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

[captain_to_fire]

12 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Apple could cure cancer

That treatment for cancer would require an in-app purchase and an AppleOne subscription. Don't forget the proprietary IV lines.

 

/s

[wanderingfool2]

8 hours ago, RedRound2 said:

Majority? In what context? Which devices? Who are these people? Most people running Apple devices are always on the latest version.

 

When you go about ranting that it shouldn't be a company's policy to "withhold updates", I guess you are okay with 95% of the android market

You always argue with rose colored glasses when it comes to Apple.  If you even bothered to look at the other post you responded to you would realize your 95% number is completely idiotic to claim.

 

  Here's the relevant section

On 11/2/2022 at 9:30 AM, wanderingfool2 said:

That security patch where they left a zero day occurred roughly 3 months after Big Sur's release...so let's look at the adoption rate of Catalina [Not Big Sur's but we can safely assume similar adoption rate]

1st month October (release month) 15.6%

2nd month Nov - 27.4%

3rd month Dec - 32.7% [this is when the patch "released" based on the 3 month for Big Sur, if Big Sur followed the same adoption rate]

4th month Jan - 37.7%

5th month Feb - 40.8%

6th month Mar - 44.19%

7th month April - 48%

8th month May - 50.9% [Approx time that the other patch deployed]

 

I didn't use Big Sur's adoption rate because the metrics people use to track OS versions misidentified Sur as Catalina so the sites weren't able to track it initially (it dumped into Catalina's stats...but the first 8 months of Catalina's stats are valid since Sur hadn't been released yet).

Or do you have some other made up excuse to say that 32.7% is somehow the majority.

 

And like has been said multiple times here, it's pointless pointing to something like Android and saying they are worse...just because there is something worse doesn't magically make a stupid choice better.  It's why people have used Microsoft as an example (plenty wrong with Windows), but in terms up the update timings they have it correct.  [Showing an example of how Apple should do it]

 

7 hours ago, RedRound2 said:

As a company, it is understandable that their first priority to patch will be the latest version of the OS which most people are running. They cannot delay the iOS 16 patch because they haven;t finished iOS 12 and iOS 9 patch (which probably less than 5% of users are using)

Again with you just making up numbers and making overly broad faulty assumptions.  If they are going to release security updates for products, then they NEED to release all the security updates released to it.  Don't delay updating it.  They have two options, stop updating it or release them within a reasonable timeline of each other.

 

You also assume that it means having to delay a patch.  They literally have to patch the code base anyways, and I can guarntee that the codebase between OS'es isn't drastically different most of the time...which means it should take more than maybe even a few minutes (but lets be realistic a few hours) for a programmer/Software Engineer to patch it up (given that they have just fixed the newest OS with that patch).

 

7 hours ago, RedRound2 said:

It is. But all I ever did was point out the irony of this forum. If people complained about others equally, I would not have any issues. But the same people complaining about verbiage here are totally fine with the alternatives. Credit should be given where credit is due. IF they need to improve a constructive conversation can happen. But look at the initial comments on this thread.

 

Never used android's lack of updates as a justification. Just pointed out to those people who are passionately complaining about this issue. I just wanted to see their passion on android's side as well.

You sort of did use the lack of Android support as justification though.  If you noticed as well, lots of people including @leadeater acknowledge that Android Update scheme is terrible, but it's irrelevant to this (because again pointing to someone worse doesn't excuse a terrible policy that literally put at one time over 50% of users at risk).

 

As for this forum, have you not ever seen the hate people give Windows...like the Windows 11 thread Goodbytes makes gets it's fair share of Windows hate (and that's just from a thread that was supposed to be positive news).  No one really goes on about Android and their update issues in threads (if there is threads about it), because it's simple.  Everyone here agrees with it and thinks it's terrible.  With no one defending something, there is no point preaching to the choir...this topic would never have gotten as far as it did if it weren't for people like you who seem to mindlessly defend Apple and misconstrue everything people say ignoring fact regarding the policy.  *edit* oh thought of a perfect example, when Windows came out with their TPM requirement, people just completely blew up about that here angry *end edit*

 

If you look at this forum, you can see the general negativity towards Google as well.  In regards to Google pushing ads, or Google and privacy concerns...etc.  You just don't see that because you wish not to see that (and again so many people agree that the topics never stay front and center)

[Arika]

8 hours ago, captain_to_fire said:

. Don't forget the proprietary IV lines.

