iOS 6 Users on Devices Able to Run iOS 7 Must Upgrade to Fix FaceTime

[B4U]

Image

Which would you rather take? If you really think the music player in iOS 7 is better, I almost feel sorry for you. The iOS 6 music app was near perfection and of course Apple tried to fix something that obviously wasn't broken with the iOS 7 version.

Guys would pick the left one because of the picture in the middle, I assume? Just kidding.
(Trying to loosen up the atmosphere)

 

[rolphi]

This is BS!!!!!!!! This is planed obsoletness at it's finest. I made the horrible mistake of upgrading my other iPhone 4 to ios 7 and litteraly made it so slow it was not worth using. IOS 6.1.3 was prefect god damn apple for this anti-consumer approach. I don't care if the iPhone 6 will be god's gift to mankind, I am going windows or android based phones....arrrrg

Honest question: Do you think you're going to get better treatment with Windows or Android based phones and OS updates?

----------

They don't have to re-engineer their update process if it was not so anal to begin with, by forcing a download and eat up chunks of storage space when they know the new OS is not optimized with the legacy device in mind.

On a side note, please refrain from deviating from the topic. The FaceTime issue is due to the signed certificate had expired. It is not rocket science to fix that and Apple had decided to neglect instead.
Either update the certificate or let 6.1.6 get on all iOS 6 devices instead of forcing 7 onto everyone.

Do you have particular knowledge on the technical hurdles involved to call this "not rocket science"? I do not, but I don't see how updating a certificate, getting all iOS 6 devices to 6.1.6 without re-engineering the update process or inventing a workaround could be considered easy.

From what I've read the certificate is there to validate that the security updates have been applied. You should not want to update the certificate without actually upgrading the OS and applying the security updates.

And you say neglect as if they've done nothing. Say that you disagree with their solution, but don't say they didn't provide one at all.

 

[Rogifan]

This is BS!!!!!!!! This is planed obsoletness at it's finest. I made the horrible mistake of upgrading my other iPhone 4 to ios 7 and litteraly made it so slow it was not worth using. IOS 6.1.3 was prefect god damn apple for this anti-consumer approach. I don't care if the iPhone 6 will be god's gift to mankind, I am going windows or android based phones....arrrrg

Oh well your loss.

----------

Image

Which would you rather take? If you really think the music player in iOS 7 is better, I almost feel sorry for you. The iOS 6 music app was near perfection and of course Apple tried to fix something that obviously wasn't broken with the iOS 7 version.

To be honest I don't use the iOS music app. I use Spotify and I love the new app they pushed out for iOS 7.

----------

No, they just have to make the latest iOS 6 work on devices that can run iOS 7. That is, remove whatever checks to make sure the iPhone can't run iOS 7. They already updated it for those people using old iPhones that can only go up to iOS 6… who are definitely in the minority.

Obviously that's easier said that done and/or Apple feels there aren't enough users in that situation to warrant spending time on it. If they were going to do it it would've been done by now. If Apple was really into planned obsolescence they wouldn't update older versions of iOS and would just tell people they need to buy new device that runs iOS 7.

 

[melendezest]

The security certificates are renewed. Apple put in the work to do this. They even provided the solution free of charge and really easy to do. It's called update to iOS 7. Because you want a different free solution doesn't mean they did not provide one.

Anyone who disagrees with you is an apologist? I would like to know if your argument passes logic and reasonableness tests. If it doesn't, then calling you out on it is not apologizing for Apple. I empathize with you. From reading your posts, you feel you are in the right, so your arguments should carry the day regardless if they are good arguments. Unfortunately that is not enough.

Make an argument why Apple is morally, ethically, commercially, logically, or reasonably obligated to go to lengths to provide you with a different free solution because you don't like theirs. Make it a good argument. You feel you are right, I can tell. Put this into an argument that holds water.


You say "no matter what" like you know that those disagreeing with you are completely without merit and yet speaking out against you.

So, if you would indulge me, answer some questions. In your opinion is it even possible for Apple to be right in this situation? Is it possible to be right in any situation where consumers disagree with them? How do you draw the line then for when Apple should be defended because they are right? What evidence would it take for you to believe that Apple is in the right? What arguments about reasonableness in situations could persuade you that Apple is in the right?

If you answer that Apple cannot be right, and that no evidence or arguments could exist that could persuade you, then I'm afraid it is you who is being dogmatic and arguing "no matter what."

First off, I don't take anything here personally (I couldn't care less).

It also sounds like you already made up your mind, regardless of how I answer.

However, I feel like indulging you.

The argument against Apple here holds water. But too many here love to tip the bucket everytime someone fills it up while whistling their favorite cheerleading tune. And yes, I mean every.freaking.time. My argument was simple, and addressing the aforementioned apologists's attitudes.

Upgrading is not a solution to the issue. It is a change to a different product. If the customer chose the former, but not the latter, why should he settle? In what world is it right for the customer to bend over backwards for the merchant? According to the apologists here: in Apple's world, that's where.

