Apple policy document admits withholding security fixes for devices not on the latest supported OSes

[Dracarris]

2 hours ago, leadeater said:

What are the coverage dates for the three Windows 7 ESU SKUs?

Are these the things that are only available to companies and where you need to pay MS an insane amount of money to get these security updates? Hardly comparable to what we are discussing here.

 

Quote

The Extended Security Update (ESU) program is a last resort for customers who need to run certain legacy Microsoft products past the end of support.

 

Because ESU are available as separate SKUs for each of the years in which they are offered (2020, 2021, and 2022)—and because ESU can only be purchased in specific 12-month periods—you will need to purchase the third year of ESU coverage separately and activate a new key on each applicable device in order for your devices to continue receiving security updates in 2022.

Sorry that doesn't exactly scream fully-supported to me.

 

2 hours ago, leadeater said:

Windows Server 2008 R2

Since when are we discussing enterprise/server OSes in this thread? They're hardly comparable to Mac consumer-OSes.

 

I however forgot about Windows 8 and 8.1 since they had such a small user base in comparison. So it boils down to 8.x and 10.

[leadeater]

2 hours ago, Dracarris said:

Are these the things that are only available to companies and where you need to pay MS an insane amount of money to get these security updates? Hardly comparable to what we are discussing here.

It's relevant to what you said. Microsoft has never only supported 1 OS, ever. Without even checking I would be 99.999% confident that has never been the case in the history of Microsoft past the first release of an operating system from them.

 

It makes no difference whether it's paid, not paid, Windows Server, Windows Desktop etc Microsoft has to support it and that requires people, time and testing. By saying what you did you are dismissing that and making it seem like their situation is vastly easier than Apple's, 100% not the situation at all.

 

All I'd say is simply backtrack from that statement, it's not true or accurate.

 

2 hours ago, Dracarris said:

I however forgot about Windows 8 and 8.1 since they had such a small user base in comparison. So it boils down to 8.x and 10

No it boils down to what Microsoft actually has to support, not what you want to care about. Being factual and accurate Microsoft support the number of operating systems I outlined, not what you said or want to limit it to.

 

Have a think about what you want to portray versus the reality of the situation. They don't match right? So best not repeat the same error. 

[wanderingfool2]

5 hours ago, leadeater said:

Also someone correct me if I'm wrong but Apple doesn't have operating system support lifecycles because their support is based off hardware devices. There is a generally understood norm based on past outcomes of support but the reason there is not written and fixed support matrix of the operating systems specifically is because everything is struck on device support only. Could be wrong though but that's my understanding of how Apple does support. Not counting exceptions like iOS 12 webkit.

That is the crux of the issue though and why people are blaming Apple; that Apple is mind-numblingly obscure about these sorts of things like the EOL of a product/OS.  They leave it up to people to assume that they would be following at least some sort of best practices.  If they do support based on device level though, then I'd argue that the IOS versions that support it should get updates (unless specifically mentioned).  In general, I think OS support should be very clearly documented.

 

3 hours ago, leadeater said:

Either way as it stands for this story and what's been claimed Microsoft is doing a better job than Apple from the point of public disclosure of vulnerabilities. Does Microsoft actually really matter specifically? Not really. It's a good comparison but regardless if something is "supported" and a vulnerability is disclosed then it should get equal treatment and time frame for every supported device no exceptions. Anything less is a deficiency, surely you'd have to agree. How much it really matters?  

I agree regarding the Microsoft example, it's the sense of showing how things should be run.  Including how the documentation is done in regards to OS support.

 

7 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Source on Apple not releasing security updates and it not being similar to what Microsoft does when they withhold new security features from older versions (like they do with Smart App Control)?

I know they sometimes post updates later for older versions, but that is very different from not not posting at all, which is what is being implied by you and several other people in this thread.

The source of Apple not releasing security updates is literally the first sentence where it points to Apple's site (the one I already quoted that former iOS might not get all security patches).  I think LeadEater has said enough in regards to MS following the better practice.

 

Also, I've been very very clear that it's stupid to post security updates and not that they stop security updates at all.  I'm have clearly said that if an security update exists on two versions of IOS they should fix both instead of fixing one, but still issuing security updates to the latter.

 

Even going by the documentation Apple released, it falls under Upgrade not update.

 

4 hours ago, LAwLz said:

This is why it is such a bad idea to try and compare the language from different companies and trying to draw parallels. Different companies may classify things differently. This is especially true when it comes to rather vague things which is what Apple uses in this case.

