iPhone Supported apps for iOS 6?

ios 6.1.3

macrumors newbie
Oct 12, 2019
2
1
security issues are fairytales from the cellphone companies, so they can sell you a new one. The new ones are secured then the old ones, thats true, but there is no device in the world that is 100% secure. Been 20% more secure or less doesnt make much of a difference to me, so I want to rock iphone 4s with ios 6.1.3 and not giving a rats ass about somebody thinking its a bad idea....
 
  • Like
Reactions: maverick28

Mr. Heckles

macrumors 6502
Mar 20, 2018
462
467
Around
security issues are fairytales from the cellphone companies, so they can sell you a new one. The new ones are secured then the old ones, thats true, but there is no device in the world that is 100% secure. Been 20% more secure or less doesnt make much of a difference to me, so I want to rock iphone 4s with ios 6.1.3 and not giving a rats ass about somebody thinking its a bad idea....
Yeah, ok

 

maverick28

macrumors 6502
Mar 14, 2014
299
230
Yeah, ok

Which is kinda missing the point. You're citing a commercial company the prime goal of which is to make their customers scared of these security vulnerabilities "discovered" by the caste of security experts to force you into upgrading your device artificially creating fuss that many people wouldn't care less about otherwise. It is still fairy tales and that's what the user iOS613 was referring to. Specter and Meldown "discovered" at the Intel CPU level co-existed for decades unnoticed and unharmful with numerous "Security Updates" Apple had been issuing. On the other hand the chance of a device getting hacked is the same order "security vulnerability fixes" regardless so there's no point in sacrificing performance for the mythical "security". If a user wants maximum security he/she should just throw away his/her computer or smartphone and cut himself/herself off the Internet. Even Apple warns on their site in small typeface that "The Internet is a territory of risk" thus indirectly admitting that its security patches are not a mighty impenetrable defense.

From my personal experience I, using old browsers and OSes, never experienced any threats, viruses, hacks and attacks: on one of my old systems I used Safari 5 up until late 2018 without any breaches of security. A bigger problem was incompatibility in that it failed to load pages and Safari got Content Blockers way too late – only in 2018: a stark difference with Safari prior to that was not security schemes per se but the amount of ads running through JavaScripts and this is the most valuable feature of Content Blockers - it's control of tracking cookies: this is not about security, it's about privacy and ad-free environment. However, it wasn't something new because up until then people had already used Adblockers and extensions (such as Noscript) that could block any scripts so the age of a browser feels not when it's unable to "protect" but when it's not able to cope with changing web standards.
I've browsed the darkest corners of the Web in Safari 5, 7 and now in 9 (no AV crapware) without any consequences. The core subject of security comes down to a user not software. And if that's the case then you're doomed even on the newest patched macOS. The security race between those dreaded hackers and companies is endless and not worth glancing back at. If you download a strange file of on unidentifiable type then you might run into issues in theory. However most of the people make use of the mainstream sites such as Google, Facebook and Twitter, Spotify, Amazon, eBay and also corporate, lab and university networks. Maybe, porn-sites too but all this is not about security. I don't know figures but I'm sure these companies combined share more than 90% of the Internet. How come that such "trusted" companies (with whom Apple partners or partnered) are the main reason of "security" patches? The answer is that they are the major players on the market of obsolescence and "security vulnerabilities" and I had a lot more problems with them than with someone taking over my machine: they intentionally make performance of browsers degrade by cutting the cord ("deboosting" comes to mind): I was able to use Google Drive in full capacity in Safari 9.1.3 until maybe a week ago, now it tells me it "can't load the view", I see just folder icons. I was able to browse YouTube all I want with all its bells and whistles, up until half a year ago when it began crashing the Web-Content process of Safari, constantly reloading the page, and as of now it won't expand replies to comments – just a spinning rim. So are Facebook, Vimeo, Trustpilot. All of these sites host the same type of data (mp4, webrtf, mov, mpeg, ACHD) or even plain text and sport the generic UI (such as GDrive, 1drive and most of Cloud services) that they sported yesterday and a day before and used to forever and nothing changed. I still can play and open these files on my Mac as much as I could do it in Safari 9.1.3 which is only 3 God damn years old, so I should be able to continue to, but no. I have to use an alternative. Google, Github make it explicit that they require two most recent versions of any browser.

As for the wrongdoers, it makes sense for them to target newest OS such as Mojave and Catalina because these are a hit now: do you think there's enough bad guys to get down to writing a worm to seize Snow Leopard run by some bald-headed professor? But ironically these are the same OSes that are receiving these "security updates" with the best compatibility records matching big companies' requirements. Hmm.
It means that ios613's desire to run whatever he or she wants is completely warranted. The only caveat that could be brought into attention as a deterrent is not "security vulnerabilities" but the facts that (1) iOS 6.1.3 no longer signed by Apple so I'm not aware there's a method to downgrade even by jailbreaking (2) if he/she would be able to get it working then most of apps requiring an external connectivity most likely won't work as before.
Forget about "security". Worthless fears ever.
 
Last edited: