Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I don’t disagree that there needs to be more focus on software quality (and hardware for that matter, but that’s another topic), but I don’t think any changes would necessarily be visible to us, being on the outside, unless you say Federighi has to go. There’s no SVP of Quality—but maybe there should be!?

Yes, making the focus on security and QA visible by adding a VP/SVP was something I thought of. It would show recognition of the problem. Visible hires below that level would also help to show some awareness.

Or splitting responsibilities of iOS and MacOS, just to make clear that they are really complex tasks and that both systems need individual measures. It would also help to highlight some of the measures taken to ensure state-of-the-art development processes for Apple's own apps and system components.

It's hard of thinking of Federighi being fired, as he comes across really sympathetic most of the time. OTH I remember his first presentation in this new role and I wondered if he's able to hate anything, including bugs, hackers, personnel issues, enough to fight them the hard way and thereby possibly risking his image.

We'll see. But I'd really don't want that trend of show-stopping mistakes, something many others see at Apple, too, at the moment, to continue. I still love what has been build at Apple so far, but I think unreflected focus on steadily rising revenue charts and new features to lure new customers might have some side effects that in the end will make customers leave and revenue fall off hard, if not corrected.

The focus, I mean. Apple's revenue numbers already seem to get corrected using all available means.
 
Last edited:
Wait, if the issue was fixed on the server side, why would it remain disabled on 12.1.3?

I suspect it was a combination of server-side and client-side that interacted to create this situation. I also suspect that the server-side fix was sufficient, but they have added additional sanity checks to the client-side app just to be extra safe.

Caller ----> Server ----> Recipient

With this bug, Caller adds their own phone number as a second recipient (essentially calling themselves) and that ended up triggering the server to acknowledge the calls for all recipients even without those recipients acknowledging.

The final fix is likely a stronger "handshake" between the client apps and the server.

I miss the days of Point-to-Point calls where there was no server in between. Skype used to operate like that, but then Microsoft took over and changed it back to a client-server setup.
[doublepost=1549254398][/doublepost]
I’m still curious how this huge flaw got past Apple’s famed quality control.

It's _possible_ that the bug was introduced at the last minute, by some final changes that never got scrutinized to the same degree as the public beta version. We don't really know, and Apple won't tell us.
 
Probably for a similar reason where Microsoft’s windows update, killed dhcp or deleted files. How did these bugs get past Microsoft’s famed quality control?
Bugs happen to every company of course, but this one had the potential to ruin lives/careers if the “hot mic” happened at the wrong time, so definitely one of the bigger ones for Apple.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.