Is an update that increases security by adding a new feature a security update? Do you need to install that update in order to, in the eyes of the company providing it, have "full protection"?

It's pretty much industry standard.  If Apple somehow wants to redefine the classification that runs counter to industry standards then they should release written documentation that says otherwise.  You accuse me of arguing in bad faith by assuming the worst in the wording, and yet are effectively arguing that Apple might have different wording (that they don't release), that runs counter to what the industry standard would be.

 

4 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Does this mean Apple has now confessed to being evil and willingly withholding security updates for older devices and a ton of people are vulnerable? No it doesn't. I have repeatedly asked for sources that proves that Apple are actually doing what people are accusing them of doing, and so far there have been 0 instances brought up.

You've asked me twice for sources, where one of them it literally was in the article that you told me to "read".  Again, you say I was arguing in bad faith.

 

The fact is, I've already quoted Apple's documentation (which was available first line in the article), which states that prior IOS versions will not always receive all known security issues despite there being a fix for it in the later.

 

Let me make it clear again by requoting the line

https://support.apple.com/en-ca/guide/deployment/depc4c80847a/web

Quote

Note: Because of dependency on architecture and system changes to any current version of macOS (for example, macOS 13), not all known security issues are addressed in previous versions (for example, macOS 12).

If you find that acceptable for a company to do then good on you.  Everyone else is saying that it is a terrible thing to do, deciding not to release an update.

 

4 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Security issues in an OS only matters if people actually run that OS, and for the most part people are running the OS version that has full protection, at least when it comes to iOS.

As soon as we start talking about the actual practical implications of this, the whole conversation basically dies and then it goes back to a bunch of "what ifs" which is kind of annoying.

And you are going on about people not siting sources.  So here's it back at you Source?

 

IOS 15 which replaced IOS 14 in Sep '21, had 72% adoption rate as of Jan 2022 https://9to5mac.com/2022/01/13/apple-ios-15-adoption-vs-ios-14/

IOS 16 adoption rate as of beginning of October was 23% https://finance.yahoo.com/news/apple-ios-16-adoption-trends-120000735.html

So yea, deciding not to patch security issues on IOS's that you are still appearing to support is terrible.

 

4 hours ago, Dracarris said:

That's currently mostly iOS16, 15, and 12. Only if you could upgrade to a newer supported OS on a given device you would possibly miss out on some updates. Possibly, some.

No, only if you are on IOS16 do you get the most patched security updates.  If you run IOS 15 you run the risk of not getting all security updates, even though the release notes mention it's a security update.

 

7 hours ago, LAwLz said:

I don't think you understand what this topic is about.

 

This entire topic exists because Apple has some vague wording that is open to interpretation about how they support older versions of their OSes.

In practice, the only thing we have to point to is that sometimes, older versions of the OS gets security updates a bit slower than the newer version of the OS. That's it. So far, we have zero evidence of Apple actually not posting security updates at all to older versions of the OS, just that it has sometimes happened a bit later.

I think he understands it quite well.  Do you not understand how bad it is for a company to use "vague" wording or wording that doesn't match industry standards, or for a company that appears to support a product not actually releasing the security patch on all versions that appears to be supported.

 

 

[Dracarris]

16 minutes ago, leadeater said:

It makes no difference whether it's paid, not paid

It makes a ton of difference, since

16 minutes ago, leadeater said:

that requires people, time and testing

and if you simply charge enterprise customers half a fortune to finance these expenditures, we are talking about a rather different type of support than what's discussed here.

16 minutes ago, leadeater said:

By saying what you did you are dismissing that and making it seem like their situation is vastly easier than Apple's, 100% not the situation at all.

Again, if your customers specifically pay you for the support, then, yes, your situation is vastly easier. Apple provides customer/consumer-free-of-charge support for a wider range of OSes, for a smaller user base, and (probably) with a smaller dev team.

16 minutes ago, leadeater said:

All I'd say is simply backtrack from that statement, it's not true or accurate.

Maybe I should've been a bit more precise regarding which type of support I meant before people went "oh well lets use this expensive enterprise product from 2008 as an absolutely clear example of why MS has absolutely no easier job, well what do I say, a triple as hard job, of maintaining support". 

 

I already admitted that "only one OS" was wrong even with the more precise terms since I forgot about the Win 8.x abomination.

 

One, indeed fair, point to make regarding Apple would be to highlight the fact that consumers prepay the SW support by having to buy HW from Apple.

