the other technical explanations are of course void. My 5 had a ton of random shutdowns and the Samsung of my aunt as well, I guess that makes us even?

No, I am simply sick and tired of the same pattern over and over ocurring here; people milking every fart that gets ripped in Cupertino to the very last drop. Hell, now people even brought up antennagate, an issue seen with phones eight generations ago. That is just ridiculous.

If you get tired of that, how about deal with it or stop clicking and reading topics/articles? People simply express their opinions and experiences. 

[Blademaster91]

3 hours ago, Dracarris said:

Ah right, with that anecdotal evidence of yours all the other technical explanations are of course void. My 5 had a ton of random shutdowns and the Samsung of my aunt as well, I guess that makes us even?

The technical aspect doesn't really apply when apple didn't tell its users why the phones were being slowed down, someone could take their device into the apple store and say its slow and the apple store would likely push the consumer into buying a new phone rather than replacing the battery, and the customer wouldn't know they're being misled into buying a new product when their old one was defective in the first place.

3 hours ago, Dracarris said:

No, I am simply sick and tired of the same pattern over and over ocurring here; people milking every fart that gets ripped in Cupertino to the very last drop. Hell, now people even brought up antennagate, an issue seen with phones eight generations ago. That is just ridiculous.

Considering that apple ignored the zero day vulnerability and didn't credit the person that found it, this is the same company that claims they care about security.... this is more of a shart than a fart.

And yes of course people will bring up antennagate, going by how apple treated their users in the past, they still don't really care when someone finds a flaw, they care more about their consumers buying a new phone.

[RejZoR]

10 hours ago, Dracarris said:

Well then:

Don't do this or they'll ban you for instigating flame wars and doing A vs B...

[Dracarris]

2 hours ago, RejZoR said:

Don't do this or they'll ban you for instigating flame wars and doing A vs B...

I see.

7 hours ago, Blademaster91 said:

Considering that apple ignored the zero day vulnerability and didn't credit the person that found it, this is the same company that claims they care about security

Sure. Because of this misdemeanor all their efforts and OS features so far to improve security and privacy are obviously nil, worthless and makes them just as bad as Google and Facebook. Just a minor detail that I guess is absolutely irrelevant to the case at hand: Every one of these exploits still requires a malicious app to be installed by the user after also passing the App store audit.

7 hours ago, Blademaster91 said:

they care more about their consumers buying a new phone.

All that jazz about Apple pushing people to buy new phones doesn't really add up. If their actual objective is to get people to buy new as quickly as possible it looks a lot like they do a piss poor job. iOS 15, coming later this fall, will be supported on the 6S, a device that was released mid 2015. Why would they support such an old device if it wasn't for a significant amount of those phones still out there in the wild? Why would they even think about supporting such an old phone if all they want is to get people to buy new?

The overwhelming majority of people with Apple phones that I personally know, hear about here in the forum or elsewhere all speak a clear language, which is holding on to a phone for 3-5 years, sometimes even longer, and then selling it 2nd hand for a still decent value.

That impression was confirmed by LS himself a while ago in the WAN show (where he said that people actually do hold on to Apple phones significantly longer compared to other brands) but I don't have the concrete show or some statistics at hand to be honest.

If Apple really wants people to quickly buy new phones, they should really do a better job at making them fail earlier.

[mr moose]

2 hours ago, Dracarris said:

Why would they support such an old device if it wasn't for a significant amount of those phones still out there in the wild? Why would they even think about supporting such an old phone if all they want is to get people to buy new?
 

Because they know that those people will eventually break the screen or have the battery die and they want to steer them to a new iphone rather than repair it.  If the owners of the 6s get the new update and it can't keep up (because the S models had under spec'd batteries) then they are more likely to upgrade phones. 

[Dracarris]

9 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Because they know that those people will eventually break the screen or have the battery die and they want to steer them to a new iphone rather than repair it.  If the owners of the 6s get the new update and it can't keep up (because the S models had under spec'd batteries) then they are more likely to upgrade phones.

Please tell me you aren't actually serious.

 

How about not giving them any update whatsoever, cutting them out on new features and eventually app updates. That achieves even higher upgrade pressure without costing Apple a dime.