 

/s

I think you mean iV designed in california

[RedRound2]

On 11/4/2022 at 8:32 PM, wanderingfool2 said:

You sort of did use the lack of Android support as justification though.  If you noticed as well, lots of people including @leadeater acknowledge that Android Update scheme is terrible, but it's irrelevant to this (because again pointing to someone worse doesn't excuse a terrible policy that literally put at one time over 50% of users at risk).

 

As for this forum, have you not ever seen the hate people give Windows...like the Windows 11 thread Goodbytes makes gets it's fair share of Windows hate (and that's just from a thread that was supposed to be positive news).  No one really goes on about Android and their update issues in threads (if there is threads about it), because it's simple.  Everyone here agrees with it and thinks it's terrible.  With no one defending something, there is no point preaching to the choir...this topic would never have gotten as far as it did if it weren't for people like you who seem to mindlessly defend Apple and misconstrue everything people say ignoring fact regarding the policy.  *edit* oh thought of a perfect example, when Windows came out with their TPM requirement, people just completely blew up about that here angry *end edit*

 

If you look at this forum, you can see the general negativity towards Google as well.  In regards to Google pushing ads, or Google and privacy concerns...etc.  You just don't see that because you wish not to see that (and again so many people agree that the topics never stay front and center)

 

On 11/4/2022 at 4:35 PM, mr moose said:

You seem to be operating on the premise that the people who don't like some of the stuff apple do will for some reason defend google/android for exactly the same thing.   I don't know if you only read the apple threads and assume that about this forum, but the hate android receives for it's lack of support and nearly all other issues is pretty much unanimous on these forums.

 

I mean hell, have you actually read any thread regarding update issues on any other OS?

 

 

 

On 11/4/2022 at 6:04 PM, leadeater said:

Well your posts only ever seem to be making excuses and deflections and pointing at the deficiencies of other market options and not ever really agreed that there is a problem when there actually has been one in real life because of this.

Let me quote what I said again to all three of you (did I ever accuse the three of you to engage in such behaviour? No)

 

On 11/4/2022 at 12:39 PM, RedRound2 said:

Never used android's lack of updates as a justification. Just pointed out to those people who are passionately complaining about this issue. I just wanted to see their passion on android's side as well.

Do you see such articles pop up on the forum for others. Not much. Not really. Its just part of life at this point I guess. What about this issue, that affects very few people (I will give proper reply in my next comment, huge thread, lots of assumptions and Apple evil vibe comments)

[RedRound2]

On 11/4/2022 at 6:04 PM, leadeater said:

This is just flawed assessment. They can achieve all of them at the same time if they so wish. Apple is literally saying they do not wish to do this, it's company policy to not put in that effort. They might achieve it but the official policy is to not have to do so, this is wrong.

Apple says a "user should only expect a fully patched system in the latest version". I do not see what the problem with this statement is, because they cannot go patching all iOS versions like 15.7,15.6,15.5,15.4,15.3,15,2 all the way up till iOS 9 when most of the devices can be updates to one of the three major platforms - latest version of iOS 15, latest version of iOS 12 and latest version of iOS 9, easily covering 99% of devices. If anyone voluntairly keeps ignoring the update prompt in the Settings app, its their fault. Otherwise Apple will need to force updates on users - which will lead to a different issue altogether

 

You seem to have very little experience with software development, because managing this many forks of OS will become a colossal nightmare

On 11/4/2022 at 6:04 PM, leadeater said:

Also the majority may not be running the latest, it's quite clear that is not that case and will be so repeatedly base on point in time of assessment and OS release dates etc. Adoption is not 100% from day 1.

Do you not understand how percentage works? If iOS 16 has 30% of users, iOS 15.7 is at 20%, iOS 15.6 at 20%, priors at 10% - iOS 16 is still the major userbase. And rest of the 40% users in iOS 15 are eligible to receive patch by either installing iOS 15.7.1 or iOS 16.

 

Again, even if Apple patches for every single release from the last 5 years (according to your logic which is a very sound way of doing it) - if the users ignore the update, it wont even matter

On 11/4/2022 at 6:04 PM, leadeater said:

And it effects more than just iOS 16, 12 & 9 etc because people could be running any version in between basically. Not everyone actually want to upgrade to the latest or wants to do so when they want to, not when Apple wants them to. So while Apple is releasing updates of any kind for any iOS version, or Mac OS, then the expectation is that they are releasing the same security updates in the same time frames. It's only now that they have put it on paper and made it clear that this is not the case.