[Dracarris]

18 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

No, only if you are on IOS16 do you get the most patched security updates.  If you run IOS 15 you run the risk of not getting all security updates, even though the release notes mention it's a security update.

We'll yet have to see that. iOS 16 dropped support for a few popular devices and I'm expecting Apple to propagate all relevant security updates in a timely manner to iOS 15, at least for those devices where it is the last supported OS.

[leadeater]

15 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

and if you simply charge enterprise customers half a fortune to finance these expenditures, we are talking about a rather different type of support than what's discussed here.

Well it's less than $100 USD per year per device so it only costs a fortune if you have a lot of device.

 

I still fail to see your point. It changes nothing about what Microsoft has to support nor does charging money make it any easier. Don't pretend like Apple doesn't fund it's updates, they certainly do. Apple does it their way, Microsoft does it theirs, both get the money required to do it. Nothing more and nothing less.

 

You made and error in statement and tried to make out Apple's situation was more difficult because they have to support more, just accept your error and let it lay. It actually doesn't really matter at all unless you try and argue the point, mistakes happen.

 

15 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

It makes a ton of difference, since

No it makes zero difference. You're just arguing funding sources and acting like Apple doesn't simply get it via a different way. It makes zero difference. I have no desire or intention to debate how a company does it's finances beyond stating the above.

[Dracarris]

6 minutes ago, leadeater said:

nor does charging money make it any easier.

Excuse me, what? In what world does having more funds at your disposal not make things easier?

8 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Don't pretend like Apple doesn't fund it's updates, they certainly do. Apple does it their way, Microsoft does it theirs, both get the money required to do it.

That's a very fuzzy statement which applies as long as any of the companies doesn't go out of business. But I think it's common sense that once you start charging your customers a three-digit amount of money per device and year it's a lot easier to lay some money aside for financing support.

11 minutes ago, leadeater said:

You made and error in statement and tried to make out Apple's situation was more difficult because they have to support more, just accept your error and let it lay. It actually doesn't really matter at all unless you try and argue the point, mistakes happen.

You really are focused here on me admitting an error/mistake? I never specifically claimed any one's situation to be more "difficult". All I claimed was that Apple supports a larger variety of consumer-oriented OSes concurrently, free of charge. I made my claim a bit imprecise, as admitted, and, in regards to the period where MS supported Win 10 (and Win 8.x) as the only mainstream consumer-OSes free of charge. Apple neither has the equivalent of server/enterprise OSes (a separate business branch altogether) nor paid support subscriptions for legacy OSes so IMHO taking those into the comparison isn't appropriate.

[starsmine]

58 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

 

IOS 15 which replaced IOS 14 in Sep '21, had 72% adoption rate as of Jan 2022 https://9to5mac.com/2022/01/13/apple-ios-15-adoption-vs-ios-14/

IOS 16 adoption rate as of beginning of October was 23% https://finance.yahoo.com/news/apple-ios-16-adoption-trends-120000735.html

So yea, deciding not to patch security issues on IOS's that you are still appearing to support is terrible.

IOS 16 came out MID SEPTEMBER. so wow, the start of october at 23% is not bad.

Microsoft supporting multiple operating systems is because there are so many varients of it out there, it is also not the industry standard. 
Even linux distros do not make a habit of supporting older versions unless there is a good reason to do so, there are LTS variants of certain kernals for that, and the people using LTS(for linux and windows alike) are the type of customers to put resources back into the development. Heck, Linux 5.19 will not longer get any updates. SHOCKER, and that operating system came out in July of this year.

How many iphone varients exist? you dont have this massive ecosystem of annoying ass vendors and OEMs building new machines that can not use the current operating system and must use an older one. Meaning there are NO even relatively new products that should be on ios15. The iphone 6s and 7 are DISCONTINUED AND UNSUPPORTED. 
There are NO supported apple devices NOT getting security updates asap.

[LAwLz]

3 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

The source of Apple not releasing security updates is literally the first sentence where it points to Apple's site (the one I already quoted that former iOS might not get all security patches).

Apple saying they might not do it != Apple not doing it.

Give me evidence and examples of Apple not releasing security updates please. Not just "their policy has vague wording that might allow them", but show me examples of them actually going through with it. That's what matters after all.

 

 

3 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Also, I've been very very clear that it's stupid to post security updates and not that they stop security updates at all.  I'm have clearly said that if an security update exists on two versions of IOS they should fix both instead of fixing one, but still issuing security updates to the latter.

