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

[Manatlt]

Pretty sure online services that exist today still that were in Windows 98 like let's day Mail would still work. A service that still works today should still work in an older OS.

Mail would still work DUH. Just like Mail still works on iPhone OS 1.

Mail doesn't need new certificates or updating as the protocols are still the same. However if ever e-mail technology grows, then expect the old OSes such as 98 wouldn't support it.

 

[C DM]

Mail would still work DUH. Just like Mail still works on iPhone OS 1.

Mail doesn't need new certificates or updating as the protocols are still the same. However if ever e-mail technology grows, then expect the old OSes such as 98 wouldn't support it.

Mail actually often does need certificates. It's not that much different than something like FaceTime in that kind of respect.

In any case, iOS 6 FaceTime implementation still works fine with the way FaceTime works today, so none of that applies anyway.

 

[Manatlt]

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

Mail actually often does need certificates. It's not that much different than something like FaceTime in that kind of respect.



In any case, iOS 6 FaceTime implementation still works fine with the way FaceTime works today, so none of that applies anyway.

...hmm. Point taken.

But anyway I stupidly forgot that the Mail application isn't really an "online" service like FaceTime, Skype, Netflix, Hulu etc. Apples and oranges. You can even run the mail app offline to read your past synced messages.

 

[MisakixMikasa]

Bad comparison. FaceTime is an online service. ALL Windows 98 online applications preinstalled are today even BROKEN or ask you to upgrade your OS.

Not true. You can still connect internet to check email. Eve tough Firefox, IE, Chrome no longer upgrade on Windows 98. But you can still use it. You can connect to Windows Live messenger using other open sourced application. Office still works on Windows 98, either Microsoft or Open Office. Older version of Skype should still work on Windows 98. Though you cannot expect new feature.

Pretty much everything you would expect still works on Windows 98.

 

[Manatlt]

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

Not true. You can still connect internet to check email. Eve tough Firefox, IE, Chrome no longer upgrade on Windows 98. But you can still use it. You can connect to Windows Live messenger using other open sourced application. Office still works on Windows 98, either Microsoft or Open Office.



Pretty much everything you would expect still works on Windows 98

Internet Explorer isn't an online service (and the browser is wayyy outdated anyway, most websites won't display properly).

The rest of the applications you mentioned are NOT preinstalled in the Windows 98 OS.

And Microsoft stopped Windows Live Messenger/Windows Messenger/MSN in most countries.

 

[MisakixMikasa]

Internet Explorer isn't an online service (and the browser is wayyy outdated anyway, most websites won't display properly).

The rest of the applications you mentioned are NOT preinstalled in the Windows 98 OS.

And Microsoft stopped Windows Live Messenger/Windows Messenger/MSN in most countries.

Yes. The point is that all applications running on Windows still work perfectly. Skype, Online messaging (it dies not matter AOL, ICQ, Yahoo or anything other than those).

I can still connect Windows Live messenger on my Mac no problem.

Most online service worked before on Windows 98 still pretty much worked. Keep in mind, interment stuff did not became main stream until Windows XP SP 3. Even with Windows 13 years old Windows XP. All online service pretty much works with Windows XP

 

[Manatlt]

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

Yes. The point is that all applications running on Windows still work perfectly. Skype, Online messaging (it dies not matter AOL, ICQ, Yahoo or anything other than those).



I can still connect Windows Live messenger on my Mac no problem.



Most online service worked before on Windows 98 still pretty much worked. Keep in mind, interment stuff did not became main stream until Windows XP SP 3. Even with Windows 13 years old Windows XP. All online service pretty much works with Windows XP

You are comparing with online applications that are not preinstalled. FaceTime is a preinstalled online application that needs updating.

Windows Live Messenger has stopped service in the US, UK and most other countries, so you must be living in a country that WLM is still in operation.

