Hahahahahahhaha, you got that rightUh is this a trick question? 1?
But I meant before the public release in Fall, how many betas will iOS 12.0 have
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.x.x Speculation Thread [Merged]
- Thread starter LoveToMacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
But I meant before the public release in Fall, how many betas will iOS 12.0 have
Anywhere from 6 to even 9 or 10 in the majority of iOS' history. Given that this release is a solidification of iOS, we could see more (for caution) or less (as a testament to quality).
Haha.. iOS 11 had 10 betas. iOS 10 had like 8/9. Its sorta all over the place. Here is a little more info.
http://www.thinkybits.com/blog/iOS-versions/
I think iOS 11 has/had a lot of issues.. 12 seems to be better at this stage than 11 was after beta 3 IMO .. So one would think if you were a betting man I would take the under for betas for iOS 12.......
iOS 11 was one of the few betas that I ran from day 1. I only ever had a couple issues on my iPad, but nothing wrong with my iPhone. After running iOS 12 for a little bit, I would put it exactly on par with iOS 11. Yes it may be faster, but all around stability is the same.
I was not so lucky with 11.. maybe bc I was trying to run 11 on a 5s who knows .. but i'm liking 12 on the X so far no major issues..
That was probably the issue. My Air 2 gave me trouble on iOS 11, but my 7Plus was almoat flawless. Air 2 is holding up well on iOS 12 for now. Few issues here and there. Similar to iOS 11 in my usage.
Weekly as of now? Who knows?Ok so now when is beta 4 coming out.
My guess is DP4 in 2 weeks and then weekly releases.
We will have the usual collection of folks who “know”
Well, the guy yesterday (@AppleAstronaut) “knew” so well he/she got suspended from Macrumors! We probably won’t find someone like that again, although they did give us some stuff to chew on.
Yeah I saw that, wonder why he got suspended. Did he do something somewhere else or are the mods just being careful
You are giving him way too much credit. He said there will only be 5 betas and from now on they will be 18 days apart. And that the 5th is the GM. That doesn’t work out at all. That’s makes Beta 4 drop on Saturday July 21. And beta 5/GM drop the first week of August. The GM doesn’t drop until the event. Also, only 5 betas is way too few. There were too many flaws.
Someone probably reported him and MacRumors took preventative measures just incase he was legit. But I have my doubts as things don’t add up. Almost everyone was speculating that beta 3 would drop yesterday, all he did wasn’t piggyback.
And yet he/she got suspended very, very quickly. Only time will tell how accurate all that info was, but I smell unhappy Apple employee/ex-employee.
I added an edit above about him getting suspended. His info can’t be accurate. Beta 4 is not dropping on a Saturday. This is when time between betas decrease, not increase to 18 days.
I’m confused as to why MacRumors would ban someone for being legit. Why is it in MacRumors interests to protect Apple exactly? Wouldn’t MR welcome Apple leaks? It seems more likely they’d ban someone for lying and misleading people. But happy to hear other’s explanations as I missed some of what happened.
I'm sure after Madscotsman and Sunny2k1 vanished, things have changed around MacRumors. Apple has probably directly reached out to MacRumors and told them not to allow it. Doesn't MacRumors attend Apple events? If thats the case, Apple could easily say they are no longer welcome if they protect leakers.
Sort of makes sense, but MacRumors is always posting about leaks and tip offs. What’s acceptable and what isn’t? Do you really think Apple care more about protecting the beta release schedule than say the details about 2018 iPhones which we hear about all the time? I know we love our beta speculation here but it’s a very niche interest with little consequence for Apple’s business. Very confusing.
Yes, it is all confusing. I guess the difference is this. When MacRumors posts leaks and tips, they do so with a direct source. So Apple could go after the leaker directly. Here, this is an anonymous forum. So the only thing MacRumors can do is prevent someone from posting by suspending them. There is no chain to link back up to. I could be completely wrong, but its how it makes sense to me.
Some of it may be jurisdictional, too. Apple has more tools at its disposal to deal with US based leakers and employees who have signed NDAs than they do employees at Foxconn or foreign case makers. Plus, there may be a distinction between publishing leaks by others as opposed to being the original source of the leak (via a post by a leaker). In the one case, you’re simply republishing something already in the public domain, even if illegitimately, and the other is being the primary source of the leak, via your own forums.
If they were suspended for being a crackpot, wasting time, misleading people etc. then a moderator could easily come here and say so to clear things up.
If they were legit, a moderator couldn't say so because they'd be confirming their info.
So until we hear anything from a moderator, I'll assume they were legit
Of course, a moderator could just come here and lie...
If they were legit, a moderator couldn't say so because they'd be confirming their info.
So until we hear anything from a moderator, I'll assume they were legit
Of course, a moderator could just come here and lie...
Well, under the rules, Moderators are not allowed to post why a member was suspended without the member authorizing them to do so. So its a toss up I suppose.If they were suspended for being a crackpot, wasting time, misleading people etc. then a moderator could easily come here and say so to clear things up.
If they were legit, a moderator couldn't say so because they'd be confirming their info.
So until we hear anything from a moderator, I'll assume they were legit
Of course, a moderator could just come here and lie...
If they were suspended for being a crackpot, wasting time, misleading people etc. then a moderator could easily come here and say so to clear things up.
If they were legit, a moderator couldn't say so because they'd be confirming their info.
So until we hear anything from a moderator, I'll assume they were legit
Of course, a moderator could just come here and lie...
In the former case, unless they have been warned, I think the moderator would just delete the offending posts. This user wasn’t on the forums long enough.
Another possibility is that it really was Madscotsman and they determined that via examining his IP and/or MAC addresses and banned his alter ego.
The person's writing style matched Madscotsman's to some extent, so that is possible.