Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Releases First macOS Sonoma 14.6 Public Beta

MacRumors

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
68,700
39,614


Apple today seeded the first beta of an upcoming macOS 14.6 update to public beta testers, allowing non-developers to test the software ahead of its launch. Today's public beta comes a few days after Apple released the initial developer beta.

macos-sonoma-4.jpg

Beta testers can opt-in through the Software Update section of the System Settings app. Under Beta updates, simply toggle on the Sonoma Public Beta. Note that you must sign up to participate on Apple's beta testing website.

No new Mac features were found in the macOS Sonoma 14.6 developer beta, so it is not clear what might be included. With Apple now working on macOS Sequoia, development on macOS Sonoma is beginning to wrap up.

Article Link: Apple Releases First macOS Sonoma 14.6 Public Beta
 
Article Link
https://www.macrumors.com/2024/06/20/apple-releases-first-macos-sonoma-14-6-public-beta/
Last edited:
Cirillo Gherardo said:
NGL sonoma and sequoia back to back is confusing af. I will forever forget which one was which.
Click to expand...
They have their differences. Safari 18.0 build (macOS 15) is a little raw compared to Safari 17.6 builds which accompany this MacOS 14.6 beta. Meaning certain graphic display of HMTL content doesn't draw correctly sometimes which isn't a problem with this Sonoma beta. As a backup use Brave browser that has build in ad-block and supports 8K AV1 playback when comparing latest Safari for this 14.6 beta. I also compared Firefox 127.0.1 which is another alternative to Safari.

MacOS 14.6 beta SDK notes

ARKit​

Resolved Issues​

  • Fixed: iPhone and iPad apps on Apple Silicon Macs quit unexpectedly when initializing ARSkeletonDefinition. (128038936)

Core Spotlight​

Resolved Issues​

  • Fixed: iPhone and iPad apps on Apple Silicon Macs quit unexpectedly when invoking -[CSSearchableItemAttributeSet setActionIdentifiers:]. (128039095)

Finder​

Resolved Issues​

  • Fixed: Home Videos unexpectedly sync as Music Videos to iPod nano (7th generation). (94899119)

Video Subscriber Account​

Resolved Issues​

  • Fixed: iPhone and iPad apps on Apple Silicon Macs quit unexpectedly if VSOpenTVProviderSettingsURLString is referenced. (113562872)

Video Toolbox​

Resolved Issues​

  • Fixed an issue and now on Apple Silicon, if width or height is greater than 4096 columns or rows and content uses 4:2:0 chroma subsampling and 8-bit depth, the hardware decoder driver will reject it and a software decoder will be automatically selected to ensure artifact-free decoding. AVC (H.264) content at level 5.2 or lower can be handled by the hardware decoder. Content that otherwise conforms to level 5.2 but is high frame rate (e.g. 4k at 100 or 120 fps) is labelled level 6, 6.1 or 6.2 and is also handled by hardware. If content is 10-bit, 4:2:2 or 4:4:4, the hardware decoder will be used. (122448862)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Haha
  • Wow
Reactions: Victor Mortimer, Queen6, Cirillo Gherardo and 1 other person
CarAnalogy said:
At this point, they should just jump the version number up to align with iOS. That way we can just refer to a consistent number.

And let’s be honest, de facto if not technically, macOS has become another fork of iOS.
Click to expand...
It has not, they are very different. All one has to do is see all the walls and limitations iOS and its derivatives show up doing anything exactly the same. Take comparing MacOS browsers to browsers on iPadOS which is an extended version of iOS. Does a 3rd party browser use it own engine for most regions, nope. You still stuck with Apple's restrictive webkit implementations.
reference
arstechnica.com

Google and Mozilla are working on iOS browsers that break current App Store rules

Currently, all iOS and iPadOS browsers need to use the same engine as Safari.
arstechnica.com arstechnica.com
The iOS versions of Chrome, Firefox, Edge, and others can currently sync with their desktop counterparts and present whatever user interface they want, but the WebKit requirement means their capabilities and shortcomings are mostly the same as Safari's. No such restriction exists on macOS, where third-party browsers can use whatever rendering engine they please.
Click to expand...