For AIM, Skype, whatelse you mentioned above CAN work on any version of iOS 6 too as these are external apps serviced elsewhere with different servers and software...and they will stop working too if they ask you to update the app, so I don't know where you're going with this...
(Also FT is NOT an external app like these, it's built in to the iOS)

The only preinstalled Windows 98 online service I can think of is Windows Messenger, and since that is dead in most countries...

 

[larrylaffer]

Yeah, and they did that in this case as well - they released 6.1.6 and 7.0.4...

You're either missing the point, or intentionally going against what most people want. Mountain Lion users are not and for a long time shall not be forced to upgrade to Mavericks to solve major problems.

With iOS, they're forcing users into their mold. It's not right, period.

 

[C DM]

Internet Explorer isn't an online service (and the browser is wayyy outdated anyway, most websites won't display properly).

The rest of the applications you mentioned are NOT preinstalled in the Windows 98 OS.

And Microsoft stopped Windows Live Messenger/Windows Messenger/MSN in most countries.

Internet Explorer is as much as online service as FaceTime is--both are just apps that connect to a service (HTTP and the like in case of Internet Explorer and FaceTime service in case of FaceTime) and transfer data one way or another.

The Mail service is similarly like that, it can be used to set up a connection to POP mail service for example and still work.

 

[Manatlt]

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

Internet Explorer is as much as online service as FaceTime is--both are just apps that connect to a service (HTTP and the like in case of Internet Explorer and FaceTime service in case of FaceTime) and transfer data one way or another.

No.

Internet Explorer does not need to connect to any of Microsofts servers to work. Therefore IE will always work even 1000 years from now as long you have an internet connection.

FaceTime connects to Apple servers. Apple hosts the FaceTime service. Therefore that is an online service. If Apple dies today, FaceTime will no longer work.

 

[JobsGang]

just upgrade or go buy an android phone.You iOS 6 fanatics gonna stay on it forever?

 

[C DM]

No.

Internet Explorer does not need to connect to any of Microsofts servers to work. Therefore IE will always work even 1000 years from now as long you have an internet connection.

FaceTime connects to Apple servers. Apple hosts the FaceTime service. Therefore that is an online service. If Apple dies today, FaceTime will no longer work.

So as long as the underlying service works the app connecting to it should be fine. So, to circle it back to the actual issue at hand, since FaceTime works, using FaceTime in iOS 6 should be fine, and for those that it isn't, they shouldn't be required to go to iOS 7 to get it working as it should still be made to work in iOS 6 by that logic. Seems like that goes along with what people are saying.

----------

just upgrade or go buy an android phone.You iOS 6 fanatics gonna stay on it forever?

Everyone's personal decision, right? Or is it only their decision if they go along with what others decide for them?

 

[MyopicPaideia]

You're either missing the point, or intentionally going against what most people want. Mountain Lion users are not and for a long time shall not be forced to upgrade to Mavericks to solve major problems.

With iOS, they're forcing users into their mold. It's not right, period.

Most people? Search for my other posts in this thread. Most people feel the exact opposite about their older devices being on the latest OS version. Most other manufacturers don't even support 6 month to 1 year old devices on the latest OS platform, let alone 3.

Is it forcing people to update? Yes.

Is it different than the way Apple handles OSX support? Yes.

Has Apple been consistent in the way it has handled iOS software support since the inception of iPhoneOS? Yes.

Are the device upgrade cycles of OSX machines even comparable to iOS devices? No.

Did Apple invent or introduce or even overtly attempt to perpetuate the business model of short upgrade cycles of mobile devices? No. The cellular carriers are responsible for this pretty much automatic two year upgrade cycle by giving away or heavily subsidizing hardware in return for signing a long term contract.

Did Apple design and form their software support to conform and take advantage of the already present short cycle hardware upgrade pattern, and even offer industry leading support to their older devices, being the in effect sole influencer in slightly lengthening the average life of a mobile device when measuring the market as a whole? Yes.

