Update iPhone via cellular

[C DM]

I kind of address your points in my post though - if you disagree and want to explain why, that's fine, but your post is quite abstract and doesn't refer to anything in mine, so it reads like you've not read what i've written.

Really? You talk about comparing app updates to iOS updates and I mention that they can be different since the influx of people jumping on any app would likely not be at the level that people get onto iOS updates (while some wait for notifications there are plenty that don't). And, once again, this is in relation to what the logic of this was like when it was put into place some time ago, and it could very well be there now simply because it just didn't get changed rather than because it really plays that much of a role.

You can certainly disagree with that, but if you are going to go down the path of some irrelevant accusations of not reading posts or whatnot at least read the posts that are being replied to.

 

[tkukoc]

I personally think it not only comes down to size of the updates but network connectivity. If you're in a bad location and it starts dropping packets during a download, then for some reason it passes through the verification portion prior to the actual install, you could see more bricked devices. I for one think they should allow updates via cellular, but that's Apple for you. Their way or the highway. (Same for carriers)

 

[M.PaulCezanne]

You wouldn't sprng in for Google Fiber? That's what I meant

I might get fiber, but Google’s tracking worries me. Not that it’s any worse than anyone else’s.
[doublepost=1515604100][/doublepost]

I personally think it not only comes down to size of the updates but network connectivity. If you're in a bad location and it starts dropping packets during a download, then for some reason it passes through the verification portion prior to the actual install, you could see more bricked devices. I for one think they should allow updates via cellular, but that's Apple for you. Their way or the highway.

This is the only real explanation (other than file size) but both are becoming increasingly less relevant with network improvements. Besides, updates can fail for similar reasons over WiFi, but I suppose it’s less likely.

I just think it’s time to let us choose.

 

[GreyOS]

Really? You talk about comparing app updates to iOS updates and I mention that they can be different since the influx of people jumping on any app would likely not be at the level that people get onto iOS updates (while some wait for notifications there are plenty that don't). And, once again, this is in relation to what the logic of this was like when it was put into place some time ago, and it could very well be there now simply because it just didn't get changed rather than because it really plays that much of a role.

You can certainly disagree with that, but if you are going to go down the path of some irrelevant accusations of not reading posts or whatnot at least read the posts that are being replied to.

My original post was already a response to what you were saying. i.e. you said OS updates can lead to a huge influx, and app updates can't. But my post above it was about saying: there isn't necessarily an influx of OS updates, due to the notification about updates being spread over many days. And that there could be an influx of app updates for popular apps due to automatic updates which occur over a narrow window. Those were the specific points I made which you hadn't addressed in your post, do you get it now?

The thread: Os updates are a burden!
Me: OS updates aren't a burden, due to X. App updates can be a burden, due to Y, yet they're allowed over cellular.
You: Nah, OS updates aren't a burden like app updates
Me: Ok... you're just stating the opposite to me, which is what I was already arguing against. So what do you think about X and Y?

The post you just made at least acknowledges one of those points - so thanks.

 

[C DM]

My original post was already a response to what you were saying. i.e. you said OS updates can lead to a huge influx, and app updates can't. But my post above it was about saying: there isn't necessarily an influx of OS updates, due to the notification about updates being spread over many days. And that there could be an influx of app updates for popular apps due to automatic updates which occur over a narrow window. Those were the specific points I made which you hadn't addressed in your post, do you get it now?

The thread: Os updates are a burden!
Me: OS updates aren't a burden, due to X. App updates can be a burden, due to Y, yet they're allowed over cellular.
You: Nah, OS updates aren't a burden like app updates
Me: Ok... you're just stating the opposite to me, which is what I was already arguing against. So what do you think about X and Y?

The post you just made at least acknowledges one of those points - so thanks.

As I mentioned app updates typically won't have an influx like iOS updates could. Essentially everyone with an eligible iOS device can get an iOS update, while with app updates it's those that have the app, and as popular as some apps can be, by far it's nowhere close to everyone with an iOS device as it is with iOS itself. Automatic app updates are also something that doesn't happen at the same times, so they wouldn't generally create that much of a simultaneous influx.

And, once again, the other part of it that keeps on just getting overlooked, is that this is in relation to what the thinking about this was some time ago and it's quite likely that whatever was put in place is mostly there because it hasn't been revisited in some time and/or no one really wanted to go through the process of changing it and perhaps renegotiating something or other with the carriers.

Again, perhaps you disagree, and that's fine, but that doesn't mean I'm somehow not talking about the very thing you brought up.

 

[jav6454]

I might get fiber, but Google’s tracking worries me. Not that it’s any worse than anyone else’s.

Zero or near zero. I haven’t had targeted ads. In fact, they are always way off to my interests. Climbing? Lol.

 

[simonsi]

Well times certainlyhave changed. Bandwidth doesn’t seem to be a problem with unlimited streaming marketed everywhere you look. I guess they’re just reserving that for Netflix.