Now, to your questions:

1. No, I feel Apple is wrong in this situation. Period. This is because Apple has a. the capability to restore the lost functionality and b. they are choosing not to. I simply disagree with their reasoning. I understand why they are doing it (it's business after all).

2. I don't understand your question, based on how you framed it. If you're asking if it is possible for Apple to be right in any situation where consumers disagree with them, then I say yes, it is possible. I try not to make blanket judgements even if that is what you are expecting (based on your tone). Anything's possible. But that is only true if you choose to see the situation from Apple's point of view. I don't work for Apple, I don't own their shares, I don't benefit financially from their success. As such, I default to "the customer is always right" (although, as always, there are exceptions).

3. Again, Apple is the entity, I am the customer. What is "good" and "right" for Apple may or may not be good for me. This is true of all things. So, I draw the line on a "case by case" basis, but again, I default to the customer's side of things, not the entity's. You can replace Apple in the argument with say, the government, and you may begin to understand what I'm getting at.

4., 5. Why would I want to do that? I mean, if a customer feels injured by the entity, why take the entity's side? It's an act of blaming the victim. I simply must exclude the accused first, not the victim. That said, here's an example relevant to this situation where Apple could be right:

Customer: Apple, my Facetime doesn't work anymore on iOS 6, can you fix it?
Apple: No, it is not possible for us to maintain that fuctionality. We are too small a company and cannot afford to support it. Given the small scale of our operation, we can support it only if you upgrade to the latest OS version.
Customer: I see.

However, the above does not reflect reality. Apple is flush with cash. They're more popular than ever. To remove advertised funtionality on a device based on a seemingly arbitrary, unpredictable, and artificial expiration date is BS. The fact that they can fix it but choose not to is BS. But hey, it's good for them. F you, customer. Suck it, and upgrade to an OS you don't like, so you can continue to do what you could on the OS you did like. Ridiculous.

 

[Dave.UK]

Honest question: Do you think you're going to get better treatment with Windows or Android based phones and OS updates?

I thought it had been established by now that Android updates are carried out in a different way to ios.

To get all the latest app updates with ios, the entire OS has to be updated.

With Android, the apps are updated separately, so if your handset is no longer receiving an OS update, you can still run all the latest apps.

 

[Menneisyys2]

Honest question: Do you think you're going to get better treatment with Windows or Android based phones and OS updates?

Windows: not at all worse thn iOS. Android: not as good (unless it's a pure Nexus device).

In neither case are you forced to upgrade, though - unlike with iOS. Which is a big advantage.

----------

First off, I don't take anything here personally (I couldn't care less).

It also sounds like you already made up your mind, regardless of how I answer.

However, I feel like indulging you.

The argument against Apple here holds water. But too many here love to tip the bucket everytime someone fills it up while whistling their favorite cheerleading tune. And yes, I mean every.freaking.time. My argument was simple, and addressing the aforementioned apologists's attitudes.

Upgrading is not a solution to the issue. It is a change to a different product. If the customer chose the former, but not the latter, why should he settle? In what world is it right for the customer to bend over backwards for the merchant? According to the apologists here: in Apple's world, that's where.

Now, to your questions:

1. No, I feel Apple is wrong in this situation. Period. This is because Apple has a. the capability to restore the lost functionality and b. they are choosing not to. I simply disagree with their reasoning. I understand why they are doing it (it's business after all).

2. I don't understand your question, based on how you framed it. If you're asking if it is possible for Apple to be right in any situation where consumers disagree with them, then I say yes, it is possible. I try not to make blanket judgements even if that is what you are expecting (based on your tone). Anything's possible. But that is only true if you choose to see the situation from Apple's point of view. I don't work for Apple, I don't own their shares, I don't benefit financially from their success. As such, I default to "the customer is always right" (although, as always, there are exceptions).

3. Again, Apple is the entity, I am the customer. What is "good" and "right" for Apple may or may not be good for me. This is true of all things. So, I draw the line on a "case by case" basis, but again, I default to the customer's side of things, not the entity's. You can replace Apple in the argument with say, the government, and you may begin to understand what I'm getting at.

4., 5. Why would I want to do that? I mean, if a customer feels injured by the entity, why take the entity's side? It's an act of blaming the victim. I simply must exclude the accused first, not the victim. That said, here's an example relevant to this situation where Apple could be right:

Customer: Apple, my Facetime doesn't work anymore on iOS 6, can you fix it?
Apple: No, it is not possible for us to maintain that fuctionality. We are too small a company and cannot afford to support it. Given the small scale of our operation, we can support it only if you upgrade to the latest OS version.
Customer: I see.

However, the above does not reflect reality. Apple is flush with cash. They're more popular than ever. To remove advertised funtionality on a device based on a seemingly arbitrary, unpredictable, and artificial expiration date is BS. The fact that they can fix it but choose not to is BS. But hey, it's good for them. F you, customer. Suck it, and upgrade to an OS you don't like, so you can continue to do what you could on the OS you did like. Ridiculous.