 

[Manatlt]

So as long as the underlying service works the app connecting to it should be fine. So, to circle it back to the actual issue at hand, since FaceTime works, using FaceTime in iOS 6 should be fine, and for those that it isn't, they shouldn't be required to go to iOS 7 to get it working as it should still be made to work in iOS 6 by that logic. Seems like that goes along with what people are saying

But as others and Apple said, the certificate in those versions are expired.

Apple doesn't want to support iOS 6 on newer devices, because they want to reserve their resources for iOS 7. They want to move on.

But, to be honest I don't care really about this as this doesn't effect me... and I wasn't even arguing in the first place about what Apple did here...

My original argument was about comparing Windows 98 online services to FaceTime.

Soooo yeah.

 

[C DM]

Most people? Search for my other posts in this thread. Most people feel the exact opposite about their older devices being on the latest OS version. Most other manufacturers don't even support 6 month to 1 year old devices on the latest OS platform, let alone 3.

Is it forcing people to update? Yes.

Is it different than the way Apple handles OSX support? Yes.

Has Apple been consistent in the way it has handled iOS software support since the inception of iPhoneOS? Yes.

Are the device upgrade cycles of OSX machines even comparable to iOS devices? No.

Did Apple invent or introduce or even overtly attempt to perpetuate the business model of short upgrade cycles of mobile devices? No. The cellular carriers are responsible for this pretty much automatic two year upgrade cycle by giving away or heavily subsidizing hardware in return for signing a long term contract.

Did Apple design and form their software support to conform and take advantage of the already present short cycle hardware upgrade pattern, and even offer industry leading support to their older devices, being the in effect sole influencer in slightly lengthening the average life of a mobile device when measuring the market as a whole? Yes.

You forgot a few relevant and important questions and answers there:

Has Apple screwed up so badly before where they completely left a whole bunch of their users without an important security layer for a long time, which then in turn resulted in outages of some services on top of it? No.

Given that Apple has now screwed up fairly badly would it make sense to re-evaluate the way they've done some of the things before to deal with what screw ups of this type bring with them? Yes.

----------

But as others and Apple said, the certificate in those versions are expired.

Apple doesn't want to support iOS 6 on newer devices, because they want to reserve their resources for iOS 7. They want to move on.

But, to be honest I don't care really about this as this doesn't effect me... and I wasn't even arguing in the first place about what Apple did here...

My original argument was about comparing Windows 98 online services to FaceTime.

Soooo yeah.

That's nice of companies wanting to move on and all, but that doesn't mean that it's the right thing to do on various levels. Microsoft could have and even planned to move on from XP a long time ago, yet they adjusted things. That's basically the point, that given some new information (in this case Apple's own screw ups relating to SSL) some old processes and plans should be re-evaluated and not just essentially blindly taken for granted and executed.

 

[LordVic]

The problem i have with this, And with many of the posters saying

"Apple offers a fix, upgrade"

is that iOS6 itself is not what broke.

iOS6 itself still works in exactly the same way as it always worked,with exactly the same software as it had before.

Apple changed something on their end.

Which means they affectively changed your ability to use software that you previously had aability to use, because of arbitrary and non transparent issues.

Think of it this way (BAD CAR ANALOGY TIME!)

You drive a classic 1985 Buick LeSaber (lol). You've babied this thing for years. It's beautiful and runs in tip top excellent condition. You've kept it prestine and it's your pride and joy. You maintain it regularly.

You take the car to Buick every quarter for oil change and check ups. Buick tells you that the car is perfect still and should continue to work with no problems.

But suddenly. One time when you go to pick up your car. There are no seats. they're just gone. You drove it to the dealereship for its quarterly maintenance and now when you get there, it is in a position that it is no longer usable. You can't obviously drive off with no seats, and the Mechanic just shrugs and says "I don't know what happened to them, you have to a new car now, or use these cardboard boxes"

Arbitrarily taking away something that previously was there with no change at the user end is not cool in my books.

if it's a service change, that is planned and given long term warning so that users can make alternative arrangements, it can be excused.