 

If your device is running a non supported version of an OS then it should tell you so. Choosing to not be supported is fine so long as it's a choice.

I've already commented on how stupid this idea is in the past two quotes.

 

In Apple's case, iOS 14 is outdated because all devices are eligible to run iOS 15. If you did not know that I am sorry. Just like how iOS 16 is now outdated because iOS 16.1 is released. They dont follow the same way as rest of the industry because their software outdating period depends on their hardware - which they clearly do state as EOL

[RedRound2]

On 11/4/2022 at 8:32 PM, wanderingfool2 said:

You always argue with rose colored glasses when it comes to Apple.  If you even bothered to look at the other post you responded to you would realize your 95% number is completely idiotic to claim.

 

  Here's the relevant section

Or do you have some other made up excuse to say that 32.7% is somehow the majority.

Do you guys not understand how percentages work or what? Were the rest 68% running Catalina definitely? Of the breakups, maybe 32% of Big sur was the highest. Also, these are Macs, so I assume there is a lot of people with 2012 and older Macs as well. My percentage examples were more said for iOS where I have a better idea.

On 11/4/2022 at 8:32 PM, wanderingfool2 said:

Again with you just making up numbers and making overly broad faulty assumptions.  If they are going to release security updates for products, then they NEED to release all the security updates released to it.  Don't delay updating it.  They have two options, stop updating it or release them within a reasonable timeline of each other.

 

You also assume that it means having to delay a patch.  They literally have to patch the code base anyways, and I can guarntee that the codebase between OS'es isn't drastically different most of the time...which means it should take more than maybe even a few minutes (but lets be realistic a few hours) for a programmer/Software Engineer to patch it up (given that they have just fixed the newest OS with that patch).

 

Apple has released many patches simultaneously. If the patch was a simple across different iOS versions, yes they can immediately patch it.

But what if the patch was for a specific feature - and that specific feature pipeline was completely different between upgrades? Then they have to do a whole new thing altogether, which will take a time.

 

I've had to do this at my own workplace (same patch for two entirely different things that looks same to the user), so its pretty stupid all of you actually think that security patches are as easy as going over the code, kiss it and itll be good to go.

 

And there's also testing and validation that needs to be done, before anything can ever get deployed into the wild. All of those things take time. And its understandable that the software team will focus on the latest version of the OS - because they will also have more recency familiarity over the latest version of the codebase

[wanderingfool2]

1 hour ago, RedRound2 said:

Do you guys not understand how percentages work or what? Were the rest 68% running Catalina definitely? Of the breakups, maybe 32% of Big sur was the highest. Also, these are Macs, so I assume there is a lot of people with 2012 and older Macs as well. My percentage examples were more said for iOS where I have a better idea.

Do you understand it?  You are babbling about it only affecting a small amount of users...32% while leaving 68% vulnerable is not a "small amount of users".

It's irrelevant to the discussion what the rate of Catalina one was, the fact is they patched something that only fixed it for 32% of their users, while leaving the rest vulnerable.

 

Even if you try claiming going by iOS, the adoption rate of the most current iOS is not really over 90%.  Of compatible devices, at the 3 month mark iOS 15 had 72% adoption, with 26% on iOS 14.  So if they decide to leave something unpatched, they put 26% of users as vulnerable.  Based on a 6 month mark, that would still leave about 13% of users vulnerable.  Again, really consider what you consider to be affecting a few users...as 13% vulnerable is not a minuscule amount.

 

Just for reference Catalina had 30% when 32% Big Sur was patched.  Do you really not comprehend the idiocy of thinking it's okay to patch only something that 32% of the users have, while leaving the remaining 68% vulnerable (even going back to the previous version that still is 30% that you are providing updates to).

 

Ultimately if you think providing a security update to only 32% of users is okay then good on you...keep your head in the sand.  The fact is it's an incredibly stupid irresponsible policy to do so. [and made worse by Apple championing themselves as a company that "never gets a virus"]

[mr moose]

4 hours ago, RedRound2 said:

 

 

Let me quote what I said again to all three of you (did I ever accuse the three of you to engage in such behaviour? No)

 

Do you see such articles pop up on the forum for others. Not much. Not really. Its just part of life at this point I guess. What about this issue, that affects very few people (I will give proper reply in my next comment, huge thread, lots of assumptions and Apple evil vibe comments)

You can say it as many times as you want, the reality is we all universally hate the state android is in.  But pointing to it does not change the fact that what apple are doing is wrong.

