Not necessarily 2 updates a year. For instance in 2016 there was only 1 update for Windows 10. Roll out features as they become ready. For instance they are planning an overhaul of the home screen in iOS 13 which is probably only one aspect of the entire update. Break up the update into parts instead of releasing it all in one go. No need to fix a month in which it should be ready
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
Not necessarily 2 updates a year. For instance in 2016 there was only 1 update for Windows 10. Roll out features as they become ready. For instance they are planning an overhaul of the home screen in iOS 13 which is probably only one aspect of the entire update. Break up the update into parts instead of releasing it all in one go. No need to fix a month in which it should be ready
You or anyone else not being able to come up with some sort of reasoning for this or that, or not believing this or that, doesn't somehow demonstrate, let alone prove the opposite. It's simply not how logic works. We've certainly been over it many times.
Then I could be wrong. I am not a software engineer but from the outside it appears to me that way at least with Wiinddows
And every year since then they’ve stuck to the hard and fast two updates a year rule. Look, it’s becoming painfully obvious to me that you’re just in here to push whatever idea you have about how Apple is doing something wrong. Microsoft doesn’t push out features when they’re ready, they’re either done or they wait 6 months to hopefully get ready. That’s similar to what Apple is doing with the rumored home screen update.
Also, releasing UI changes piecemeal is a bad idea. It’s just awful.
Well then I will show myself out of this thread. Whatever the mysterious other reasoning there could be, at the end of the day the Air 2 and the iPhone 6 are not going to recover their original performance of iOS 8 and its not possible for me as a user to do anything to achieve that. If I want the security fixes and the latest apps I absolutely must update. I would love to play GRRID on my iPad Pro but that's not possible due to that. That sounds pretty ****** to me but whatever.
I don’t see how. 2017 and so far into 2018 have been really predictable with the update schedule. Two a year. They’ve said they’re going to continue to do two a year.
So you find absolutely no difference between the way it used to be when Microsoft was releasing updates with 7 and 8 and their current update model?
There is a huge difference, and it’s worse now than it was before. A large and complex piece of software shouldn’t be getting two big updates a year unless they have two updates worth of stuff. Even then, they probably shouldn’t. Take the extra time, make it one update a year. Make it stable.
But we can come up with some sort of reasoning: Apple doesn't optimize enough. There is the reason for the performance issues.
Apple doesn't allow downgrading; this is why the issue remains unsolvable.
Apple is at fault for this. I am not stating or implying there is a malicious conspiracy of any kind. Apple doesn't do enough.
Maybe apple doesn't optimize enough and maybe different people have different relationships with their phones and maybe some of the idevices behave differently based on what is installed and configured.
Maybe also, apple recognized they need to take a deep breath and see what they can do to go into the bowels of IOS and trim the fat. We'll see what IOS 12 brings.
As I said earlier, if iOS 12 lives up to its expectations, and works well, I'd like Apple to stay with that policy. Only time will tell. I'm interested in performance improvements for the iPod Touch 6G, iPad Air, iPhone 5s, 6, and 6+ primarily. Those are the ones that really matter, due to their age.
I was told that iOS 11 destroyed an iPhone 5s. The one we have is on iOS 8 so I wouldn't know.
You can come up with conjectures and theories, but that's different from claiming that something is proven and is absolutely the case as is stated fairly often by some.
[doublepost=1531711652][/doublepost]
It's amazing how something that is destroyed can be actually used just fine by many.
And yet the same thing seems to keep on coming up nonetheless.
[doublepost=1531711738][/doublepost]
In that respect pretty much everything has been addressed many pages ago, and realistically speaking many threads ago that deal with the same exact things.
The commentary was on the malicious conspiracy of planned obsolescence aspect of it.