And if you think a new iOS version automatically means increased resource demands and therefore slower running phones, you are wrong. Several iOS generational upgrades have improved the responsiveness on older phones.

[mr moose]

18 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

Please tell me you aren't actually serious.

 

How about not giving them any update whatsoever, cutting them out on new features and eventually app updates. That achieves even higher upgrade pressure without costing Apple a dime.

And if you think a new iOS version automatically means increased resource demands and therefore slower running phones, you are wrong. Several iOS generational upgrades have improved the responsiveness on older phones.

 

Giving people the facade of support keeps people liking the product.   Every new OS (not just ios) brings optimizations and updates that make them faster.    Improved responsiveness does not mean more efficient use of power though, in fact to the contrary, the faster any software runs the more power it uses over time.  This is a law of physics. Older device will easily run faster with new software, but they will also chew more power doing it. 

 

There are plenty of reports out there showing how unwilling apple are to repair anything older then 2 generations, and that's before you factor in under spec'd batteries on the s models. 

 

 

[Dracarris]

5 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Giving people the facade of support keeps people liking the product.   Every new OS (not just ios) brings optimizations and updates that make them faster.    Improved responsiveness does not mean more efficient use of power though, in fact to the contrary, the faster any software runs the more power it uses over time.  This is a law of physics. Older device will easily run faster with new software, but they will also chew more power doing it. 

I am nothing short of baffled of how you manage to turn even one of the few things Apple gets regularly applauded for even by strong critics against them. New OS versions can ofc improve resource management and therefore reduce power usage and improve battery life at the same or even better responsiveness. Also this has happened multiple times before. More responsive = more power is definitely not a law of physics, it is a sign of bad software design and poor optimization.

 

Apart from the 6S with its "underspecced batteries" according to you, there are numerous other older models which still receive full OS support. At this point in the discussion I am not sure however if there is any sense in mentioning such facts to you. As I said before, simply dropping OS support altogether would be the much easier and more effective way for Apple to push the sale of new devices.

17 minutes ago, mr moose said:

There are plenty of reports out there showing how unwilling apple are to repair anything older then 2 generations

The official price list from Apple lists phones as old as the iphone 6 for battery replacement, IMHO at reasonable cost.

[mr moose]

40 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

I am nothing short of baffled of how you manage to turn even one of the few things Apple gets regularly applauded for even by strong critics against them. New OS versions can ofc improve resource management and therefore reduce power usage and improve battery life at the same or even better responsiveness. Also this has happened multiple times before. More responsive = more power is definitely not a law of physics, it is a sign of bad software design and poor optimization.

 

Apart from the 6S with its "underspecced batteries" according to you, there are numerous other older models which still receive full OS support. At this point in the discussion I am not sure however if there is any sense in mentioning such facts to you. As I said before, simply dropping OS support altogether would be the much easier and more effective way for Apple to push the sale of new devices.

The official price list from Apple lists phones as old as the iphone 6 for battery replacement, IMHO at reasonable cost.

 

There is nothing to be baffled about. Resource management does not equal more efficient.  The more processing a device does the more power it uses.  Being able to turn of background processes is only one thing,  if you turn off something else so another app loads faster then you are still using the same amount of power.    The only way you can reduce battery load is to do less processing over time. 

 

Also, many people have experienced it to the point it hit the news, not just on old hardware but on new stuff as well:

 

https://nypost.com/2021/06/04/apples-latest-update-is-killing-battery-life-iphone-users/

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/read-this-now-if-ios-15-ruined-your-iphone-e2-80-99s-battery-life/ar-AAOQ9vh

https://www.macrumors.com/guide/ios-battery-tips/

 

 

It's funny how every article starts with a preamble about how common battery problems are after updates.

 

 

As to the rest:

 

Facts are that apple repeatedly refuse to repair old devices and apple only have the battery replacement service because they got caught out under sizing batteries. This is a fact, not just my opinion.  The 6s and 6s plus both have smaller batteries than the 6 and 6 plus, the s models were the only iphones to suffer notable early battery degradation and get the replacement service.     This is EE101,  the battery for any device needs to be of sufficient size so that under the intended use it does not cycle too quickly and die early.  If you have to replace the battery in ANY phone before 4 -5 years of use as it is advertised to be used, then the phone has been made with a battery too small for the task.  So having to pay for it is too much and not at all reasonable by any stretch of the imagination.  

 

It doesn't matter if they stick the latest update on the iphone 4 or stop at 6/8/10,  the end result is the same. 

 

EDIT: forgot to add this link:

https://www.engadget.com/2015-09-10-iphone-6s-smaller-battery.html

 

I draw your attention tot he John Ivy quote:

 

Quote

Then again, users have differing opinions on iPhone battery life, including Jony Ive. Apple's Chief Design Officer argues that the thin and light design of the iPhone simply means that people are using it more, so they need to charge it more often.

Again, the more often you have to charge it the faster the battery will die.   This is not up for debate, batteries have a limited number of cycles. 

[Dracarris]

16 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Resource management does not equal more efficient.  The more processing a device does the more power it uses.  Being able to turn of background processes is only one thing,  if you turn off something else so another app loads faster then you are still using the same amount of power.    The only way you can reduce battery load is to do less processing over time. 

You really have no clue of software and OS design, do you? Ofc the idea is to reduce the net amount of processing ultimately done on the processor while still delivering the same user experience through optimizing the OS/resource management/improved utilization and duty cycling of hardware resources. And that is significantly more complex than what you make it to be, it doesn't stop at scheduling processes and apps. There are many more degrees of freedom that SW engineers can work on.

20 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Also, many people have experienced it to the point it hit the news, not just on old hardware but on new stuff as well:

Yes, teething issues seen with initial releases of new iOS generations, shortly fixed afterwards through x.1 or x.0.1 updates.

 

Quote

And with the recent release of iOS 15, that very scenario is playing out again. But rest assured, there’s no reason to worry just yet.

Battery life with iOS 15 is likely being impacted by a few things. For starters, it’s possible, if not downright probable, that the first incarnation of iOS 15 has a few bugs and performance glitches Apple needs to address.

A literal quote from one of your linked articles.

 

23 minutes ago, mr moose said:

If you have to replace the battery in ANY phone before 4 -5 years of use as it is advertised to be used, then the phone has been made with a battery too small for the task.

I am pretty sure that no modern smartphone sees 5 or even 4 years without significant battery degradation.

23 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Again, the more often you have to charge it the faster the battery will die.   This is not up for debate, batteries have a limited number of cycles.

Again, pretty much every phone nowadays runs on a daily charging cycle. There are certain strings you can pull to extend battery life through tweaking the charging profile.

[wanderingfool2]

13 hours ago, Dracarris said:

No, I am simply sick and tired of the same pattern over and over ocurring here; people milking every fart that gets ripped in Cupertino to the very last drop. Hell, now people even brought up antennagate, an issue seen with phones eight generations ago. That is just ridiculous.

Since I brought up the antennagate, I thought I would respond.  I am not milking anything, it was to show that Apple has a history of not assuming fault on errors of it's products.  It is really relevant to this topic because Apple didn't fix privacy issues.  If you want an analogy/comparison to Microsoft, it's like how if Microsoft were doing more Edge pushing it can be valid bringing up the way they treated IE (which I would do).

 

Corporate culture doesn't change overnight, and a consistent corporate culture of blaming or ignoring others for your faults isn't going to change that quickly.  So yes, things like antennagate, "Mac's don't get viruses" campaign, and flex-gate are relevant when news like this comes out, because it gives weight to the fact that the internal culture isn't what Apple will have you believe.

 

You fail to understand that the reason why Apple is being ripped on by more people than when say a competitor does a similar thing is because Apple has and is still marketing itself as being better (like things like privacy) and yet here you have it, 4 privacy issues 3 of which aren't fixed and 1 that was fixed but they are refusing to credit the discoverer.  Similar to how people ripped into Samsung a lot more than Apple for removing their headphone jack (after running commercials mocking the removal of Apples iPhone jack).

 

6 hours ago, Dracarris said:

Every one of these exploits still requires a malicious app to be installed by the user after also passing the App store audit.