 

 

 

 

[leadeater]

6 hours ago, RedRound2 said:

Again, even if Apple patches for every single release from the last 5 years (according to your logic which is a very sound way of doing it) - if the users ignore the update, it wont even matter

It matters a lot, because then Apple is actually doing the diligence they should be doing and then it becomes solely, only and without exception, a user issue. Doing the right thing for the benefit of all so those can make the choice informed or out of ignorance is the duty of care these companies hold.

 

6 hours ago, RedRound2 said:

You seem to have very little experience with software development, because managing this many forks of OS will become a colossal nightmare

Nope, the issue is I do not care. I do not care because Apple could do it. I do not care because others with more complicated operating systems with more versions to maintain can do it.

 

You seem to be looking for an excuse or reason for why Apple doesn't do it beyond it purely being company choice and policy, which is the case and nothing more.

6 hours ago, RedRound2 said:

If anyone voluntairly keeps ignoring the update prompt in the Settings app, its their fault. Otherwise Apple will need to force updates on users - which will lead to a different issue altogether

You don't need to force anything. All Apple needs to do is have a message that states "The operating system version on this device is not supported and will not receive any updates. Please upgrade."

 

This can be displayed at startup and in the Software Updates menu page.

 

6 hours ago, RedRound2 said:

I do not see what the problem with this statement is, because they cannot go patching all iOS versions like 15.7,15.6,15.5,15.4,15.3,15,2 all the way up till iOS 9 when most of the devices can be updates to one of the three major platforms - latest version of iOS 15, latest version of iOS 12 and latest version of iOS 9, easily covering 99% of devices. If anyone voluntairly keeps ignoring the update prompt in the Settings app, its their fault. Otherwise Apple will need to force updates on users - which will lead to a different issue altogether

Why would you be updating sub versions when the sub versions are the/have the security updates in them. Apple has no need to update 14.x blah whatever because they just release a 14.y version itself and you're done. Like how it's actually done now.

 

That's why updates have dependencies chain requirements or are rollups and contain all past updates so this isn't a thing.

 

Not releasing an update for a not supported version of an OS is fine so long as it's made very clear that it's not supported. Having to assume it's not supported is unquestionably wrong.

6 hours ago, RedRound2 said:

Do you not understand how percentage works? If iOS 16 has 30% of users, iOS 15.7 is at 20%, iOS 15.6 at 20%, priors at 10% - iOS 16 is still the major userbase. And rest of the 40% users in iOS 15 are eligible to receive patch by either installing iOS 15.7.1 or iOS 16.

I understand just fine, do you not understand that simply release the update for prior OS versions is the right and only right thing to do? Requiring an upgrade is not on the list of "right" things to do. It's on the list of things that can be done to receive the security update in a timely manor but that doesn't make it the "right" way to do it.

 

Also you didn't factor in one of the most important things. the specific point in time a security update is released or when an OS version is released etc. We can talk all day about adoption percentages but looking at today doesn't really matter if in say a few years time iOS 18 comes out then within the first month a critical security vulnerability is found and over 30% are still running iOS 16 for example.

[mr moose]

Apple could break into your house, shit on your pizza, wipe their arse with your dish cloth and piss in your beer,  and there will always be a handful of people who will blame you for it. 

 

From the apple TOS for their website:

 

Quote

Apple may make changes to any products or services offered on the Site, or to the applicable prices for any such products or services, at any time, without notice. The materials on the Site with respect to products and services may be out of date, and Apple makes no commitment to update the materials on the Site with respect to such products and services.

 

It clearly states apple can eat your dinner even if you didn't buy an apple product.

 

 

P.S On a serious note, how fucked is it that they won't even take responsibility for the content on a website they own and manage that markets products they make and sell?

 

 

[Dracarris]

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

P.S On a serious note, how fucked is it that they won't even take responsibility for the content on a website they own and manage that markets products they make and sell?

It's just standard legal blablabla to cover their asses from anything ever imaginable. Does not mean at all that they actually won't update it.

[starsmine]

7 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Do you understand it?  You are babbling about it only affecting a small amount of users...32% while leaving 68% vulnerable is not a "small amount of users".

It's irrelevant to the discussion what the rate of Catalina one was, the fact is they patched something that only fixed it for 32% of their users, while leaving the rest vulnerable.