Agreed with your post- and particularly with your tagline (another 17" fan here).

 

[parajba]

iOS 6 Users on Devices Able to Run iOS 7 Must Upgrade to Fix FaceTime

Thanks for kind replies - so looks like iOS 7.1.1 runs fine on older iphone 4 phones. Will install and report back. What's the recommended method (from a performance point of view - is one method delivering a faster / more responsive phone). Download the upgrade from the iPhone Settings' menu or via iTunes?

 

[CausticPuppy]

There are plenty of people (some who I know personally) that are running iOS 7 just fine on an older device. So Apple right now must re-engineer their iOS software update process to support what most likely is a small minority of iOS users? As I said before I'd rather the software engineers focus their time on what needs to be ready for WWDC. And if this small number of users are so upset then flood Tim Cook and Phil Schiller's email/Twitter accounts with complaints. Or get a lawyer and sue Apple.

Oh and I'll take the iOS 7 icons over this any day.

Image

They won't re-engineer their process, but it definitely shows there's a disadvantage to having all the core apps inseparable from the OS. They fixed FaceTime on Snow Leopard because FaceTime is a separate app. FaceTime is arbitrarily bundled with iOS though and for some reason cannot be updated separately even though the core underlying OS is the same.

 

[Rogifan]

They won't re-engineer their process, but it definitely shows there's a disadvantage to having all the core apps inseparable from the OS. They fixed FaceTime on Snow Leopard because FaceTime is a separate app. FaceTime is arbitrarily bundled with iOS though and for some reason cannot be updated separately even though the core underlying OS is the same.

I'd like to see the core apps separated from the OS and updated/improved on a more frequent basis. Unfortunately I doubt we'll ever see that.

 

[parajba]

Thanks for kind replies - so looks like iOS 7.1.1 runs fine on older iphone 4 phones. Will install and report back. What's the recommended method (from a performance point of view - is one method delivering a faster / more responsive phone). Download the upgrade from the iPhone Settings' menu or via iTunes?

Just upgraded via iTunes, it's absolutely fine on my iphone 4. Honestly. Thanks all!

 

[NT1440]

Everywhere across the board?

Everywhere that that supports the dynamic text feature of the OS. Meaning, almost everyone in the system, and everywhere that developers did their homework. Apple stressed the adoption of dynamic text in iOS 7 apps at WWDC as it's part of their ongoing push to ensure that iOS is the most accessible mobile phone operating system out there.

 

[PracticalMac]

For the people so upset by this then I guess their next phone won't be an iPhone.

And are you happy with this?
iPhone sales have basically stagnated as Android models enjoy double digit growth.

iTunes is also loosing its prominence in word with competition from other sources.

While keeping 100% of the customers happy is impossible, one cant dismiss those unhappy ones.

 

[B4U]

Honest question: Do you think you're going to get better treatment with Windows or Android based phones and OS updates?

----------



Do you have particular knowledge on the technical hurdles involved to call this "not rocket science"? I do not, but I don't see how updating a certificate, getting all iOS 6 devices to 6.1.6 without re-engineering the update process or inventing a workaround could be considered easy.

From what I've read the certificate is there to validate that the security updates have been applied. You should not want to update the certificate without actually upgrading the OS and applying the security updates.

And you say neglect as if they've done nothing. Say that you disagree with their solution, but don't say they didn't provide one at all.

Let's put it this way: Their solution is unacceptable by making the device essentially unusable.
They could offer another solution: Get other apps that can do the same thing.

Like I said before, they are the one that made the update process so anal, not its users.
If they think that their software are bug free, they are kidding themselves.
If they made the "security updates" to 6.1.6 for the iPod touch 4th gen only, they could simply apply said fix to devices on 6.1.3 or whatever but they have decided to neglect.
Again, they sold the device with highlight to certain features and taking it away because they screwed up is what I call bait and switch.

----------

First off, I don't take anything here personally (I couldn't care less).

It also sounds like you already made up your mind, regardless of how I answer.

However, I feel like indulging you.

The argument against Apple here holds water. But too many here love to tip the bucket everytime someone fills it up while whistling their favorite cheerleading tune. And yes, I mean every.freaking.time. My argument was simple, and addressing the aforementioned apologists's attitudes.

Upgrading is not a solution to the issue. It is a change to a different product. If the customer chose the former, but not the latter, why should he settle? In what world is it right for the customer to bend over backwards for the merchant? According to the apologists here: in Apple's world, that's where.

Now, to your questions:

1. No, I feel Apple is wrong in this situation. Period. This is because Apple has a. the capability to restore the lost functionality and b. they are choosing not to. I simply disagree with their reasoning. I understand why they are doing it (it's business after all).