Now for the EU DMA Apple needed to allow different web engines to be available for browsers, but that not true for everyone else.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: eas, maestrodwj, splifingate and 4 others
CarAnalogy said:
At this point, they should just jump the version number up to align with iOS. That way we can just refer to a consistent number.

And let’s be honest, de facto if not technically, macOS has become another fork of iOS.
Click to expand...
The whole "naming" of macOS could have been ditched starting with macOS 11 IMHO.

It now feels awkward to me to have all these normal numeric  OS and for whatever reason make macOS the exception.
Back in the "cat-naming" times, it was nice and cool, and using nice locations in California from 10.9 onwards also made sense, but with macOS 11 they had the opportunity to simply ditch the names and align with the rest: use a number.
I never use the name TBH.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: maestrodwj, trusso, winxmac and 4 others
CarAnalogy said:
At this point, they should just jump the version number up to align with iOS. That way we can just refer to a consistent number.

And let’s be honest, de facto if not technically, macOS has become another fork of iOS.
Click to expand...
Actually, I think all operating systems, and hardware, should just be named by the year it was released, like cars. I've got an iPhone 2023, running iOS 2023, but will upgrade to iOS 2024.
 
  • Like
  • Angry
Reactions: mochatins, Victor Mortimer, macdaddy43 and 6 others
Another update, and we still cannot add widgets to separate virtual desktop, somewhat resembling Dashboard from previous versions.

I do not want widgets cluttering my main desktop, but I would still like to use widgets from time to time. Putting them in their own separate desktop would be a godsend to me.
 
Realityck said:
None of the June 17th OS dev seeds saw any changes for PB seed today. :)
Click to expand...
That's right - not even the Ventura rc 6 build 22G807. This is still version 13.6.7, not 13.6.8 despite 13.6.7 being publicly released on May 13 with build 22G720.

Nor the Monterey 12.7.6 rc 1 build 21H1307.

As well as the public betas being released, the full installers have also been released and they confirm the version for Ventura did not change.

Code: 
        Build
        23G5052d
--
        OSVersion
        14.6
https://swcdn.apple.com/content/downloads/31/05/052-91259-A_8KQ98XOHKQ/10lsspxarc8aa8gbw2n09hmeehu5mtj1e4/InstallAssistant.pkg
######################################################################## 100.0%
        Build
        22G807
--
        OSVersion
        13.6.7
https://swcdn.apple.com/content/downloads/55/30/052-94227-A_CEN4WT48OQ/7stmkqeaselj9rm9ykjb9jdzpzdu20qbnu/InstallAssistant.pkg
######################################################################## 100.0%
        Build
        21H1307
--
        OSVersion
        12.7.6
https://swcdn.apple.com/content/downloads/03/46/052-92610-A_JVT8CD7FP2/dbqrmqf2dwi7fqcnf4nyl1q0ftqadhzamf/InstallAssistant.pkg

This confusion for the Ventura one led to some websites reporting it as 13.6.8, like https://betawiki.net/wiki/MacOS_Ventura#13.6.8 :
betawiki.png

Others like https://appledb.dev/firmware.html more correctly reported it as 13.6.7:

appledb.png

amid the confusion one may check the SystemVersion.plist file for build 22G807 and that confirms the version is 13.6.7:

Code: 
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE plist PUBLIC "-//Apple//DTD PLIST 1.0//EN" "http://www.apple.com/DTDs/PropertyList-1.0.dtd">
<plist version="1.0">
<dict>
    <key>BuildID</key>
    <string>40B8E988-288F-11EF-91EE-3DE222A9450C</string>
    <key>ProductBuildVersion</key>
    <string>22G807</string>
    <key>ProductCopyright</key>
    <string>1983-2024 Apple Inc.</string>
    <key>ProductName</key>
    <string>macOS</string>
    <key>ProductUserVisibleVersion</key>
    <string>13.6.7</string>
    <key>ProductVersion</key>
    <string>13.6.7</string>
    <key>iOSSupportVersion</key>
    <string>16.6</string>
</dict>
</plist>

Alternatively one may check the About This Mac and see something like this:

22G807is13.6.7-2.png

So why the Ventura not get new version number?