I want to point out, you are not leaving 68% vulnerable. 
You can lead a horse to water, but you cant make them drink. 
Apple gives you the choice to download the security patch, at that point its up to the user to download that.
They have been walked to the water already, after that its the horse that has to drink it on their own.

 

7 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Even if you try claiming going by iOS, the adoption rate of the most current iOS is not really over 90%.  Of compatible devices, at the 3 month mark iOS 15 had 72% adoption, with 26% on iOS 14.  So if they decide to leave something unpatched, they put 26% of users as vulnerable.  Based on a 6 month mark, that would still leave about 13% of users vulnerable.  Again, really consider what you consider to be affecting a few users...as 13% vulnerable is not a minuscule amount.

With this statement you just proved how pointless it would be to update IOS14, the user base there does not download patches. Offering the patch on ios 14 would still leave 26/13% of users vulnerable. Making a security update would do literally nothing.

 

All devices that can run ios14 can run ios15

 

Think of it this way, ios15 is really just ios 14.2(or 13.3, since same thing applies)(fake version number, I know there is a real 14.2/13.3). You dont go back to ios 14.1 and patch that when the patch exists in 14.2.

[BabaGanuche]

38 minutes ago, starsmine said:

Think of it this way, ios15 is really just ios 14.2(or 13.3, since same thing applies)(fake version number, I know there is a real 14.2/13.3). You dont go back to ios 14.1 and patch that when the patch exists in 14.2.

You are still missing the point. It is fine if Apple does not release any patches for IOS 14.1. The problems is if they do not release (in a timely manner) security patches IOS 14.1 and claim that it is supported.

 

TLDR not supported and no patches is fine, supported and patches is fine, claiming support and not release security patches not fine.

[starsmine]

7 minutes ago, BabaGanuche said:

You are still missing the point. It is fine if Apple does not release any patches for IOS 14.1. The problems is if they do not release (in a timely manner) security patches IOS 14.1 and claim that it is supported.

 

TLDR not supported and no patches is fine, supported and patches is fine, claiming support and not release security patches not fine.

Where are they claiming a support for iOS 13/14 after iOS15 dropped?

iOS16 sure they have to support iOS15 for a while until they are totally done with iphone6s/7 but they still dont go around claiming its fully supported.
that for a while was a month

[DANK_AS_gay]

On 10/27/2022 at 6:42 PM, Salv8 (sam) said:

AFTER THEY DISCONTINUED SUPPORT.

discontinued official support, but they had a plan where you could pay a subscription for the latest security updates until 2013/2014.

[DANK_AS_gay]

On 10/29/2022 at 6:46 AM, mr moose said:

t's a yes/no question, is it ok for MS to withhold some security updates for win10?

 

If so why? and if not then why does apple get a free pass?

No, but it would be ok for them to withhold updates for Windows 8, which is what Apple is doing here. iOS 15 is to iOS 16 as Windows 8 is to Windows 10. You question is a misrepresentation of what Apple is doing, which would actually be a horrific thing for Apple to do, if that's what they were doing.

[DANK_AS_gay]

23 minutes ago, BabaGanuche said:

claiming support and not release security patches not fine

Supporting a device and supporting an OS are not the same. The device may be supported under the latest OS, but a previous OS may not be supported. Which is a non-issue, since you can just update to the latest version for your device.

[BabaGanuche]

Just now, DANK_AS_gay said:

Supporting a device and supporting an OS are not the same.

I claimed no such thing.

[DANK_AS_gay]

12 minutes ago, BabaGanuche said:

I claimed no such thing.

this you?

38 minutes ago, BabaGanuche said:

claiming support and not release security patches not fine

It doesn't matter if iOS 13 isn't supported if iOS 14 is available to download on your device.

[BabaGanuche]

27 minutes ago, DANK_AS_gay said:

It doesn't matter if iOS 13 isn't supported if iOS 14 is available to download on your device

 

1 hour ago, BabaGanuche said:

You are still missing the point. It is fine if Apple does not release any patches for IOS 14.1. The problems is if they do not release (in a timely manner) security patches IOS 14.1 and claim that it is supported.

Please point to the word device in this statement.

[DANK_AS_gay]

1 minute ago, BabaGanuche said:

 

Please point to the word device in this statement.

But Apple doesn't just not release security patches for iOS 14, because it's on devices that are still listed as supported, I figured it was a typo, because literally no-one is talking about this, because it doesn't exist. There is no problem, I think you are misunderstanding what is happening.