This is exactly what they have been doing so far, as far as I can tell. Again, do you have any examples of it not happening? Not just "well their wording might mean that they could potentially not release an update", but I am asking you for concrete examples of it actually occurring.

 

 

3 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

It's pretty much industry standard.  If Apple somehow wants to redefine the classification that runs counter to industry standards then they should release written documentation that says otherwise.  You accuse me of arguing in bad faith by assuming the worst in the wording, and yet are effectively arguing that Apple might have different wording (that they don't release), that runs counter to what the industry standard would be.

Is it really industry standard? As far as I know, all major OSes have different terminology and wording when it comes to updates. Just because you are accustom to one wording, or makes a lot of assumptions, does not necessarily mean they are correct.

Also, since when has Apple followed industry standards, if they even exist? You can't just assume they do, refuse to think that anything but your assumptions are 100% correct, and then argue that they are bad because of those assumptions you made. 

 

 

3 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

You've asked me twice for sources, where one of them it literally was in the article that you told me to "read".  Again, you say I was arguing in bad faith.

 

The fact is, I've already quoted Apple's documentation (which was available first line in the article), which states that prior IOS versions will not always receive all known security issues despite there being a fix for it in the later.

I am not asking you for a source regarding their wording in their policy. I am asking you for a source that they have actually done this in practice.

Please point me to a security issue that exists in for example iOS 15 that have been fixed in iOS 16. That is what I am asking for, and that is what you fail to provide. I am not asking for which words Apple use in their policy. I am asking for examples of the things you claim MIGHT happen, actually happening.

"I am capable of hitting you in the face"

Me saying that is not evidence of me actually hitting you in the face. You can't quote me saying that and go "see? This is definitive proof of LAwLz hitting me in the face!" Likewise, Apple's policy saying they may not always provide all the security updates to older versions of the OS is not evidence of them actually withholding security updates to those OSes.

 

 

3 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

deciding not to release an update.

Can you point me to an example of when Apple decided to not release a security update to an older version of for example iOS?

Again, I am not asking you to quote their update policy. I am asking you to link me to a known vulnerability that Apple decided to not fix in their older OS but did in a newer one.

Because as you probably understand, actions matter more than words. You are so focused on what an update policy says that you are ignoring what they actually do.

 

 

3 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

And you are going on about people not siting sources.  So here's it back at you Source?

 

IOS 15 which replaced IOS 14 in Sep '21, had 72% adoption rate as of Jan 2022 https://9to5mac.com/2022/01/13/apple-ios-15-adoption-vs-ios-14/

IOS 16 adoption rate as of beginning of October was 23% https://finance.yahoo.com/news/apple-ios-16-adoption-trends-120000735.html

So yea, deciding not to patch security issues on IOS's that you are still appearing to support is terrible.

It's good to see that you changed your wording from "Apple supports it" to "Apple appears to support". That distinction matters a lot and I glad you realized you were wrong in your previous posts.

 

As for the update statistics, 72% after 4 month? That's pretty good.

Wanna look at how Windows is doing since some people apparently think that is a fair comparison? 24% after ~13 months.

 

Gee, I wonder why keeping older OSes up to date is more important on Windows than on iOS... It sure is a mystery...

 

 

Also, can you link to some security issues that exists on iOS 15 that haven't been patched, but have been patched in iOS 16? Again, that is what is important. What might happen in theory is not as important as what is actually happening in the real world. Again, actions speak louder than words.

 

 

 

3 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

I think he understands it quite well.  Do you not understand how bad it is for a company to use "vague" wording or wording that doesn't match industry standards, or for a company that appears to support a product not actually releasing the security patch on all versions that appears to be supported.

Do you have any evidence of Apple actually not releasing a security patch for older versions of the OS?

I will keep asking you for instances of this happening every time you bring it up without any evidence. And no, I am not asking for some wording in a document. I am asking for documented instances of it actually happening in the real world.

[leadeater]

3 hours ago, Dracarris said:

I never specifically claimed any one's situation to be more "difficult".

 

4 hours ago, leadeater said:

Have a think about what you want to portray versus the reality of the situation. They don't match right? So best not repeat the same error. 

 

I suggest you take actual heed of this because literally again the number of consumer operating systems is irrelevant to what the companies ACTUALLY have to support.

 

It doesn't matter how many times you try and go, oops well I mean only consumer operating systems it has no effect nor changes what Microsoft actually has to support. So I do not see how it matters at all.

 

We both know what you really were implying, right now I'm taking it as an innocent mistake because it probably was. Insistence is only going to change my opinion on that.