There’s no technical reason to keep this archaic policy. It’s very frustrating.

You DO realise Apple has a global market right? Like with millions of users <not> necessarily close to such cellular speeds and capacity? No doubt this capability will change when it becomes the global norm rather than a US/Major City norm.

 

[Banglazed]

You DO realise Apple has a global market right? Like with millions of users <not> necessarily close to such cellular speeds and capacity? No doubt this capability will change when it becomes the global norm rather than a US/Major City norm.

I do agree with this. Apple sold over billions of iPhone worldwide. If Apple was to implement a feature to allow download over cellular for software update like App Store less than 100MB, it can cause various network to be congested esp some software update can be over 1-2GB from official to beta build. It may not be everyone who will update at the same time but it can be significant amount of user who will. Carriers do experience network congestion even during this modern time esp at peak hours and allowing update over cellular might even worsen the current situation like Verizon unlimited plan.

I think this may only be possible when 5G matures and carriers further improves cell towers to handle as much users at a concurrent time so everyone can enjoy seamless 1GB like fiber wireless connectivity. We may not realize, we may be fortunate, and some countries cellular connectivity may be faster than us but there are third world carriers who may not even fully support 4G/LTE or mediocre at best. As such, bad connection can contribute to corrupt packet of data that may affect the update and user may blame Apple for it if it was a bad install if it further corrupt system files. At least on WiFi connection, it does use less power consumption and provide stable connectivity.

 

[CTHarrryH]

I would think a couple of additional reasons - many, many users don't live in major cities and may not have the type of cell service that is really needed for this. Yes, it could be an option, but a lot of users (the ones not on forums such as this) may not understand the issues with doing over cellular and what type of plan and available bandwidth. I know where I live (in Maine) a lot of cell service is pretty slow.
I would also think there is a "danger" with blips occurring while downloading. How long would a "large" update take over cellular. Are you willing to just sit for an hour or so on cellular while waiting download? What if you pass that limit in total GB that will cause a vendor to slow down your access speeds.

An option - ok but allowing shouldn't be the default and require you to verify you want to take that risk every time. If they allowed and it failed there would be another 250,000 lawsuits for Apple screwing up phone with the update.
I don't know numbers but I bet a lot of people don't have unlimited yet(I don't).

 

[Shirasaki]

Again - cell carriers are pushing unlimited video streaming. Is this not a strain on the network?

If they’re just preferring Netflix to security updates, we all should be very concerned (even more than we already are after the 2017 US legal and regulatory developments) about the future of the internet.

Apple does not pay money to them enough to convince them allow software/app update through cellular. I guess.
[doublepost=1515629194][/doublepost]

I don't know numbers but I bet a lot of people don't have unlimited yet(I don't).

Unlimited mobile data is just not a thing in Australia. Just FYI.
[doublepost=1515629447][/doublepost]

You DO realise Apple has a global market right? Like with millions of users <not> necessarily close to such cellular speeds and capacity? No doubt this capability will change when it becomes the global norm rather than a US/Major City norm.

And I am pretty confident that outside these selected US cities, there is no viable unlimited cellular plan available across the globe. Not even a single one in Australia at least.

 

[digitalexplr]

Pretty much a first world problem.

 

[C DM]

Pretty much a first world problem.

That basically applies to most things discussed here.

 

[simonsi]

Again - cell carriers are pushing unlimited video streaming. Is this not a strain on the network?

Its not the same. Streaming video you get a great experience providing the network keeps up with the real-time stream, once buffered there is zero user experience benefit from delivering the content faster. This reduces the bandwidth requirement considerably from the ISP's perspective. Of course the network can deliver the content faster assuming enough storage on the viewing device to buffer the content, but the network doesn't have to. In most cases the user will be unaware how quickly the content is actually delivered, provided there is no pause in viewing.

Data transfers are a different beast, users want the transfer done as fast as possible. Couple that with an OS released for a huge number of devices at nearly the same point in time. The timing effect is exacerbated as many target devices will have automatic updates turned on so will begin to request the update file immediately it is released to the App Store by Apple - put it together and you have something the cellular providers do not want. At. All.

Remember if you get a large number of devices to request network traffic in a coordinated way then that can also be called a Denial of Service attack...the effect on the network is exactly the same.

I used to work for a landline (no cellular service) ISP, our fixed infrastructure was put under enough strain by the release of an iOS update.
[doublepost=1515637453][/doublepost]

...and it starts dropping packets during a download, then for some reason it passes through the verification portion prior to the actual install...

Thats extremely unlikely, Google "checksum" if you want to know more.

 

[tkukoc]

Its not the same. Streaming video you get a great experience providing the network keeps up with the real-time stream, once buffered there is zero user experience benefit from delivering the content faster. This reduces the bandwidth requirement considerably from the ISP's perspective. Of course the network can deliver the content faster assuming enough storage on the viewing device to buffer the content, but the network doesn't have to. In most cases the user will be unaware how quickly the content is actually delivered, provided there is no pause in viewing.

