Apple artificial move to encourage people to upgrade… if they could release security update for older iPhones they can release it for the rest of models…
My iPads on 18.7.3 just yesterday started pushing notifications to upgrade to 26.2 again.
Guess Apple wants to pump up those numbers. If they really cared, if they had an ethical bone in their body, they would release 18.7.3 to the public WHICH THEY ALREADY HAVE STAGED.
This is more like blackmail where they are dangling these security issues over everyone's head as some scare tactic to upgrade, instead of giving everyone access to the iOS 18 security patch which already exists.
>If they really cared, if they had an ethical bone in their body, they would release 18.7.3 to the public WHICH THEY ALREADY HAVE STAGED.
>This is more like blackmail where they are dangling these security issues over everyone's head as some scare tactic to upgrade, instead of giving everyone access to the iOS 18 security patch which already exists.
18.7.3 was released a month ago. Anyone who cared about security updates would have already gotten it using the beta workaround. Anyone who's apathetic about updates isn't going to be swayed by 18.7.3 vs 26.2.
Ah! Yeah I did notice that using `ProcessInfo.processInfo.thermalState`, the state didn't update unless I restarted the process (reproducible even with a swift script). But this issue doesn't happen with the technique I use right now (the thermald notification)
I agree, but if I would have to type one most insulting things with AI is scraping data without consent to train models, so people no longer enjoy blog posting :(
You may own the device, but everything running on top of it is part of a service in control of Apple.
It would be great if vendors would be mandated to clearly separate communication about the product and the services on top, so they would have to compete again on actual product functionality, but so far it's not the case...
Unlocking/jailbreaking/installing your own software should be legal. I own the device, I should be able to do with it as I please without breaking cybersecurity laws. The issue is this covers IP/Platform Code and covers jailbreaking as that’s a form of reverse engineering in violation of the agreement you signed when you bought the device. It fucking sucks.
No, you definitely don't own Apple's developer portal or any related infrastructure. If you did, then you wouldn't have anything to complain about, you could just fix it.
And of course you don't own iOS -- were you under any impression otherwise?
I don't really understand this culture of buyers remorse. If you don't buy FOSS, you don't get FOSS.
So you’re saying if I buy a computer, I don’t own that computer?
This is what it is. I own this device in my pocket. I should be able to install, tinker, take apart, said device - granted voiding its warranty - without a company bricking the device intentionally or removing software from the device simply because I chose a p2p network over a centralized one.
Stop defending this. Once you sell something, it’s sold. It’s no longer yours. You may have made it, you may support it, but it’s no longer yours.
They didn’t deliver software. A 3rd party did. Stop making straw-man arguments to defend their actions. If the app was pulled from the normal App Store, fine, that’s Apple’s prerogative. But a 3rd party store? The app signing shouldn’t be used a weapon against software “you don’t like”.
Apple revoked notarization -- which is delivered as a service from their computers.
If you don't like that the phone connects to Apple's servers and uses the data delivered, then you shouldn't have bought a product that works that way. Or alternatively, you can take it apart and change it. Nobody is stopping you.
But Apple doesn't owe you an ongoing service that works exactly the way you like just because you bought one of their devices.
You cannot (generally) install and run apps that aren't (recently) notarized, though. They do owe the service inasmuch as they require it for installing and running apps.
Yeah, the OS preinstalled on the phone functions that way. But this is not in opposition to your ownership of the physical device. You can do still do whatever you want with the phone. Grab a hot plate and pull off the NAND, chuck the whole thing in a blender, anything -- knock yourself out.
By analogy, if food was sold with poison in it, "hey man, you bought it, just remove it if you don't like it. not a chemist? crack a book buddy". And now imagine you had no means of producing your own food and all food sold contained poison.
If unlocking an iPhone and running e.g. AOSP on it were feasible, people would be doing it. And you know that. Your argument is disingenuous.
Food with poison in it is both criminally and civilly illegal, and it puts peoples lives in danger.
Equating something like this to closed source software is why some people don’t take FOSS seriously.