 

3 hours ago, Dracarris said:

free of charge

It's not free of charge. It's funded differently. You know this, you know this very well. You know this so well you said it yourself. So lets just drop it because like I said arguing how a company funds it does not matter in any way here so long as it's funded. Is it funded for Apple? Yes. There ends what I can be bothered talking about in terms of money.

 

3 hours ago, Dracarris said:

You really are focused here on me admitting an error/mistake?

Only so much as to yourself as means to realize you should just drop this conversation. I'm perfectly happy as it is.

[mr moose]

I think this is just a case of people not wanting to admit they made an error in their appraisal of the situation.  Apple said they don't supply all of the known security updates, trying to conflate the number of OS supported or the difference between a feature and an update doesn't change the fact they themselves said that only the latest versions were 100% secure.

 

There is nothing to debate unless you are hopeless addicted to defending apple.

[Dracarris]

36 minutes ago, leadeater said:

It doesn't matter how many times you try and go, oops well I mean only consumer operating systems it has no effect nor changes what Microsoft actually has to support. So I do not see how it matters at all.

I do not see how it matters at all in this context what Microsoft overall as a company has to support. That was never the point. Apple releases a consumer-oriented OS every year, Microsoft every 4-5 years. Given roughly equal support periods that makes more concurrent supported OSes for Apple compared to MS, at a significantly smaller user base and therefore sold licenses, in whatever form that may be.

 

Boom, end of story, as simple as that. Believe what you want, how horribly expensive Win7 enterprise support subscriptions or Windows Server 2008 is going to change anything with that, or whatever.

36 minutes ago, leadeater said:

I suggest you take actual heed of this

36 minutes ago, leadeater said:

right now I'm taking it as an innocent mistake

36 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Only so much as to yourself as means to realize you should just drop this conversation. I'm perfectly happy as it is.

I hope you realize that you can sound kinda patronizing.

I am not perfectly happy as this conversation is, you brought totally irrelevant aspects into it to dilute the point I was trying to make. We are on several side discussions that I never wanted to have or waste my time with. Quite frankly this happens almost every time I reply to you, which is why I get more and more hesitant to even reply to you.

36 minutes ago, leadeater said:

It's not free of charge. It's funded differently. You know this, you know this very well. You know this so well you said it yourself.

Yeah, I said it because I thought lets be a good sport and be kind. We both don't know what the effective cost for SW support per sold Windows copy or Mac computer are, simple fact. And as long as Apple and MS can keep the lights on it's somehow funded. That says nothing about absolute numbers or relative cost share for SW support per whatever unit/metric.

Free of charge as in no ongoing cost for the customer to receive updates, and I'm quite sure you understood that. How much money gets put aside for SW support from the cost of a Mac is equally unknown as the effective costs discussed above.

[Blademaster91]

9 hours ago, Dracarris said:

You still don't get it. Every device will get full security patches on the last available OS for that device. That's currently mostly iOS16, 15, and 12. Only if you could upgrade to a newer supported OS on a given device you would possibly miss out on some updates. Possibly, some.

You're continuing to ignore the news article,  apple even admits they don't provide all the of the security fixes to previous versions of an OS, even though they claim its supported. At least Microsoft and Google are transparent with what is supported and when support ends.

9 hours ago, Dracarris said:

Because Windows 10 and 11 are totally comarapable to macOS which gets a major release every single year. For a long stretch MS had to exactly support one major OS version, which was Windows 10. No go ahead and count how many macOS releases are currently supported by Apple.

I don't see how this matters, though Microsoft gets significant updates every year,  and they support their OS for 10 years.  You're looking to give apple excuses to end device support sooner than Microsoft does, which should be the industry standard of support. And Microsoft is just an example because they are better at disclosing vulnerabilities than apple, and Microsoft is much better at being transparent with their updates and support.

9 hours ago, Dracarris said:

Aaaaah there we have it again: The famous:

What sort of source do you want? How many screen and battery phone repair shops do you see then? Theres tons of them, if phones were easily repaired people wouldn't need to take it in for repair, and if phones lasted for 5 years with replaceable batteries companies wouldn't need to convince their customers they need to buy the latest phone every year.

9 hours ago, Dracarris said:

will go: "Oi mate, I bought this 1000$ phone two years ago. Now the battery seems to start degrading a bit. Let me throw it into landfill and buy a new 1000$ phone because that makes so much sense. Going to a repair store or selling the phone 2nd hand? No mate, why would I do that?"