[starsmine]

Just now, BabaGanuche said:

 

Please point to the word device in this statement.

They are assuming you meant device, because at the time of iOS14 and iOS15 release, apple DID say they supported Iphone6s and Iphone7
THAT is what apple is supporting, they do not go around supporting a depreciated OS, (iOS13 when 14 came out, iOS14 when 15 came out) when ALL devices that run 13 and 14 were still 100% supported from apple. 13 and 14 were not, the devices were(via 15)

you can not detach hardware support with software support with apple.
 

[wanderingfool2]

2 hours ago, starsmine said:

With this statement you just proved how pointless it would be to update IOS14, the user base there does not download patches. Offering the patch on ios 14 would still leave 26/13% of users vulnerable. Making a security update would do literally nothing.

 

All devices that can run ios14 can run ios15

 

Think of it this way, ios15 is really just ios 14.2(or 13.3, since same thing applies)(fake version number, I know there is a real 14.2/13.3). You dont go back to ios 14.1 and patch that when the patch exists in 14.2.

People have there reasons not to jump versions from lets say iOS 14 to iOS 15.  It still will have an additional patch.  e.g. I didn't upgrade all my PC's to Windows 11 yet...that doesn't mean I don't apply the patches released.  Try to at least use an ounce of logic...and going from 26% to 13% shows that at least 13% did perform updates/upgrades.  That doesn't even begin to include the fact that at the 3 month mark it was that, likely the first few months are the ramp...so yea, there is a huge population base that you are affecting.

 

Again, they did update iOS 14.  They did so on release of iOS 15 and a month afterwards.  That should realistically give users 2 months to switch...except with Apples policies as soon as iOS 15 drops you can no longer trust any of those "security" updates.  So the day the new iOS drops is the very day they leave everyone vulnerable.

 

It's not talking about supporting all the subversions like 14.1/14.2...it's about keeping the most critical version up to date.  e.g. 14.8.1 and 15.0.  That's 2 iOS's which they can support for just a single month even...but if they are releasing updates and know about a security flaw that affects both they should be patching it if they are to release a security update (otherwise just label as no longer being supported).

 

3 hours ago, starsmine said:

I want to point out, you are not leaving 68% vulnerable. 
You can lead a horse to water, but you cant make them drink. 
Apple gives you the choice to download the security patch, at that point its up to the user to download that.
They have been walked to the water already, after that its the horse that has to drink it on their own.

Look at the numbers I posted.  Yes you are leaving 68% vulnerable...because again the trend of adopting new ones continues.  As the example they fixed the Catalina version when it Big Sur had 18% more people [Or 50%].

 

Apple isn't giving the choice of downloading all the security patches though.  They are saying now that it's really, here you are here's the security patch...btw we didn't actually all the security issues we knew of...if you wanted to security you should have upgraded instead of updated.

 

They are bringing horses to water, but only bringing the Stallion to the clean water...everyone else gets to drink from the bacteria filled water (but until recently claimed pretended like it was clean)

[leadeater]

7 hours ago, DANK_AS_gay said:

No, but it would be ok for them to withhold updates for Windows 8, which is what Apple is doing here.

No it's not ok for them to do that. Why on earth would it be?

 

Quote

January 10, 2023

Is the date after this? No, then until then Windows 8 gets the same treatment as everything else at the SAME time.

 

Now if Apple would actually publish an OS support matrix and End of Life statement then there wouldn't be an issue, but they don't and that is the problem.

 

6 hours ago, starsmine said:

you can not detach hardware support with software support with apple.

Of course you can and it is actually necessary to do so. Apple doesn't do it but they need to. People don't immediately buy new phones on day one or upgrade OS version on day one. If that were the situation then fine, but it isn't.

 

It is not acceptable to have to assume support status of an OS version based solely on the release cycle of hardware, hardware you don't even own.

[wamred]

On 10/27/2022 at 6:42 PM, Salv8 (sam) said:

bro even microsoft updates older windows versions because it keeps the userbase safe.
they fuckin updated xp in 2014, AFTER THEY DISCONTINUED SUPPORT.

i don't like microsoft but i can commend their actions when it comes to important security patches.

 

this is just plain horrible, the people who can't afford the latest and greatest apple devices get fucked because an apple exec decided the aren't worth it?

not cool.

That is exactly what I just thought. Even Microsoft supports their old OS's security updates. This is just sad.