You would have to be joking yourself if you think that it wouldn't slip under the radar of the App store.  They don't get access to your source code, they effectively get the App and documentation.  It would be more than easy to hide the functionality that gets triggered after it's release on the App store.

[Dracarris]

1 hour ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Apple has and is still marketing itself as being better (like things like privacy) and yet here you have it, 4 privacy issues 3 of which aren't fixed and 1 that was fixed but they are refusing to credit the discoverer.

I have addressed this before. While these 4 privacy issues for sure suck that still leaves a lot of other features and efforts by Apple that legitimately increase user privacy. It doesn't annihilate what they have done over the years in favor of user privacy and I hope no one here actually thinks that.

 

Same goes for viruses/security. I don't know what the "Macs don't get viruses" statement actually refers to, how literate that statement was made and more importantly when. That being said, I'll make the bet that even without any virus scanners, the quasi-standard on any Windows system, the chance of a comparable Mac system getting infected is a lot lower. And yes, that is partly due to the fact that engineering malware for Macs doesn't nearly pay off as well as it does for Windows. But maybe, just maybe it is also due to the fact that macOS is still Linux based and just fundamentally architected differently than Windows is.

 

Maybe analyzing the number of past and present entries in the CVE database for the different OS's would shine some light into the individual technical security with the actual still being dependent on the attractiveness of engineering malware for a given OS.

 

Making said comparison for Android vs. iOS would probably yield an even clearer result (after all this thread started about iOS issues).

[mr moose]

12 hours ago, Dracarris said:

You really have no clue of software and OS design, do you? Ofc the idea is to reduce the net amount of processing ultimately done on the processor while still delivering the same user experience through optimizing the OS/resource management/improved utilization and duty cycling of hardware resources. And that is significantly more complex than what you make it to be, it doesn't stop at scheduling processes and apps. There are many more degrees of freedom that SW engineers can work on.

Yes, teething issues seen with initial releases of new iOS generations, shortly fixed afterwards through x.1 or x.0.1 updates.

 

A literal quote from one of your linked articles.

 

I am pretty sure that no modern smartphone sees 5 or even 4 years without significant battery degradation.

Again, pretty much every phone nowadays runs on a daily charging cycle. There are certain strings you can pull to extend battery life through tweaking the charging profile.

 

I'm not sure you understand what I am saying.  You have basically repeated what I have said except you think it means something different.

 

As I said before, when a phone's battery (ANY phone) is too small it will cycle more and die early.

Apple definitely put batteries in the s models that were too small. This is not up for debate.

 

For what it's worth, many phones today run on an every second or a 3rd day charge cycle.  Mine (motorola), my sons HTC, my other sons LG all run second day charging.  The only person in my house who charges daily is my wife who streams at least 12 hours a day (caring for babies).

 

We have seen time and time again older phones suffer after updates,  this is not a made up phenomenon and this is before we even consider the updates that bricked phones that had 3rd party repairs done.    You can argue it's not the case as much as you want, but facts never change just because we don't like them.

 

 

EDIT: I should add for those interested,  the average phone battery can sustain 300-500 real world cycles before it degrades to 80% capacity,  that equates to a life span of 3-4 years for the average phone and user as they are spec'd by manufacturers.  That also means the average charge cycle is every second day.    Imagine if the battery was bigger,  the phone would only charge cycle every 4th day on average which would result in batteries lasting on average 6-8 years.   

 

What this means is that any phone that lasts less than 3 years has an under spec'd battery notably worse than the average phone,  and any phone that last more than 4 years has a better spec'd battery for it's average use.   It is reasonable to assume that with the amount of data phone makers have that they know if their end users are over using or under using the device. 

 

 

 

[darknessblade]

Worst part is apple might even be planning to SUE that researcher for making his findings public

[IkeaGnome]

8 minutes ago, darknessblade said:

Worst part is apple might even be planning to SUE that researcher for making his findings public

Interesting... Got any articles on this? I'd like to read about it before I jump to conclusions.

[Zodiark1593]

On 9/28/2021 at 5:00 PM, mr moose said:

 

I'm not sure you understand what I am saying.  You have basically repeated what I have said except you think it means something different.