But Apple goofed here. They did something to screw up their back end. Then instead of rolling back, they just told users "you're doing it wrong" again.

As someone in the software industry, who does installations of enterprise level financial software used by financial institutions around the world. If a piece of code, or data goes in (first it goes into a test environment anyways, thats besides the point) that negatively impacts clients and removes ability to go about their normal expected routines, we back out. Nevermind we back out, We have to have in place the procedures to back out before we even start implementing the change in the first place

Apple committed a rookie mistake. For a company of their size, it either indicates there is some gross incompetence going on (There were two outages in software in the same week last week) or a purposeful manipulation to try and force people along an upgrade path.

Either way, I would be looking for my employees to answer why this happened and how could it be avoided in the future.

Or else heads will roll

 

[Yebubbleman]

For those that are applauding Apple's campaign to force users onto iOS 7 (and, by extension OS X Mavericks; as they're being relatively more aggressive than usual there too), consider a few things:

(1) Your opinion isn't the only opinion out there: It's awesome that you like iOS 7 and are gung-ho for the change; but there are those that, for whatever reason, prefer the earlier OS. And on literally EVERY OTHER COMPUTING PLATFORM OUT THERE (except for maybe Android), YOU HAVE THE FREEDOM TO NOT UPGRADE. Upgrading should be a choice, not a mandate.

(2) iOS 6 was substantially more stable and refined than iOS 7.

(3) iOS 7 really does look horrible on the two remaining devices that support it but lack a retina display, namely the iPad 2 and the first generation iPad mini. Personally, I'd say it looks ugly on just about anything but the iPad Air on which it somehow looks gorgeous.

(4) There were features from iOS 6 that were cut from iOS 7 and people did like/use them. Posting to Facebook straight from the Notification Center comes to mind.

(5) The Notifications Bar has become total nonsense.

(6) iOS 7, like all new versions of iOS, makes the devices we own that DIDN'T ship with iOS 7 slower. iOS 7.1 works harder than any iOS x.1 update ever has to help fix this, but it still falls short of performance on 6.1.3.

(7) No one is invalidating your love of iOS 7 by sticking with iOS 6. And yes, there are those (myself included) that would love to be able to still use FaceTime on devices intentionally held back at 6.1.3. Luckily, I have devices on 7.1.1 so I can at least still use FaceTime, but the fact that I can't on the devices that have the hardware for it but are on iOS 6 is lame.


That all being said, there is no real good reason for this push to get everyone on the same iOS version now as opposed to during previous years (for iOS 5 users during the reign of iOS 6, for example) other than publicly invalidating Scott Forestall's influence in the name of Jony Ive's brilliance. What a waste. Reward the 7 adopters for doing so; put the 6 users on life support for another year until using iOS 6 NATURALLY becomes like using an iOS 5 device today.

 

[rolphi]

You forgot a few relevant and important questions and answers there:

Has Apple screwed up so badly before where they completely left a whole bunch of their users without an important security layer for a long time, which then in turn resulted in outages of some services on top of it? No.

Given that Apple has now screwed up fairly badly would it make sense to re-evaluate the way they've done some of the things before to deal with what screw ups of this type bring with them? Yes.

----------

That's nice of companies wanting to move on and all, but that doesn't mean that it's the right thing to do on various levels. Microsoft could have and even planned to move on from XP a long time ago, yet they adjusted things. That's basically the point, that given some new information (in this case Apple's own screw ups relating to SSL) some old processes and plans should be re-evaluated and not just essentially blindly taken for granted and executed.

It's only taking 840 comments, but I think we're now at the heart of the matter. Finally it comes out that the main complainants are Jail Breakers. I was having trouble figuring out why anyone would care so much about a mobile OS upgrade as they were demonstrably doing.

