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.
Downloads without permission
- Thread starter Tech198
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
By agreeing to the iOS End User Agreement (EULA) you acknowledge that you do not own iOS and that Apple can update or make changes to it at any time. I'm not sure what "permission" you are referring to. The only permission Apple needs from you is to actually INSTALL a new iOS.
Last edited:
Downloading something onto your device with it just taking up space and not actually doing anything isn't really updating or changing anything, simply taking away some free space that you have on your device. Thankfully they are finally allowing for it to be removed as of iOS 7, but it seems that there's still a bad usability case there for those who might be connected to a WiFi connection with limited data.
The point is, apple should not force downloads, it should be illegal. Think for a minute about where forced downloads that are passively accepted and not questioned or resisted might lead.
. I can see the update is there and I would like to download it when it suits me, not when it suits apple.
They might own the operating system, but I own my equipment, I bought it, I didn't lease it from Apple.
And so yes, they should need permission to download things onto my property.
Let's say for instance that a serious flaw is found in iOS that allows hackers to run malicious code that can destroy your Phone's internal hardware.
Apple puts out a critical patch in response.
You decide not to install this patch or decide you'll get around it to it and your phone is destroyed the following day from a breach.
is Apple held liable because they chose not to force the patch onto your device without your permission or are you responsible because you chose not to install it right away?
Everything can't be black and white.
Same applies to factory recalls of cars. I had a 1986 Nissan 300ZX back in the day and there was a recall because the fuel injectors were leaking gasoline
I took my car in immediately and Nissan replaced the defective injectors. who would be responsible if someone else received the letter, was contacted about the recall but decided to put it off and their car caught on fire and was totalled the following week?
Same thing applied to desktop computing for decades and yet people have control over what is downloaded or not. Why hasn't that same logic justified doing it that way there, as that is definitely a much more analogous example?Let's say for instance that a serious flaw is found in iOS that allows hackers to run malicious code that can destroy your Phone's internal hardware.
Apple puts out a critical patch in response.
You decide not to install this patch or decide you'll get around it to it and your phone is destroyed the following day from a breach.
is Apple held liable because they chose not to force the patch onto your device without your permission or are you responsible because you chose not to install it right away?
Everything can't be black and white.
Same applies to factory recalls of cars. I had a 1986 Nissan 300ZX back in the day and there was a recall because the fuel injectors were leaking gasoline
I took my car in immediately and Nissan replaced the defective injectors. who would be responsible if someone else received the letter, was contacted about the recall but decided to put it off and their car caught on fire and was totalled the following week?
As for even a less analogous example of a car recall notice, seems like that supports the argument for not automatically downloading. The recall was a notification and it was up to you to actually take your car to the dealer and have it repaired--you didn't wake up one day to find out that your car was already automatically taken to the dealer waiting there for you to agree to the repair (or alternatively, you didn't suddenly have a repair truck show up and park in front of your house just camping out waiting until you agree to make the repair).
Last edited:
I have encountered a glitch where my iPhone actually downloaded a 500 MByte app OTA. I was at work and hit "Update All" in the App store, and it correctly told me it couldn't update 1 of the apps unless I connected to wifi. I was on 4G and the whole update process (of the smaller apps) was going very slowly, so I put the phone into airplane mode in an attempt to get it back on LTE. When the signal came back, it did switch to LTE, and then proceeded to finish downloading ALL of my apps, including the huge one. I didn't really mind because I had enough reserve in my data plan, but I would have been really pissed off if I didn't.
Let's say for instance that a serious flaw is found in iOS that allows hackers to run malicious code that can destroy your Phone's internal hardware.
Apple puts out a critical patch in response.
You decide not to install this patch or decide you'll get around it to it and your phone is destroyed the following day from a breach.
is Apple held liable because they chose not to force the patch onto your device without your permission or are you responsible because you chose not to install it right away?
Everything can't be black and white.
Same applies to factory recalls of cars. I had a 1986 Nissan 300ZX back in the day and there was a recall because the fuel injectors were leaking gasoline
I took my car in immediately and Nissan replaced the defective injectors. who would be responsible if someone else received the letter, was contacted about the recall but decided to put it off and their car caught on fire and was totalled the following week?
So we need an Apple Nanny State?
If there is a crucial security patch I am not going to ignore it! And anyone who does needs to take responsibility for their consequences.
What did the forced download of the U2 album have to do with crucial security?
I think it was a test run, by Apple, to see how far they could stretch this. If they'd got a universal passive fanboy response, then the coast would be clear to force download anything they like. But it backfired, and Bono rightly apologised for the 'spam'.
Does this sound Big Brother paranoid? Apple is not your family, they don't care about you, they care about selling you stuff and making obscene profits, they force download so the can tell their shareholders that there is a record take-up of their new OS.
Our rights are being constantly eroded in the name of protecting us. Do we want to be 'protected' by self serving governments and big business? Or do we want to be informed, so we can make decisions and be responsible?
- Not everyone is technical like we are here. Someone like our parents or other family members may not understand the consequences of not installing a crucial update. Apple caters the most to this user base because it's products are easy to use.
- Your conspiracy theory of Apple doing a "test run" cost them $100 million dollars and us poor users suffered by receving a FREE U2 Album. (which I actually listen to).
- We live in a world where a packet of silicon designed to keep moisture out in a shoebox has to be labeled "DO NOT EAT" because people love the "I didn't know, they should have told me" card instead of using common sense or THINKING a little. Why would food come in a shoebox?