2. I don't understand your question, based on how you framed it. If you're asking if it is possible for Apple to be right in any situation where consumers disagree with them, then I say yes, it is possible. I try not to make blanket judgements even if that is what you are expecting (based on your tone). Anything's possible. But that is only true if you choose to see the situation from Apple's point of view. I don't work for Apple, I don't own their shares, I don't benefit financially from their success. As such, I default to "the customer is always right" (although, as always, there are exceptions).

3. Again, Apple is the entity, I am the customer. What is "good" and "right" for Apple may or may not be good for me. This is true of all things. So, I draw the line on a "case by case" basis, but again, I default to the customer's side of things, not the entity's. You can replace Apple in the argument with say, the government, and you may begin to understand what I'm getting at.

4., 5. Why would I want to do that? I mean, if a customer feels injured by the entity, why take the entity's side? It's an act of blaming the victim. I simply must exclude the accused first, not the victim. That said, here's an example relevant to this situation where Apple could be right:

Customer: Apple, my Facetime doesn't work anymore on iOS 6, can you fix it?
Apple: No, it is not possible for us to maintain that fuctionality. We are too small a company and cannot afford to support it. Given the small scale of our operation, we can support it only if you upgrade to the latest OS version.
Customer: I see.

However, the above does not reflect reality. Apple is flush with cash. They're more popular than ever. To remove advertised funtionality on a device based on a seemingly arbitrary, unpredictable, and artificial expiration date is BS. The fact that they can fix it but choose not to is BS. But hey, it's good for them. F you, customer. Suck it, and upgrade to an OS you don't like, so you can continue to do what you could on the OS you did like. Ridiculous.

Reading your comment is like love at first sight for me.

 

[Avenged110]

Do the few remaining people clinging to iOS 6, boycotting 7, expect iOS 8 to not be the same as 7 in terms of design? If so, they need to rethink and decide to either embrace change or move to another device.

No, I expect iOS 8 to be exactly the same. But why is sticking with my device not considered an option? It's like people expect you have to upgrade after two years, but like these devices keep working for a long time. Services may shut down but whatever, I hardly use them anyway. Just throwing that out there.

 

[diegogaja]

Nope. No false statements. Basically my point was that making an argument based solely on a subjective opinion as if it's a fact.

And I didn't curse. 'Damn' isn't a curse word. Maybe another different of opinion?

I don't get it. All you did was just make a false statement then curse.

 

[sha4000]

I don't post a lot since I just like to search and read the hilarious comments. I always feel like I'm back in middle school and that's not a good thing!

 

[rolphi]

First off, I don't take anything here personally (I couldn't care less).

It also sounds like you already made up your mind, regardless of how I answer.

However, I feel like indulging you.

The argument against Apple here holds water. But too many here love to tip the bucket everytime someone fills it up while whistling their favorite cheerleading tune. And yes, I mean every.freaking.time. My argument was simple, and addressing the aforementioned apologists's attitudes.

Upgrading is not a solution to the issue. It is a change to a different product. If the customer chose the former, but not the latter, why should he settle? In what world is it right for the customer to bend over backwards for the merchant? According to the apologists here: in Apple's world, that's where.

Now, to your questions:

1. No, I feel Apple is wrong in this situation. Period. This is because Apple has a. the capability to restore the lost functionality and b. they are choosing not to. I simply disagree with their reasoning. I understand why they are doing it (it's business after all).

2. I don't understand your question, based on how you framed it. If you're asking if it is possible for Apple to be right in any situation where consumers disagree with them, then I say yes, it is possible. I try not to make blanket judgements even if that is what you are expecting (based on your tone). Anything's possible. But that is only true if you choose to see the situation from Apple's point of view. I don't work for Apple, I don't own their shares, I don't benefit financially from their success. As such, I default to "the customer is always right" (although, as always, there are exceptions).

3. Again, Apple is the entity, I am the customer. What is "good" and "right" for Apple may or may not be good for me. This is true of all things. So, I draw the line on a "case by case" basis, but again, I default to the customer's side of things, not the entity's. You can replace Apple in the argument with say, the government, and you may begin to understand what I'm getting at.

4., 5. Why would I want to do that? I mean, if a customer feels injured by the entity, why take the entity's side? It's an act of blaming the victim. I simply must exclude the accused first, not the victim. That said, here's an example relevant to this situation where Apple could be right:

Customer: Apple, my Facetime doesn't work anymore on iOS 6, can you fix it?
Apple: No, it is not possible for us to maintain that fuctionality. We are too small a company and cannot afford to support it. Given the small scale of our operation, we can support it only if you upgrade to the latest OS version.
Customer: I see.

However, the above does not reflect reality. Apple is flush with cash. They're more popular than ever. To remove advertised funtionality on a device based on a seemingly arbitrary, unpredictable, and artificial expiration date is BS. The fact that they can fix it but choose not to is BS. But hey, it's good for them. F you, customer. Suck it, and upgrade to an OS you don't like, so you can continue to do what you could on the OS you did like. Ridiculous.