Very confusing to release an RC for a version that has already been released - especially since Monterey actually did get a new version number.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Realityck
Realityck said:
It has not, they are very different. All one has to do is see all the walls and limitations iOS and its derivatives show up doing anything exactly the same. Take comparing MacOS browsers to browsers on iPadOS which is an extended version of iOS. Does a 3rd party browser use it own engine for most regions, nope. You still stuck with Apple's restrictive webkit implementations.
reference
arstechnica.com

Google and Mozilla are working on iOS browsers that break current App Store rules

Currently, all iOS and iPadOS browsers need to use the same engine as Safari.
arstechnica.com arstechnica.com


Now for the EU DMA Apple needed to allow different web engines to be available for browsers, but that not true for everyone else.
Click to expand...

Of course, and I hope it always remains so. I'd like to see iOS more open, in fact.

But from a marketing perspective they may as well merge the version numbers. Version numbers have lost a lot of meaning anyway.

You see how it is at WWDC anymore. They do the iOS segment, then the Mac segment takes about two seconds because it's all the stuff you just saw for iOS.

I would love for them to focus on under the hood improvements, fixes to Finder, etc but they talk about that stuff more rarely than they actually do it.

Hey maybe they'll give us a big bug fix release and say it was worth skipping the version numbers in between. As long as I'm dreaming.
 
iamgalt said:
Actually, I think all operating systems, and hardware, should just be named by the year it was released, like cars. I've got an iPhone 2023, running iOS 2023, but will upgrade to iOS 2024.
Click to expand...
NO!

Version numbers are supposed to mean something. MajorRelease.MinorRelease.Bugfix

Apple screwed it up for years with macOS, calling very different OS releases Mac OS X. They're finally back on track somewhat, but they really need to end the planned annual releases entirely, and go back to releases when it's ready.

Year number releases are and have always been a massive mistake.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: ignatius345, winxmac and cosmos
I was finally able to update my ventura vm and it still says build 22G807 is version 13.6.7 not 13.6.8
noserial.png

I couldn't update OTA because apple restricts authentication on vms, so I used the full installer.

That is changing now for sequoia, but it doesn't help ventura.
 
StellarVixen said:
Another update, and we still cannot add widgets to separate virtual desktop, somewhat resembling Dashboard from previous versions.

I do not want widgets cluttering my main desktop, but I would still like to use widgets from time to time. Putting them in their own separate desktop would be a godsend to me.
Click to expand...
I haven’t tested this but can’t you use Spaces and put them there?
 
Victor Mortimer said:
GAH! NO!

I hate version number inflation.

And iOS is a fork of macOS, not the other way around.
Click to expand...

I know.

Version numbers were invented to convey important information.

Jobs proudly announced that the iPhone runs Mac OS X as one of the first things he said about it.

Neither of those things are true anymore, sadly.

Yes, technically it is a derivative of Mac OS. But from a feature standpoint, they make iOS first and then they port what they did to the Mac.

That's why I said technically. de facto, in practice, macOS has become subservient to iOS.
 
MacOS 14.5 broke the Take Screenshot action in the Shortcuts app. It acts like it's taking a screenshot, but then there is no result. Have they fixed it in this beta?
 
Realityck said:
They have their differences.
Click to expand...

You missed the point.

It was about the NAMES. Sonoma and Sequoia are going to be IMPOSSIBLE to keep track of, because the NAMES are too close.

The only real solution is to refer to version numbers and ignore the stupid names entirely. The name silliness started back when Apple was using internal code names, and picked big cats. They were never supposed to be public, but of course they leaked, and to sound cool and "in the know" journalists started using them. Apple marketing decided to take advantage of that, and started using the code names, even though that was never the intent. So in 10.2 the stupid code name ended up on the box.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back