Every once in a while, I come into this thread to see if any progress is being made.
And the answer is always no.
And the answer is always no.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
iOS 12 and planned obsolescence
- Thread starter _Refurbished_
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It's clear Radon87000 has already made up his/her mind and isn't prepared to remain open minded about this topic.
Nobody is prepared to be open minded about this. It's the internet. We're all smacking each other in the head with our views while pretending the other side just can't understand how wrong they are.
It's not possible to arrive at a conclusion we all agree with. Our argument is that regardless of Apple's intentionality, devices are slower - many times, and if updated far enough, they're slow enough that I don't want to use them anymore - but that, in and of itself, doesn't prove planned obsolescence. Which is correct. It doesn't.
But AT LEAST Apple is at fault by not doing enough to optimize updates. Apple is at fault by nagging endlessly to update. Apple is at fault by forcing users to update if they have an issue and have to restore. Apple is at fault by not allowing to downgrade. Apple is at fault by instructing support to tell people to always update to try to solve everything. We will never get proof. Because they want Apple to say "yes, we engage in planned obsolescence and make devices slower, either on purpose or (and this is my argument, and what I have been saying), we don't optimize updates enough because of many factors (lack of time because they have to issue an update every year, because they don't care, because they want to take advantage of the power of the newest devices, etc)." That will never happen.
Some people say that devices aren't even slowed down, maybe because they have newer devices because if you compare, for example, an iPod Touch 4 or 5G in iOS 4 and 6 respectively, with an iPod Touch 4 and 5G in iOS 6 and 9 respectively, the latter are awful.
Maybe calling it planned obsolescence is wrong. Maybe it should have been worded differently. Maybe there, we will all agree. Perhaps, we should have called it: "Why do iOS updates slow down devices, and why does Apple doesn't put in enough effort to optimize iOS updates?" That doesn't imply planned obsolescence. That title could have allowed a different discussion.
But AT LEAST Apple is at fault by not doing enough to optimize updates. Apple is at fault by nagging endlessly to update. Apple is at fault by forcing users to update if they have an issue and have to restore. Apple is at fault by not allowing to downgrade. Apple is at fault by instructing support to tell people to always update to try to solve everything. We will never get proof. Because they want Apple to say "yes, we engage in planned obsolescence and make devices slower, either on purpose or (and this is my argument, and what I have been saying), we don't optimize updates enough because of many factors (lack of time because they have to issue an update every year, because they don't care, because they want to take advantage of the power of the newest devices, etc)." That will never happen.
Some people say that devices aren't even slowed down, maybe because they have newer devices because if you compare, for example, an iPod Touch 4 or 5G in iOS 4 and 6 respectively, with an iPod Touch 4 and 5G in iOS 6 and 9 respectively, the latter are awful.
Maybe calling it planned obsolescence is wrong. Maybe it should have been worded differently. Maybe there, we will all agree. Perhaps, we should have called it: "Why do iOS updates slow down devices, and why does Apple doesn't put in enough effort to optimize iOS updates?" That doesn't imply planned obsolescence. That title could have allowed a different discussion.
The OP should understand the terms they are using before using them. But otherwise, completely agreed.
Agreed, but also I wasn't allowed to. I wanted to divert from the main topic of the thread because it wasn't possible to discuss, and all I got was "I won't answer that, that doesn't pertain to the main reason of the thread, and you are off-topic". And goodbye to reaching any understanding.
Clearly from your argument and what you consider as “being at fault” for Apple, you’re not from the software development industry. That’s why I won’t get to the details of how what you consider as a good thing is actually a very bad approach from software development standpoint but as someone who lives for software, let me tell you. Being able to downgrade is NOT a good thing in terms of the customer or the manufacturer.
But I agree with the title of this topic being wrong.
I know. Security, efforts have to be huge to support multiple versions of iOS - makes it impossible in practice, hence why downgrading is possible on OS X but Apple only supports a few versions of it - May I ask, what do you suggest? To alleviate slowdowns, I mean.
Clearly there are only 2 options -
1. Apple spends more time and effort to optimise their OS for older devices, which is expensive and doesn’t provide much business value for them.
2. Follow google and dump device support every couple of years. Which is not what they want to do because they want to be a reliable customer focused brand as a purely hardware business.
So they choose the viable middle option. Keep the OS optimised enough for people with older devices to get by. People who keep devices more than 2 years clearly don’t care about the latest and greatest.
Agree. Apple might do 1 (I hope the trend that iOS 12 started will continue - I don't have a device in it, but I have only read good comments here about it - but nobody knows - only time will tell.)
Apple will not do 2, they pride themselves in supporting older devices, as you said.
I still think downgrading is an option (add a heavy disclaimer if you have to, something along the lines of: Your device will be insecure, apps may not work properly or you may not be able to download them, and bugs existing in older versions will not be fixed in this iteration of iOS, you WILL have to update for that). Make the user responsible for their own decisions. Users can't be trusted? I agree. But you will have to in this case. I don't update and I'm responsible for that. I'm aware of that and won't go crying to Apple if something happens.
Apple trusts Mac users with that decision anyway. I don't see why they can't do it on iOS.
I think it simply comes down to the paradigm of desktop vs mobile setup. Desktop ecosystem needs to be more flexible compared to mobile setup simply due to the use cases being vastly different.
You are right that they should allow it on Mac because of the required flexibility, but that doesn't impede that they allow it on iOS. What we all want is our devices to work better, to be faster. That's what I seek by refusing to update. Even if people aren't technologically savvy, they still would like their devices to be faster, wouldn't they?