Thanks you for the civil response. I think it's interesting you think I've made up my mind. When I look back at my posts, I think it's clear that I am seeking what facts we know (separate from opinions) and what arguments there are for both sides. Until yours, I had not read anything that seemed close to a rational argument on the consumers' side. There were a lot of personal attacks, whining, swearing, exaggeration, and crocodile tears. It also appeared that the only points on the consumers' side were aesthetics based, which would be difficult to prosecute.

So now we're left with finer points. You claim that they "removed functionality" based on "arbitrary dates". If that were actually the case, I would be behind you 100% begging for torches and pitchforks. However, I don't think this is what happened.

Here is an analogy: my apartment complex uses a key fob/lock system to control access to the community pool. They replace the lock system because the old one was compromised and tell all the residents to stop by the office for a free replacement fob. A resident refuses to get the new fob claiming they preferred the color scheme of the old fob. That resident then complains that the office has removed a feature that they used. Did the office "remove functionality" in this case?

Second point on this. This was not arbitrary, as it was a security system. Proper security requires certificates to expire. There is no getting around this. Whatever they set that date to will seem arbitrary to you, but there is no other choice. Apple is providing an internet based shared service that connects your phone to other users' phones. It is Apple's priority responsibility to make sure that everyone using that service has the latest security patches.

I believe we have reports that FaceTime will continue to let you connect to another user who has not updated to the latest iOS. So it is, in fact, everyone else's patched phone that is rejecting a connection with the unpatched phone. I said this was a fine point, but it seems like Apple has taken nothing away, rather, everyone you want to connect to is rejecting your unsecured phone.

So I normally side with the consumer in most issues. I would like to side with consumers on this one. However, it seems like the key argument is that a very small percentage of users want Apple to either: A. disregard good security practices, B. spend a lot of time and money to re-engineer an otherwise perfectly functional update system, C. invent a way to update how the phone in their pocket updates without updating it to iOS7, D. make a widespread change to all users of iOS6 that could upgrade to iOS7 that for some unspecified amount of time will not push an upgrade them to iOS7. All of this for what appear to be aesthetics reasons.

Next, another fine point, is that Apple did not sell you iOS6 as a separate product. They sold you an iPhone, and as they were selling it to you, they told you that their 7 year consistent policy has been that some bug fixes will only be handled by upgrading to the latest iOS. At that point you could have returned your phone for a full refund. Whether or not this is how desktop OSs are supported is irrelevant. How other mobile OSs do this seem slightly more relevant, as it could indicate industry standard practice, but in this case both Android and Windows Phone have the same policy!

Lastly, some folks have brought up consumer protection laws. I am just curious though how it works when the company, Apple, does provide a free and easy solution to the problem consistent with their long standing policies. How much is a consumer harmed because they are rejecting a free and easy solution because they would prefer another free and easy solution, based solely on an expectation that they had not been promised at any point in time? Seriously, that would be an interesting move by a consumer protection board, because it would say that any customer at any time can reject a proposed solution for any reason, and the company is still at fault! Far reaching consequences for that one, I would think.

So no, I haven't made up mind already. I am not defending Apple, no matter what. I am trying to understand the issue. But I think a reasonable person would have trouble siding with consumers in this case. Do I feel bad for them? Yes. I wish I could wave a magic wand and make all their troubles go away.

It does trouble me that you consider Apple and our governments as similar though and should be treated similarly. That is deeply troubling indeed.

 

[C DM]

Thanks you for the civil response. I think it's interesting you think I've made up my mind. When I look back at my posts, I think it's clear that I am seeking what facts we know (separate from opinions) and what arguments there are for both sides. Until yours, I had not read anything that seemed close to a rational argument on the consumers' side. There were a lot of personal attacks, whining, swearing, exaggeration, and crocodile tears. It also appeared that the only points on the consumers' side were aesthetics based, which would be difficult to prosecute.

So now we're left with finer points. You claim that they "removed functionality" based on "arbitrary dates". If that were actually the case, I would be behind you 100% begging for torches and pitchforks. However, I don't think this is what happened.

Here is an analogy: my apartment complex uses a key fob/lock system to control access to the community pool. They replace the lock system because the old one was compromised and tell all the residents to stop by the office for a free replacement fob. A resident refuses to get the new fob claiming they preferred the color scheme of the old fob. That resident then complains that the office has removed a feature that they used. Did the office "remove functionality" in this case?

Second point on this. This was not arbitrary, as it was a security system. Proper security requires certificates to expire. There is no getting around this. Whatever they set that date to will seem arbitrary to you, but there is no other choice. Apple is providing an internet based shared service that connects your phone to other users' phones. It is Apple's priority responsibility to make sure that everyone using that service has the latest security patches.

I believe we have reports that FaceTime will continue to let you connect to another user who has not updated to the latest iOS. So it is, in fact, everyone else's patched phone that is rejecting a connection with the unpatched phone. I said this was a fine point, but it seems like Apple has taken nothing away, rather, everyone you want to connect to is rejecting your unsecured phone.