Secondly, it seems like you've come around to the idea that Apple choosing to do this is not evil and spiteful, but a policy decision consistent with industry and their history which has had some negative consequences and which you are asking them to reconsider.

I've come around to the idea that Apple users should support you even if they are not personally affected. It's good to have companies a little bit afraid of their customers.

But now I have to wonder if this screw up is viewed by them as being "fairly bad". I haven't heard about it in the regular media. No -gate name has been attached. No regular people I know are talking about it any more. I assume they are doing some re-evaluating of their processes, but I would not be surprised if the conclusion of the evaluation is "business as usual". The work to change it seems to me to be large, the gain in goodwill of affected customers seems small, and they have other things to do. It may be early days yet, but that's what I am observing.

I think an important part of this is that it is a security system causing this. It makes "just roll it back" like LordVic is recommending fairly impossible.

 

[C DM]

It's only taking 840 comments, but I think we're now at the heart of the matter. Finally it comes out that the main complainants are Jail Breakers. I was having trouble figuring out why anyone would care so much about a mobile OS upgrade as they were demonstrably doing.

Secondly, it seems like you've come around to the idea that Apple choosing to do this is not evil and spiteful, but a policy decision consistent with industry and their history which has had some negative consequences and which you are asking them to reconsider.

I've come around to the idea that Apple users should support you even if they are not personally affected. It's good to have companies a little bit afraid of their customers.

But now I have to wonder if this screw up is viewed by them as being "fairly bad". I haven't heard about it in the regular media. No -gate name has been attached. No regular people I know are talking about it any more. I assume they are doing some re-evaluating of their processes, but I would not be surprised if the conclusion of the evaluation is "business as usual". The work to change it seems to me to be large, the gain in goodwill of affected customers seems small, and they have other things to do. It may be early days yet, but that's what I am observing.

I think an important part of this is that it is a security system causing this. It makes "just roll it back" like LordVic is recommending fairly impossible.

I can't speak for others, but none of my comments about this have been from the end of or relating to jailbreaking or that Apple is evil or spiteful. What I've been saying is that they messed up, and fairly badly (perhaps despite the general public/media not really running with it in that manner), and because of that it seems like it would be worthy to re-examine what they have been doing so far and hopefully be able to offer other options (that weren't there before)--like the ability of someone to install an already existing update to the iOS version that they are on, instead of simply having to go to the latest that might be available for their device--because of things like this.

 

[rolphi]

I can't speak for others, but none of my comments about this have been from the end of or relating to jailbreaking or that Apple is evil or spiteful. What I've been saying is that they messed up, and fairly badly (perhaps despite the general public/media not really running with it in that manner), and because of that it seems like it would be worthy to re-examine what they have been doing so far and hopefully be able to offer other options (that weren't there before)--like the ability of someone to install an already existing update to the iOS version that they are on, instead of simply having to go to the latest that might be available for their device--because of things like this.

I know this is rare on the internet, but I think we're in agreement. That was easy.

One last thought: if Apple did come up with a solution where users could stay on iOS6, but the upgrade to 6.1.X to fix this problem also irrevocably broke the jailbreak, do you think we'd have 800 comments of outrage?

 

[sracer]

But now I have to wonder if this screw up is viewed by them as being "fairly bad". I haven't heard about it in the regular media. No -gate name has been attached. No regular people I know are talking about it any more. I assume they are doing some re-evaluating of their processes, but I would not be surprised if the conclusion of the evaluation is "business as usual". The work to change it seems to me to be large, the gain in goodwill of affected customers seems small, and they have other things to do. It may be early days yet, but that's what I am observing.

I concur. It's the natural result of the epic business success that Apple has had up to this point. Customers were like "shut up and take my money!" for the opportunity to enter into the benevolent dictatorship that is the Apple ecosystem.

