Good idea in theory and in a bubble. But given that Apple operates in the real world and given that most typical users out there want something shiny and new it would be hard to do what you propose without alienating a lot of typical users in one way or another, and even after all that it still won't catch all issues and we'd be back here discussing the same things the next time something fails, which is bound to happen at some point.
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.
Apple Working on a Fix for iOS 9.3 Web Links Crashing Issue
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Apple has the ability to set and enact this policy from Tim and Craig as a top down directive... It chooses not to. That's a shame... and it's why we are where we are.
[doublepost=1459285009][/doublepost]
I was under the impression my comments were being dismissed by your post. If not, my apologies.
Yeah, because only 99% of the code changes in iOS 9.3 were for bug fixes and performance improvements. If they had devoted the time that went into the 1% of the code changes for new features also to bug fixes they would have fixed 100 instead of 99 bugs. This would have made such a huge difference.
Unfortunately, selling something with "NEW FEATURES!!!" trumps reliability at this point, and it has felled Apple.
It doesn't have to be a theory. Apple could do this if it wanted to. It chooses not to. So there it is....
[doublepost=1459285266][/doublepost]
I don't know what I would have done without Night Shift until now... I love having a screen look like a nicotine stained ashtray.
Sure, if you can anticipate every potential factor that could trigger bugs, you could write software without bugs.
I'm sorry, but your link proves my point.
-Directly from the Ars article you linked (one which I read yesterday)
"At this point, if you've installed the Booking.com app (or some other app that happens to misbehave in the same way) and that association file has already been downloaded, there's no sure-fire way to fix the problem That said, Booking.com has apparently fixed the list, so users who download the app now shouldn't run into the problem."
Booking.com fixed their app and the problem still exists for other apps with overly large files. Did their app expose this behavior in the Universal Links? Absolutely. The bug is in how overly large files are handled.
Additional evidence from 9to5:http://9to5mac.com/2016/03/29/apple-ios-9-crashing-bugs-when-tapping-links-fix-software-update/
"However, Booking.com is not the only case of a developer misusing the API, so people who continue to experience bugs will also find that they have other apps installed on the system which are also registering thousands of URLs. Unfortunately, it is practically impossible to find out which apps are the misdemeanours. In terms of high-profile cases, we have heard that Wikipedia and Eat 24 are among the apps registering too many domains in their universal link directory. Sources tell us that Apple is working with high-profile developers to help them understand and better use the universal links APIs. The forthcoming software update will presumably let iOS better handle huge payloads files, rather than just crashing on the spot."
And because Apple isn't run by a control freak that knows which part of the quarry his marble conference table came from, etc. It is a shame, but c'est la vie.
If you are involved in beta testing you could understand this better...
Apple is victim of its own success. There literally are hundreds of millions of iDevices out there, with different apps and settings combinations, working under different networks.
Bugs like this, affecting only a fraction of the user base, are very difficult to find.
Apple knows that, thus the public beta program trying to "hire" a larger number of beta testers.
But something could go wrong anyway.
Yet you are still claiming that fixing 100 instead of 99 bugs would have made such a difference.
Nah...I say keep the new stuff coming and hire a new wing of developers to address the bugs. Apple can afford it.
Apple needs to get back to that.
[doublepost=1459285534][/doublepost]
If this was the bug that was fixed, then yes, it would made a difference... But I'm still having trouble following your overall point.
They can do a lot of things, but they have a lot of things to consider and account for as they decide to do something. It's not as simple as it all sounds in theory.
There could be world peace if people just wanted and chose to do it. It's that simple, right?
Last edited:
Betas, even public betas, are exposed to a limited number of users.
Final release are exposed to hundreds of millions of people.
iOS 9.3 was kept in beta for months, it surely wasn't rushed out.
Ah... Got it, ok... Apple could develop perfect hardware products with software that executes perfectly under all conditions for all people. If it wanted to. Why stop there? How about perfect security? How about computers with warp drive? Sadly, in your world, it chooses not to.
I can tell you're not an engineer.
The overall point being that your claim that iOS would be so much better if it only had 900 instead of 901 bugs is ludicrous.
Seems like it might not have been. Plenty of things complex or simple have caused issues with all kinds of things in history with many not being anticipated or expected. We still have plenty of people sometimes walking around looking for their glasses all while they are wearing them to this very day. Stuff happens, as they say (substitute "stuff" with a more appropriate word there).
I'm not asking for perfect. I'm asking for better than this. I'm asking for better than 4+ days without being able to use Safari.
Your assumptions aside, you don't need to be an engineer to know the triangle: Fast/Cheap/Reliable (Pick Two)
Apple has unfortunately gone the Fast/Cheap route in my opinion... so reliability has suffered.
And while they can certainly do better (as most can), it doesn't mean that at some point we still wouldn't be in this type of situation nevertheless.
No, as wasn't the reason for any other bug shipped in software. If you could anticipate everything, there would be no bugs in shipping software. But as is more than evident, no software was ever or ever will be free from bugs or even anywhere near to free from bugs. So your point that Apple are idiots for not anticipating this bug is equal to saying that essentially every organisation shipping any kind of software are collective idiots. Maybe your are the smartest man in the universe and thus everybody else is an idiot in comparison. But, I'd say the chances for that are extremely slim.
... just to have someone else here complaining about the lack of features
I'm still running 9.2.0. Works perfectly and nothing Apple have offered in 9.3 interests me.
Will probably stay on iOS 9 even after 10 comes out.
Will probably stay on iOS 9 even after 10 comes out.
Stop with new features. Put the engineers/developers on reliability. That's simple.
[doublepost=1459286339][/doublepost]
... just to have someone else here complaining about the lack of features
At least they wouldn't be complaining that it doesn't work.
[doublepost=1459286417][/doublepost]
Exactly my point. More people than others think want reliability, not "NEW FEATURES!!!!"
And if reliability is crap, people won't uprade.
I've been using Macs for a very, very long time and I remember a humiliating system release called "7.5.3•" to fix a really bad bug in 7.5.3.
Bugs in Apple software are nothing new. Some versions are better than others but it tends to reflect more where they are in the product lifecycle than their capability of writing good software or their attention to software quality. Every time a bug is found in iOS or OS X we see the same "Apple is no longer the old Apple and they don't care about quality" and I think you're longing for an idealized Apple that never existed.
So, you think that is the first time in history that somebody was unable to use part of its software for a couple of days? Say a million people are unable to use Safari for a week. Would your reaction been any different if this bug had only affect 100'000 people? Because scaled to the whole software stack, such a reduction by a factor of ten of affected people is akin to 10x fewer bugs. Surely, if Apple could the number of bugs (or rather weighted bugs as in people-day-bugs) by such a factor that would count as a monumental achievement. But still it wouldn't have changed your personal experience and thus your personal opinion. Doesn't this show you your personal experience is not a reliable indicator for overall software quality?