This whole narrative of yours makes zero sense. In the other thread I gave you numerous examples for phones that were in usage for much longer than 2 years with their original battery and even more so after a swap.

 

The average Joe isn't as utterly stupid as you think or want them to be. The possibility of going to a repair shop and having your battery replaced for 30-50$ is not exactly a secret anymore or sth only tech insiders know. The latter can do these things even at home, both for themselves and friends and family. Things you like to deny to stay within your narrative.

This is getting off topic, but people are going to replace their phone when the battery noticeably doesn't last as long as it did when the phone was new, going to the apple store shouldn't be the only option as not everyone has an apple store and can't wait a week with their phone in the mail. And selling the phone second hand is something I doubt most people would do as well, as its just easier to trade in the phone at the phone carrier.

The average joe is going to do whatever is the most convenient, and again needing to go to an apple store to replace a battery isn't always an option. Also good luck replacing a battery yourself in any newer iphone, as its locked down to the phone in software, the phone isn't going to be worth much if the phone doesn't have any battery health reporting and the battery info displaying a "battery is not genuine" message because apple doesn't want you fixing your own device.

[starsmine]

1 minute ago, Blademaster91 said:

You're continuing to ignore the news article,  apple even admits they don't provide all the of the security fixes to previous versions of an OS, even though they claim its supported. At least Microsoft and Google are transparent with what is supported and when support ends.

 

Where does apple claim older OS are supported?
 

 

2 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

I don't see how this matters, though Microsoft gets significant updates every year,  and they support their OS for 10 years.  You're looking to give apple excuses to end device support sooner than Microsoft does, which should be the industry standard of support. And Microsoft is just an example because they are better at disclosing vulnerabilities than apple, and Microsoft is much better at being transparent with their updates and support.

Thats misleading.

There is no support for windows 10 20H1. there only exists a few versions getting updates if and only if you pay them a massive fee to them. If you are on that Major version of windows 10, from 2020, YOU GET NOTHING, even if Microsoft KNOWs there is a security vulnerability on it.

They are not supporting old operating systems any better then apple here, or linux. 

[Dracarris]

14 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

This is getting off topic, but people are going to replace their phone when the battery noticeably doesn't last as long as it did when the phone was new

Citation/source needed, no matter how often you repeat this. Also, this usually doesn't happen after two years, especially not with iphones.

14 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

going to the apple store shouldn't be the only option

It's not.

14 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

And selling the phone second hand is something I doubt most people would do as well, as its just easier to trade in the phone at the phone carrier.

Again, source? Trading in usually means you lose a lot of money. And trading in does not mean the phone becomes ewaste, especially not with Apple.

14 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

Also good luck replacing a battery yourself in any newer iphone, as its locked down to the phone in software, the phone isn't going to be worth much if the phone doesn't have any battery health reporting and the battery info displaying a "battery is not genuine" message because apple doesn't want you fixing your own device.

a) a missing battery health info does not render the phones value next to nothing

b) Apple specifically lets you fix your own devices, especially the newer ones. No, you DO NOT need to buy or rent their tools. Yes, you need to call them afterwards for activation. Go cry me a river. You need to make a phone call every 3-4 years, how horrible!

14 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

How many screen and battery phone repair shops do you see then? Theres tons of them

Exactly. Because people freakin USE THEM to repair their stuff, to make it last much longer than you claim it does! What is your point? Make up your mind, what is it, landfill after 2 years OR repair shop, ffs.

14 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

and if phones lasted for 5 years with replaceable batteries

My phone even lasts longer than 5 years and the battery is replaceable, but replacing it involves more than removing a clipped on cover.

14 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

need to convince their customers they need to buy the latest phone every year.

Well, here's the thing: They do not. Before you claimed people buy a new 1000$+ phone every two years, now it's every year? What next? Every 6 months? Again, make up your mind.

Again, specifically Apple flags in every way possible that it's perfectly fine to keep your phone for much much longer than this. I can't control what lives in your imagination or narrative/agenda but please don't sell it as facts.

[mr moose]

2 hours ago, Dracarris said:

I do not see how it matters at all in this context what Microsoft overall as a company has to support. That was never the point. Apple releases a consumer-oriented OS every year, Microsoft every 4-5 years. Given roughly equal support periods that makes more concurrent supported OSes for Apple compared to MS, at a significantly smaller user base and therefore sold licenses, in whatever form that may be.

 

 

You are ignoring that MS supports more operating systems across a vaster array of hardware and end use cases. I would argue that if you wanted to put a time frame number on their support it would likely leave apple looking quite uninterested in long term support. 