So I normally side with the consumer in most issues. I would like to side with consumers on this one. However, it seems like the key argument is that a very small percentage of users want Apple to either: A. disregard good security practices, B. spend a lot of time and money to re-engineer an otherwise perfectly functional update system, C. invent a way to update how the phone in their pocket updates without updating it to iOS7, D. make a widespread change to all users of iOS6 that could upgrade to iOS7 that for some unspecified amount of time will not push an upgrade them to iOS7. All of this for what appear to be aesthetics reasons.

Next, another fine point, is that Apple did not sell you iOS6 as a separate product. They sold you an iPhone, and as they were selling it to you, they told you that their 7 year consistent policy has been that some bug fixes will only be handled by upgrading to the latest iOS. At that point you could have returned your phone for a full refund. Whether or not this is how desktop OSs are supported is irrelevant. How other mobile OSs do this seem slightly more relevant, as it could indicate industry standard practice, but in this case both Android and Windows Phone have the same policy!

Lastly, some folks have brought up consumer protection laws. I am just curious though how it works when the company, Apple, does provide a free and easy solution to the problem consistent with their long standing policies. How much is a consumer harmed because they are rejecting a free and easy solution because they would prefer another free and easy solution, based solely on an expectation that they had not been promised at any point in time? Seriously, that would be an interesting move by a consumer protection board, because it would say that any customer at any time can reject a proposed solution for any reason, and the company is still at fault! Far reaching consequences for that one, I would think.

So no, I haven't made up mind already. I am not defending Apple, no matter what. I am trying to understand the issue. But I think a reasonable person would have trouble siding with consumers in this case. Do I feel bad for them? Yes. I wish I could wave a magic wand and make all their troubles go away.

It does trouble me that you consider Apple and our governments as similar though and should be treated similarly. That is deeply troubling indeed.

By far not everyone argued aesthetics or anything like that. In fact the whole justification as to why iOS 7 is better or worse is actually irrelevant to all of this, which a lot of people overlook either on purpose or not. It doesn't matter if it's better or worse, the only thing that plays a role is that it's different from what you had on your phone and you are being told that in order to get your phone back in working state you need to switch to it too. You didn't cause anything to break and yet to fix it you have to change a whole lot more to it than just that what was broken. Furthermore, the fix for your OS exists and is given to others, just not you becuse you can update to the new version and just because of that you would need to do it to get the fix rather than getting the existing fix that is offered to others simply because they can't update to the latest version.

 

[biocide]

I am also waiting for the flood of entitled people who refuse to upgrade to iOS7 for x,y,z reason to start complaining.

It strikes me as really strange that some people feel that the problem here is not about Apple – how on earth can this problem be so difficult to fix that it requires an upgrade from the users? – but about iOS users who prefer to stay on iOS 6. If we were talking about iOS 4, fine. But this is last year's operating system. If this was Android or Microsoft... I kinda don't see the same comments coming, for some reason.

As for me, I'm using facetime on my iPhone 4S running iOS 7.1.1 (this is the first version of iOS 7 that gives me a workable phone, btw). I've also been using it on my jailbroken iPad 3 that still runs beautifully on iOS 6. Will I miss facetime on my pad? Sure. Will I miss it enough to upgrade to that hideous, buggy and slow abomination they call the iOS 7? NO ********** WAY.

 

[melendezest]

Thanks you for the civil response. I think it's interesting you think I've made up my mind. When I look back at my posts, I think it's clear that I am seeking what facts we know (separate from opinions) and what arguments there are for both sides. Until yours, I had not read anything that seemed close to a rational argument on the consumers' side. There were a lot of personal attacks, whining, swearing, exaggeration, and crocodile tears. It also appeared that the only points on the consumers' side were aesthetics based, which would be difficult to prosecute.

So now we're left with finer points. You claim that they "removed functionality" based on "arbitrary dates". If that were actually the case, I would be behind you 100% begging for torches and pitchforks. However, I don't think this is what happened.

Here is an analogy: my apartment complex uses a key fob/lock system to control access to the community pool. They replace the lock system because the old one was compromised and tell all the residents to stop by the office for a free replacement fob. A resident refuses to get the new fob claiming they preferred the color scheme of the old fob. That resident then complains that the office has removed a feature that they used. Did the office "remove functionality" in this case?

Second point on this. This was not arbitrary, as it was a security system. Proper security requires certificates to expire. There is no getting around this. Whatever they set that date to will seem arbitrary to you, but there is no other choice. Apple is providing an internet based shared service that connects your phone to other users' phones. It is Apple's priority responsibility to make sure that everyone using that service has the latest security patches.

I believe we have reports that FaceTime will continue to let you connect to another user who has not updated to the latest iOS. So it is, in fact, everyone else's patched phone that is rejecting a connection with the unpatched phone. I said this was a fine point, but it seems like Apple has taken nothing away, rather, everyone you want to connect to is rejecting your unsecured phone.