At the time, it was worth it for many people. But with success came the weight of inertia and mass. Does Apple (or their fans) care if 100,000 or 500,000 or even 1,000,000 customers go elsewhere? Probably not. If history is any indication, it may very well happen. And before anyone knows it, the cumulative impact will be noticed.

It happened to IBM. It happened to Microsoft. It will most likely happen to Apple. I hope not...

One last thought: if Apple did come up with a solution where users could stay on iOS6, but the upgrade to 6.1.X to fix this problem also irrevocably broke the jailbreak, do you think we'd have 800 comments of outrage?

I know your comment wasn't addressed to me, but...
I think there'd be 18 comments of outrage.

 

[C DM]

I know this is rare on the internet, but I think we're in agreement. That was easy.

One last thought: if Apple did come up with a solution where users could stay on iOS6, but the upgrade to 6.1.X to fix this problem also irrevocably broke the jailbreak, do you think we'd have 800 comments of outrage?

Probably some, but likely not as many. Something like that is much more common and almost expected with any update, so it wouldn't be as unexpected nor affect as many people who are basic users that don't even care about jailbreaking and perhaps aren't even power users or know that much more about their phone beyond some basics that they are used to and like based on how things work for them in iOS 6 for a long time now.

 

[MyopicPaideia]

You forgot a few relevant and important questions and answers there:

Has Apple screwed up so badly before where they completely left a whole bunch of their users without an important security layer for a long time, which then in turn resulted in outages of some services on top of it? No.

Given that Apple has now screwed up fairly badly would it make sense to re-evaluate the way they've done some of the things before to deal with what screw ups of this type bring with them? Yes.

the point, that given some new information (in this case Apple's own screw ups relating to SSL) some old processes and plans should be re-evaluated and not just essentially blindly taken for granted and executed.

I guess my whole point is that Apple didn't screw up badly. If memory serves, this was the SSL security patch update that came out first on iOS and it was OSX that had to wait a few days? Both 6 and 7 patches were released simultaneously.

That users whose devices were eligible for iOS 7 had to update to get the security patch is nothing new. Apple has always forced the device to the latest available version, this has happened on every single major version update since the inception of the OS.

The only reason this is even being discussed this heatedly is because it is the first major design overhaul of the OS since 1.0. If 7 had kept the same basic design as 6, this thread would probably be only a couple of hundred posts long as opposed to a thousand.

 

[C DM]

I guess my whole point is that Apple didn't screw up badly. If memory serves, this was the SSL security patch update that came out first on iOS and it was OSX that had to wait a few days? Both 6 and 7 patches were released simultaneously.

That users whose devices were eligible for iOS 7 had to update to get the security patch is nothing new. Apple has always forced the device to the latest available version, this has happened on every single major version update since the inception of the OS.

The only reason this is even being discussed this heatedly is because it is the first major design overhaul of the OS since 1.0. If 7 had kept the same basic design as 6, this thread would probably be only a couple of hundred posts long as opposed to a thousand.

The reason that they did in fact screw up badly--and no, patching things quickly after finding out about them when they where the ones that introduced them to begin with months if not years ago doesn't mean that it's all good and fine--is a big reason it itself. And whether or not there's a bigger ongoing public/media outcry about it doesn't mean anything more or less than the general public and the media simply having a short attention span.

 

[MyopicPaideia]

The reason that they did in fact screw up badly--and no, patching things quickly after finding out about them when they where the ones that introduced them to begin with months if not years ago doesn't mean that it's all good and fine--is a big reason it itself. And whether or not there's a bigger ongoing public/media outcry about it doesn't mean anything more or less than the general public and the media simply having a short attention span.

And, that is absolutely fair enough! Now we are talking about a botched security flaw, and not about forcing users to upgrade, and those are two completely different things!

Like the last couple of posts and posters I completely agree with you on that point. But at the same time, they don't really have a history of screwing up SSL or other secure connection protocols regularly, and it took a long time for this one to be found by those that search for these sorts of things. It is a whole other discussion.