 

Which leads to this post:

 

1 hour ago, starsmine said:

Where does apple claim older OS are supported?

 

 

If apple don't actually claim that anything other than the very latest versions of their OS's are supported then can we please have all the apple defense brigade stop tooting on about how long apple devices are supported for compared to android or windows.  You can't have it both ways, either they are supported as long as inferred, claimed, advertised or insinuated they are in comparison to android or they are not supported beyond the latest release.

[starsmine]

14 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

If apple don't actually claim that anything other than the very latest versions of their OS's are supported then can we please have all the apple defense brigade stop tooting on about how long apple devices are supported for compared to android or windows.  You can't have it both ways, either they are supported as long as inferred, claimed, advertised or insinuated they are in comparison to android or they are not supported beyond the latest release.

what?
Apple DOES support devices WAY longer then android. MULTIPLE YEARS LONGER. Consistently 

moving to IOS16 is them only now dropping iphone 6s, IOS15, got a bunch of security updates as what should be its last update a few weeks ago, so even then, they are giving you a secure phone to last you into the holidays to get a nice new one on christmas with all the deals.


You can have it both ways because supporting a device =/= supporting an operating system. How in the world did you conflate the two?

 

Find me ANY, Literally ANY andriod phone, that came out when the 6s did, that was getting updates a normal user can install a MONTH AGO.

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, starsmine said:

what?
Apple DOES support devices WAY longer then android. MULTIPLE YEARS LONGER. Consistently 

moving to IOS16 is them only now dropping iphone 6s


You can have it both ways because supporting a device =/= supporting an operating system. How in the world did you conflate the two?

 

This topic is specifically about OS support with regard to security updates.  Many (mostly the logical people) are explaining to you that by not supporting security updates then your device (regardless how old) is not supported.  There is absolutely nothing to conflate here. 

 

The mental gymnastics one has to do to comprehend how lake of support for the OS could equal fully supported is frankly mind numbing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[starsmine]

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

This topic is specifically about OS support with regard to security updates.  Many (mostly the logical people) are explaining to you that by not supporting security updates then your device (regardless how old) is not supported.  There is absolutely nothing to conflate here. 

 

The mental gymnastics one has to do to comprehend how lake of support for the OS could equal fully supported is frankly mind numbing.

Im the one making mental gymnastics?
Why does ANYONE care about security updates on IOS15 unless you are running an iphone 6s or 7?

the security update is... update your OS? like what do you think os versions are?

You do realize there Microsoft knows about windows 10 version 2004 critical security issues, that are also in windows 21H2, that they patched in 21H2, BUT NEVER in 2004. because the way to patch your windows is to move to 21h2

[Blademaster91]

2 hours ago, starsmine said:

Where does apple claim older OS are supported?

Apple claims they do, see the news article the OP posted, its misleading for apple to claim they support more than one OS version yet not provide all of the security fixes that are in the latest OS version.

2 hours ago, starsmine said:

There is no support for windows 10 20H1. there only exists a few versions getting updates if and only if you pay them a massive fee to them. If you are on that Major version of windows 10, from 2020, YOU GET NOTHING, even if Microsoft KNOWs there is a security vulnerability on it.

They are not supporting old operating systems any better then apple here, or linux. 

The support for feature updates were kind of crap before version 21H2, however as Microsoft software support isn't based on hardware like apple support is, so updating past Windows 10 20H1 isn't an issue. If you need to stay on a certain version then you should be using Windows server.

11 minutes ago, starsmine said:

what?
Apple DOES support devices WAY longer then android. MULTIPLE YEARS LONGER. Consistently 

moving to IOS16 is them only now dropping iphone 6s


You can have it both ways because supporting a device =/= supporting an operating system. How in the world did you conflate the two?

This thread is about OS support with software updates and security patches, it makes no sense why people keep bringing up software versions.

Other people have brought this up before, but it would be like Microsoft releasing Windows 11, but not providing software updates and security patches for Windows 10. I doubt people would be defending Microsoft for that.

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, starsmine said:

Im the one making mental gymnastics?
Why does ANYONE care about security updates on IOS15 unless you are running an iphone 6s or 7?

 

Why does anyone care about security?  Are you serious?  which OS version you are on shouldn't change the fact that people expect all security updates when there device is "fully supported".

 

2 minutes ago, starsmine said:

 

the security update is... update your OS? like what do you think os versions are?

 

You are now not even trying to address the actual issue.