So I normally side with the consumer in most issues. I would like to side with consumers on this one. However, it seems like the key argument is that a very small percentage of users want Apple to either: A. disregard good security practices, B. spend a lot of time and money to re-engineer an otherwise perfectly functional update system, C. invent a way to update how the phone in their pocket updates without updating it to iOS7, D. make a widespread change to all users of iOS6 that could upgrade to iOS7 that for some unspecified amount of time will not push an upgrade them to iOS7. All of this for what appear to be aesthetics reasons.

Next, another fine point, is that Apple did not sell you iOS6 as a separate product. They sold you an iPhone, and as they were selling it to you, they told you that their 7 year consistent policy has been that some bug fixes will only be handled by upgrading to the latest iOS. At that point you could have returned your phone for a full refund. Whether or not this is how desktop OSs are supported is irrelevant. How other mobile OSs do this seem slightly more relevant, as it could indicate industry standard practice, but in this case both Android and Windows Phone have the same policy!

Lastly, some folks have brought up consumer protection laws. I am just curious though how it works when the company, Apple, does provide a free and easy solution to the problem consistent with their long standing policies. How much is a consumer harmed because they are rejecting a free and easy solution because they would prefer another free and easy solution, based solely on an expectation that they had not been promised at any point in time? Seriously, that would be an interesting move by a consumer protection board, because it would say that any customer at any time can reject a proposed solution for any reason, and the company is still at fault! Far reaching consequences for that one, I would think.

So no, I haven't made up mind already. I am not defending Apple, no matter what. I am trying to understand the issue. But I think a reasonable person would have trouble siding with consumers in this case. Do I feel bad for them? Yes. I wish I could wave a magic wand and make all their troubles go away.

It does trouble me that you consider Apple and our governments as similar though and should be treated similarly. That is deeply troubling indeed.

Fair arguments all.

However, my disagreement with Apple centers on what they can and cannot do.

Could they fix the issue without forcing users to "upgrade"? Yes.

Why not fix it? I don't know for sure (and they're not saying outright), so this opens them up for all kinds of speculation (both reasonable and unreasonable). But the perception from the affected customer here is going to be negative. Why? Because those who wanted to "upgrade" did so already. Whatever the reason for the customer not upgrading, Apple is dismissing it as not valid. That is not customer-centric business, but Apple-centric. I can see it clearly, and so do many here.

The real differentiator between the iPhone and any other phone is the OS. People don't just buy the hardware alone. The experience is provided by the OS. So, with iOS 7, Apple is killing its former OS and releasing a new one, similar to what MSoft did with Windows 8 (but support for the previous OS is not dead in that case).

I chose the iPhone over all other existing phones because of its OS (primarily). That is the crux of the issue. Apple is removing that choice less than a year after purchase and well past the return-date! It doesn't matter if the new OS is more popular, or if others find it better. I didn't buy that OS. I don't like it. I now am stuck with the new one, which I hate, because of Apple. This is not my fault; I did nothing except choose Apple's phone over all others. Big, expensive mistake. Had I known, I'd have picked Android or WinPhone over iPhone, with my eyes closed (and I did; my work offered to trade my work 4s for an S4 and I jumped at it, and 3 mo later I'm glad I did).

So Apple is forcing me to change to an OS I don't like. Period. That is flat out, inexcusably wrong. So after less than a year, the phone I bought is unpleasant for me to use, and now, not even fully functional because of Apple's policy? Really?!

The fact that this may be in the EULA (I haven't looked) is irrelevant. The policy (or whatever you want to call it) is not customer-centric. This is why I will never go back to iPhone/iPad, no matter how nice their devices become. Now I know. Silly me for not previously reading the fine print and relying on sound logic instead. Silly me for assuming the iPhone/iPad would be treated like the Mac, where I have the choice to stay on the OS version I like without being forced to upgrade and without fuctionality lost out of the blue.

The moment that Apple migrates this policy to their Mac side, is the moment me and Apple are done. No one will force upon me the software I am to run on the hardware I purchase. I was willing to accept that (to a certain extent) as long as me and Apple were in sync. That is no longer the case. I'm already looking for alternatives, just in case. I believe this all to be a foolish mistake on Apple's part.

And this is also my problem with the apologists. They disregard the individual user because the issue doesn't affect them, just like Apple. "If you don't like our OS, there's something wrong with you. Upgrade already!!". Please. I'd love to see how they like it when they're on the receiving end of issues such as this.

Now I am wondering if it's always been like this. If it took iOS 7 to open my eyes and see that the company I "loved" has been screwed up longer than I thought, but I didn't notice because we were in syc, and I didn't "depend" on them. I wonder if the guys that were evangelizing xserves felt the same way when Apple, without warning, discontinued them. Or when the Mac Pro came out and, radical and innovative and beautiful as it is, broke the existing infrastructure since Apple did not release it alongside a more "conventional" one that fit existing MP users setups better.

Sigh. This is a worst-case scenario of the "walled-garden" going horribly wrong.