 

As I said before, when a phone's battery (ANY phone) is too small it will cycle more and die early.

Apple definitely put batteries in the s models that were too small. This is not up for debate.

 

For what it's worth, many phones today run on an every second or a 3rd day charge cycle.  Mine (motorola), my sons HTC, my other sons LG all run second day charging.  The only person in my house who charges daily is my wife who streams at least 12 hours a day (caring for babies).

 

We have seen time and time again older phones suffer after updates,  this is not a made up phenomenon and this is before we even consider the updates that bricked phones that had 3rd party repairs done.    You can argue it's not the case as much as you want, but facts never change just because we don't like them.

 

 

EDIT: I should add for those interested,  the average phone battery can sustain 300-500 real world cycles before it degrades to 80% capacity,  that equates to a life span of 3-4 years for the average phone and user as they are spec'd by manufacturers.  That also means the average charge cycle is every second day.    Imagine if the battery was bigger,  the phone would only charge cycle every 4th day on average which would result in batteries lasting on average 6-8 years.   

 

What this means is that any phone that lasts less than 3 years has an under spec'd battery notably worse than the average phone,  and any phone that last more than 4 years has a better spec'd battery for it's average use.   It is reasonable to assume that with the amount of data phone makers have that they know if their end users are over using or under using the device. 

 

 

 

In this regard, flagship SoCs are double edged swords in that their power consumption can hasten battery demise. Now that would be a heck of a conspiracy.

 

I 100% agree that Apple had grossly underspecced the batteries for the 6(S). 

[wanderingfool2]

On 9/28/2021 at 9:33 AM, Dracarris said:

I have addressed this before. While these 4 privacy issues for sure suck that still leaves a lot of other features and efforts by Apple that legitimately increase user privacy. It doesn't annihilate what they have done over the years in favor of user privacy and I hope no one here actually thinks that.

It still feels as though Apple cares about what affects their bottom line, and privacy is just a selling point.  Again, the reason why people are giving Apple so much flack about this is because of how they keep posturing themselves as being better, but again and again there are cases were they snub developers who actually trying to improve things such as privacy.  Ultimately I think the "privacy" aspect is a bit of smoke and mirrors, because it helps their public image, and helps their bottom line (like some of the recent ad tracking pop up stuff...what is overlooked is that Apple's own advertising benefits more from this change).

 

Not saying that a bit of credit must be given to them still pushing privacy stuff forward...but a big selling point is privacy then you better make sure you don't snub the hackers that are part of your bounty program (especially when it involves accessing information)

 

On 9/28/2021 at 9:33 AM, Dracarris said:

I don't know what the "Macs don't get viruses" statement actually refers to, how literate that statement was made and more importantly when

It was a marketing campaign that lasted like 5/6 years (thinking 2006-2012 timeframe) that ended, unironically when there was a publicized Mac virus.  Again, even to this day I have to tell Mac users that their system can get viruses (and they act as though I'm just saying that to bash Apple).  They even said so on their website...or rather they were careful in their wording

Quote

It doesn’t get PC viruses. A Mac isn't susceptible to the thousands of viruses plaguing Windows-based computers. That's thanks to built-in defences in Mac OS X that keep you safe without any work on your part. With virtually no effort on your part, OS X defends against viruses and other malicious applications, or malware.

It was ultimately this campaign that I think sent a lot of techy people into thinking more cynically of Apple.  They literally marketed themselves as not getting viruses and having better security than Windows while knowing they were just as susceptible towards viruses as PC's were (just them being a smaller target made it not worthwhile)

 

On 9/28/2021 at 9:33 AM, Dracarris said:

But maybe, just maybe it is also due to the fact that macOS is still Linux based and just fundamentally architected differently than Windows is.

According to Malware Bytes, they have now record more than twice the detection rates on Apples than Windows (per endpoint in 2019).  Mac's are just as vulnerable as Windows is.

[darknessblade]

16 hours ago, IkeaGnome said:

Interesting... Got any articles on this? I'd like to read about it before I jump to conclusions.

its not related to this Zero-Day 

But here you go.

https://fossbytes.com/apple-claims-researchers-can-review-its-security/