[starsmine]

17 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Why does anyone care about security?  Are you serious?  which OS version you are on shouldn't change the fact that people expect all security updates when there device is "fully supported".

You are now not even trying to address the actual issue.

19 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

Other people have brought this up before, but it would be like Microsoft releasing Windows 11, but not providing software updates and security patches for Windows 10. I doubt people would be defending Microsoft for that.

In this thread are people who do not know what versions revisions are and just how arbitrary it is.

 

the 6s and 7 are not fully supprted devices mr.moose. therfore, the security updates exist for all people who have "fully supported" devices. the patch exists, its out there, its nagging you to download it, its ios16.

[hishnash]

11 hours ago, leadeater said:

The acceptable solution would be able to do what Microsoft does, anything serious and disclosed patched within a month for every supported operating system.

I think this all depends on what you call a supported os.

It makes much more sense to say on every supported device should be able to update to a os version that has the patch.

There is no reason for apple to update 15.1 to 15.1.1 when 15.2 has already shipped if every device that runs 15.1 can run 15.2. 

 

 

11 hours ago, leadeater said:

Does this happen with Apple as consistently as Microsoft? I don't really follow things like iOS security updates much at all so I couldn't comment on specific deficiencies there other than to point back to articles like here and comments from people more in the know quoted in them.

In general apple is shipping sec updates for older os versions were those versions are the newest supported os version of one or more devices that are yet to be classified as end of life.  

If you look at the sec updates page: https://support.apple.com/en-nz/HT201222 you can see they tend to only ship updates for os versions that fall into this case.  You're not going to see any sec updates for iOS 14 for example since everything that runs of 14 can run 15. 

[Arika]

[wanderingfool2]

11 hours ago, Dracarris said:

We'll yet have to see that. iOS 16 dropped support for a few popular devices and I'm expecting Apple to propagate all relevant security updates in a timely manner to iOS 15, at least for those devices where it is the last supported OS.

Providing a security update for one OS and having it vulnerable in another is automatically no longer in a timely manner if it's for a month or two.

 

8 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Apple saying they might not do it != Apple not doing it.

Give me evidence and examples of Apple not releasing security updates please. Not just "their policy has vague wording that might allow them", but show me examples of them actually going through with it. That's what matters after all.

Apple saying they might not do it is a major issue.  [Even if hypothetically they didn't]

 

Again, read the article.  It's in that article that you assumed I didn't read by telling me to read the article.  You are arguing all these things saying no one is quoting sources and saying I'm arguing in bad faith, yet you are literally ignoring chunks of the article and can't even bother looking at the article links.

 

Here's the hint for you, from the article that you said "please read the news article" before trying to lecture me

Quote

This confirms something that independent security researchers have been aware of for a while but that Apple hasn't publicly articulated before. Intego Chief Security Analyst Joshua Long has tracked the CVEs patched by different macOS and iOS updates for years and generally found that bugs patched in the newest OS versions can go months before being patched in older (but still ostensibly "supported") versions, when they're patched at all.

 

8 hours ago, LAwLz said:

It's good to see that you changed your wording from "Apple supports it" to "Apple appears to support". That distinction matters a lot and I glad you realized you were wrong in your previous posts.

 

No, I'm not wrong in my previous posts.  I will state this.  Apple supports it.  It's foolish to say otherwise.  They are releasing some security patches and features, which means it's supported.

 

8 hours ago, LAwLz said:

As for the update statistics, 72% after 4 month? That's pretty good.

Wanna look at how Windows is doing since some people apparently think that is a fair comparison? 24% after ~13 months.

It's a stupid comparison to try pointing to a different company and saying that they are "worse".  That doesn't excuse bad behavior of a company.  Again, Android is terrible when it comes to updates, but that doesn't excuse Apple from doing inexcusable stuff.

 

8 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Do you have any evidence of Apple actually not releasing a security patch for older versions of the OS?

I will keep asking you for instances of this happening every time you bring it up without any evidence. And no, I am not asking for some wording in a document. I am asking for documented instances of it actually happening in the real world.

And I will keep telling you.  READ THE ARTICLE THAT YOU TOLD ME TO READ because you seem to not have read or understand it at all.  Here's a hint.  It's in that article. So stop with the stupid, no one is providing sources.  If you don't bother to read.

 

 

Again, if Apple wants to claim that IOS 15 isn't support then they should be releasing information in regards to this.  If they are issuing updates for it, and haven't issued an EOL then YES it very much is considered supported.