Like I said before: freedom over security. Every time.

 

[Rogifan]

And are you happy with this?
iPhone sales have basically stagnated as Android models enjoy double digit growth.

iTunes is also loosing its prominence in word with competition from other sources.

While keeping 100% of the customers happy is impossible, one cant dismiss those unhappy ones.

This past quarter iPhone unit sales were up 17% YOY. http://images.apple.com/pr/pdf/q2fy14datasum.pdf
I don't think Apple will have a problem replacing the minority of unhappy customers, especially when they introduce a larger phone.

 

[rolphi]

So Apple is forcing me to change to an OS I don't like. Period. That is flat out, inexcusably wrong.

We'll have to disagree there.

I was willing to accept that (to a certain extent) as long as me and Apple were in sync. That is no longer the case. I'm already looking for alternatives, just in case.

And this is also my problem with the apologists. They disregard the individual user because the issue doesn't affect them, just like Apple. I'd love to see how they like it when they're on the receiving end of issues such as this.

But you are making it so that everyone is either with you, or a fanboy apologist. I don't think I am either, and I don't like being called names.

Now I am wondering if it's always been like this. If it took iOS 7 to open my eyes and see that the company I "loved" has been screwed up longer than I thought, but I didn't notice because we were in syc, and I didn't "depend" on them. I wonder if the guys that were evangelizing xserves felt the same way when Apple, without warning, discontinued them. Or when the Mac Pro came out and, radical and innovative and beautiful as it is, broke the existing infrastructure since Apple did not release it alongside a more "conventional" one that fit existing MP users setups better.

Yes, it has always been like this. If it took this situation for you to realize it, then at least some good has occurred. My unsolicited advice is that you should only ever give your business to a company as long as you are in sync. Loving them is as bad as irrationally hating them. I assure you they do not return either emotion.

Assume they could change at any moment for any reason, and then be willing to walk. But my only warning is that you should not put false hope in the other electronics companies out there. They are all like this.

 

[aggri1]

I sympathise with that situation, but you are using a machine between 10 and 14 years old. You would have to expect at some point to not be able to rely on support for the latest versions of software. You've come to the end of the upgrade path line for your PowerPC based Mac.

The heart of the problem is that iOS 7 needs a version of iTunes that your desktop tower doesn't support. I don't think anyone needs to try to be an apologist to say that you couldn't expect much more from Apple there. That's 14 years of supporting your machine.

That's one way of looking at it, though the lack of support for a 2003 G4 isn't why I'm bothered. What does annoy me is that I bought a product only three years ago (the phone), and now they're removing capabilities from it... As far as I am concerned, such an expensive thing as an Apple smartphone should work as it was sold for more than three years. I guess some people just have lower expectations.

 

[Paddle1]

It strikes me as really strange that some people feel that the problem here is not about Apple – how on earth can this problem be so difficult to fix that it requires an upgrade from the users? – but about iOS users who prefer to stay on iOS 6. If we were talking about iOS 4, fine. But this is last year's operating system. If this was Android or Microsoft... I kinda don't see the same comments coming, for some reason.

As for me, I'm using facetime on my iPhone 4S running iOS 7.1.1 (this is the first version of iOS 7 that gives me a workable phone, btw). I've also been using it on my jailbroken iPad 3 that still runs beautifully on iOS 6. Will I miss facetime on my pad? Sure. Will I miss it enough to upgrade to that hideous, buggy and slow abomination they call the iOS 7? NO ********** WAY.

Last year? iOS 6 was first shown in June 2012.

 

[Menneisyys2]

We'll have to disagree there.

The biggest problem with Apple is their forcing people to upgrade by:

- forced upgrades upon any kind of restores or device repairs / exchanges, including, for example, the latest iPhone 5 power button repairs

- Apple's not willing to release for example renewed certificates for Facetime for "old" OS'es.

This is we, power users, are really disgruntled. Some of us don't want to upgrade because:
- we want to keep our jailbreaks (Apple still refuses to include essential features like f.lux-likes in iOS so JB'ing is essential)
- some of our legacy apps don't work properly on iOS7 (an example from my practice: ooPlayer, the fav radio app of my wife. It doesn't handle recordings under iOS7 properly; this is why I haven't upgraded one of my iPad 2's so that my wife can still listen to stations with unlimited recording capabilities).
- some of essential JB tweaks don't work on iOS7 - for example, Safari full screen tweaks. (Apple refuses to provide us with full screen Safari on iOS7 and none of the previous, iOS6-compliant Safari full screen tweaks work under iOS7.)
- we just prefer the look-and-feel of iOS6
- removed functionality by Apple (see true 60fps recording in the iPhone 4S under iOS5 later removed by Apple to force 4S users to upgrade to a newer iPhone model - thread)
- etc.

Let me point out again that neither Google nor Microsoft (or, for that matter, Jolla / Blackberry) do the same. No forced upgrades there. And some of them have even better and longer OS upgrade support than Apple.