You might think I was being facetious, but I’m being completely serious: the only way for FOSS to compete is by producing good products and bringing them to market. If FOSS advocates keep trying to fight some software licensing culture war instead of producing good technology, they’re not going to change anyone’s mind. 99.999% of people do not give two shits about a software license, they just want to use a damn phone.
It was an analogy. You're moving the goalposts and ignored the latter point.
And I'm not a foss advocate, I just want to be able to run software of my choosing and without spyware, as has been the case since the advent of personal computing.
As a side note, legality seems irrelevant to your position. What if a world government mandated optional sideloading + unlocking? Wouldn't you then argue against that law?
I know it’s an analogy. I just think it was a bad one. The desire for nerds to run unusual software on their phone is not really a life or death situation. I think it’s important to remember that in context, the number of us who care about this issue rounds to about zero. Most people using a phone don’t care.
I also want to run the software of my choosing. But there’s not a single phone you can completely do that with. Some of this is due to design decisions, some of it is due to corporate lock-in, and some of it is due to regulatory requirements.
I wouldn’t be against a law requiring side loading and unlocking, I would be in favor of it. This only addresses part of the software on a phone, though. There’s a lot of software on a phone beyond user space applications.
But I do think it would be reasonable to put some hurdles to make it difficult to do. There are completely valid reasons to protect the average user from being scammed by malicious software.
It sounds like we largely agree, then, so I'm not sure what you were arguing in the first place. That because the companies are legally able to do this and that [hardware-based] jailbreaking is possible in theory, it can't be opposed?
To your other point, firmware is another battle entirely and currently has less practical value.
Yet it happens all the time. More than half of Android phones are infected. So again, a poor argument for security. If anything, by opening it up, we (the collective nerds) could help harden it. Protect it. Improve it.
Such a big piece of history and a de facto standard for managing dependencies for Apple platforms for years.
Big "thank you" to all maintainers for your great job! And respect that you recognise moment when ecosystem changed and have courage to deprecate library instead of maintaining it forever - to leave place for migrating to new, superior solutions
OP here, luckily in this case, it means a more supported and vertically integrated alternative. Which does have less features, but actually gets bugs fixed and keeps up to date with the platform - so it's a net win overall IMO
It is interesting, that when Apple, with small steps, slowly disallowed any kind of sideloading merely nobody took notice of it... and now Google is doing the same, and whole internet protest. Who knows, maybe fact that now there is no alternative for tech-savy, and people are angry now it is good thing in longer perspective for both platforms.
Because I used to have a choice. Since dipping my toes in Android, I remember distinctly in 2012 or maybe 2013 the feeling when I got Xorg and Wireshark running on a Galaxy Note device within the first days. Dead simple! Heck, VirtualBox let me emulate Windows. I could play Rollercoaster Tycoon by attaching a USB keyboard and mouse over this little OTG dongle! Coming from Symbian and having recently started to run Linux on my desktop, and now all that being compatible on my phone, it felt like a miracle
Ahem, where was I
Ah yes: ever since dipping my toes in Android, I've always said I'd never buy an Apple device where I can't run my own software or control what proprietary software does. Now that the freedom is being taken away, the world is changing and I care about it. Until now, it was just a matter of buying any brand except one closed one. Not that hard to avoid
For me it’s a matter of settings. As a user I would have option to choose “secure” mode that disallow installing apps from unofficial sources, but if I want to I should have option to allow side loading. Everything else is just corporations need to have to much control.
The problem is that important services will then be (and already are!) only permitted to run in “secure” mode.
I literally have a banking app that will refuse to run on an “unsecure” phone. Today I can still install unsigned apps, but removing that ability is explicitly the goal of this policy change.
In a light of new law Apple and Google will have to allow third party stores and payments and allow other manufactures to use hardware features of phones.
The same is with CarPlay for example. You need to apply form entitlement. For me this is weird, it is user choice if he would like to have critical alerts, CarPlay UI and so on. And Apple have review process to not pass apps that abuse this mechanisms./
reply