Last edited:
Absolutely agree and I think people have spoken and Apple has acknowledged. That’s why iOS 12 is bringing improvements to older devices.
But again, expecting the same year on year is basically kidding ourselves. There’s just not enough time within a year to complete the whole development and testing process to support 5 years old hardware to keep their performance at peak. If you know what I mean.
Agree. But that is no excuse, imho. Issue updates once every two years and make them flawless. Apple won't do it, and I'm going into fantasy territory here, but if they wanted to do it, they certainly can.
As you said, Apple probably won't do the iOS 12 thing every year.
There's no need to ruin devices year after year, either.
A yearly update has to be put out to compete in the market. A whole year is a lot in tech world and as a business not releasing OS updates every year is a huge huge risk both for customers and the business.
Just that the happy medium is different for everyone. No company can keep every customer happy.
I hadn't thought about that. Apple can't allow themselves not to compete. You are right. Back to square one: more optimizing, cutting support at an alarming rate, or downgrading with disclaimers. Apple won't allow downgrading, and won't cut support. We can only wish for the iOS 12 policy to remain.
Apple system software, going back decades, has always been the case that it took entire release cycle to polish and squash all the bugs, only to start all over again.
I think it's gotten slightly better recently. But at what time highly profitable Apple was 'borrowing' iOS programmers to help the OS X team, a phase I call "the iOS--fucation of Mac OS X" also.
Also, new hardware devices redesigned mobile phone, AND a newly released version of iOS have been a recipe for problems .
There has to be a better way.
I think it's gotten slightly better recently. But at what time highly profitable Apple was 'borrowing' iOS programmers to help the OS X team, a phase I call "the iOS--fucation of Mac OS X" also.
Also, new hardware devices redesigned mobile phone, AND a newly released version of iOS have been a recipe for problems .
There has to be a better way.
If their intention is not malicious why are they updating the device to the point its standing on its last legs? Its like flogging a dead horse over and over again. I simply cannot come up with an explanation which suggests noble intentions. Otherwise they would have enabled downgrades on their devices which is a standard policy in the tech industry
[doublepost=1531676984][/doublepost]
Downgrades are standard in the industry. Every major operating system apart from iOS supports downgrade. I may be wrong here but a quick google search suggests even MacOS can be downgrades.
The ability to downgrade recognises that its impossible to satisfy all the people all the time. Everyone has difference tolerance levels for performance and this one size fits all approach isn't gonna work.
I wish there were something like the 1080Ti or the 7700K in smartphones and I am ready to pay a premium for it. Both these products will last 4 years running every game at high/max settings. There should be an iPhone which handles all new iOS with zero slowdown for 3 years at the very kleast
[doublepost=1531677321][/doublepost]
Actually Windows 10 already dispensed with yearly updates. Apple should do the same. In fact I have no issues paying Apple for OS updates like in the good old days. Just get the update done right. I am ready to pay.
Last edited:
Microsoft does two big updates a year, what are you talking about? They’re already working on Redstone 5 after the disaster that was Redstone 4 that got pushed out in April.
There is no fixed yearly schedule as its Windows as a service. They release updates as they get ready. Redstone 4 was delayed by 20 days from the scheduled release date because of some critical bug after it was rolled out to the Release Preview branch.
Apple absolutely has to launch iOS 13 beta in June next year and release it in September. This results in an unfinished mess like iOS 11. They cant postpone the beta by a month to get it fixed and roll out a stable release.
How was Redstone 4 a disaster?
No, there is a fixed schedule. 1603 was the update finished in March of 2016, 1609 was finished September of the same year. Next came 1793 and 1709. After that one was 1803 and next is 1809. It’s very scheduled. The fact that it was delayed twenty days, due to a BSoD issue, still meant it was pushed out in the same month that last year’s update was pushed out.
https://www.thurrott.com/forums/microsoft/windows/thread/1803-was-a-disaster
https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us...nt-bsods/e3bdadd3-c596-4448-8398-6b86b3aae424
https://www.computerworld.com/artic...1803-to-pcs-specifically-set-to-avoid-it.html
https://www.windowscentral.com/windows-10-april-2018-update-common-problems-and-fixes
Any software release always goes with a schedule. That’s just how the industry works. You might not think like that but every company has a release cycle. They just don’t randomly release updates.
Bingo. We had to release a system at work that wasn't fully baked and we are still adding functionality to it a year later.
You can't predict the month in which Redstone 5 will be released for certain except the latter half of 2018. The only time 2 months were repeated were for Redstone 2 and Redstone 4.
Apple has to get everything ready and release it in September. Every iOS version dev beta releases in June with public release in September
But I can find something like this for pretty much every release. Releasing 2 updates a year doesn't mean they are rushing it. One set of features is pushed out as it gets ready in the first half and then the balance in the next half. Apple has to cram all its features so the update is ready for release in June. That's what I mean when I say Apple follows a schedule. There is a defined month by which everything has to be ready
You can't predict the month in which Redstone 5 will be released for certain except the latter half of 2018. The only time 2 months where repeated were for Redstone 2 and Redstone 4.
Apple has to get everything ready and release it in September. Every iOS version dev beta releases in June with public release in September
But I can find something like this for pretty much every release. Releasing 2 updates a year doesn't mean they are rushing it. One set of features is pushed out as it gets ready in the first half and then the balance in the next half. Apple has to cram all its features so the update is ready for release in June
So your argument isn’t that Apple should rush one release but have two big feature updates every year? Am I understanding this correctly?