Data transfers are a different beast, users want the transfer done as fast as possible. Couple that with an OS released for a huge number of devices at nearly the same point in time. The timing effect is exacerbated as many target devices will have automatic updates turned on so will begin to request the update file immediately it is released to the App Store by Apple - put it together and you have something the cellular providers do not want. At. All.

Remember if you get a large number of devices to request network traffic in a coordinated way then that can also be called a Denial of Service attack...the effect on the network is exactly the same.

I used to work for a landline (no cellular service) ISP, our fixed infrastructure was put under enough strain by the release of an iOS update.
[doublepost=1515637453][/doublepost]

Thats extremely unlikely, Google "checksum" if you want to know more.

I said some reason (you won’t know specifically what it is until after it occurs we don’t have the source coding), and yes you can bypass some checksums and updates can install without the verification check. This has happened previously with an IOS update that caused serious issues to cellphone connections. Which again is why I said “some reason” in my original post. So I agree it’s unlikely, it’s not exactly extreme to think it can’t occur.

 

[AppleFan91]

But, given Verizon and Sprint can't even seem to get their CDMA networks migrated off, I wouldn't be holding my breath for it to happen tomorrow.

You act like they can just turn off a network that still services millions of Americans across the nation

Verizon, for sure, only sells LTE handsets now. Even their basic phones are on LTE. They have been migrating customers off of CDMA for quite some time by only selling LTE handsets. (They do have CDMA backups but that's disappearing in their products too.) I believe Sprint is doing the same or in the process. CDMA isn't just something they can turn off. It takes years for millions of customers and users to move to be migrated to a new network. Hell, AT&T just shut off their 2G network a year or so ago.

 

[fischersd]

You act like they can just turn off a network that still services millions of Americans across the nation

Verizon, for sure, only sells LTE handsets now. Even their basic phones are on LTE. They have been migrating customers off of CDMA for quite some time by only selling LTE handsets. (They do have CDMA backups but that's disappearing in their products too.) I believe Sprint is doing the same or in the process. CDMA isn't just something they can turn off. It takes years for millions of customers and users to move to be migrated to a new network. Hell, AT&T just shut off their 2G network a year or so ago.

They've had many years to do so. There's only a handful of carriers still running CDMA globally. Not much excuse for the two largest to still be running their old networks.

 

[C DM]

They've had many years to do so. There's only a handful of carriers still running CDMA globally. Not much excuse for the two largest to still be running their old networks.

The "excuse" can simply be that their roadmap to get it all done has been planned out and this is the timeframe that's in play.

 

[fischersd]

The "excuse" can simply be that their roadmap to get it all done has been planned out and this is the timeframe that's in play.

You really have to question the why....those Qualcomm royalties have to be hurting.

 

[simonsi]

Not much excuse for the two largest to still be running their old networks.

Depends on the number of connections still supported and the cost of migration. Typically carriers need to offer some incentives to get the remaining users off a platform at end of life. Those final users tend to see zero benefit of moving and don't like change - which is why they are still on the old platform - so are a hardcore group reticent to move. That could easily be numbering in the millions on a US network, so even a $100 cost to move the diehards becomes a big hit.

CDMA was only turned off in NZ a few years ago with similar issues but on a smaller scale.

 

[AppleFan91]

You act like they can just turn off a network that still services millions of Americans across the nation

Verizon, for sure, only sells LTE handsets now. Even their basic phones are on LTE. I believe Sprint is doing the same or in the process. CDMA isn't just something they can turn off.

They've had many years to do so. There's only a handful of carriers still running CDMA globally. Not much excuse for the two largest to still be running their old networks.

So shut off a network that millions of customers and devices use to meet your arbitrary deadline? Got it. They are migrating people over. It takes years to do that. People depend on these networks, you can't just turn them off because you think they should.

 

[posguy99]

The entire thread misses the basic point. Apple isn't interested in listening to fools whine about going over on their cell data plan. It has zero to do with "congestion", it never did and doesn't today.

If you put a configuration option in, these same fools would turn it off, then whine.

It's as simple as that.

 

[Apple_Robert]

I might get fiber, but Google’s tracking worries me. Not that it’s any worse than anyone else’s.
[doublepost=1515604100][/doublepost]
This is the only real explanation (other than file size) but both are becoming increasingly less relevant with network improvements. Besides, updates can fail for similar reasons over WiFi, but I suppose it’s less likely.

I just think it’s time to let us choose.

It would be nice if Apple would give the user a choice. I have excellent cellular speed. As such, I would like to make use of it, instead of having to wait until I get home to use Wi-Fi.

 

[C DM]

The entire thread misses the basic point. Apple isn't interested in listening to fools whine about going over on their cell data plan. It has zero to do with "congestion", it never did and doesn't today.

If you put a configuration option in, these same fools would turn it off, then whine.

It's as simple as that.

That can be a part of it. Then again, if similar type of limits as those exist for apps were applied, then that aspect of it is fairly moot.