Why don't Apple allow us to use what ever IOS we want?

[thejadedmonkey]

Apple has gone through 5 different CPU architectures in 5 decades. How? solid foundations and long term maintainable code.

Microsoft has struggled to maintain one properly.

Check your facts. Microsoft has supported more CPU architectures with Windows than Apple has:

* DEC Alpha
* MIPS
* PowerPC
* Intel 16 bit
* IA-32 (i386)
* IA-64
* 64 bit x86
* ARM 32
* ARM 64

Where Microsoft struggles is getting 3rd party manufacturers to update drivers.

 

[Brettka7]

Unlike macOS, by design iOS cannot even install third party browser engines. It means that when Safari gets outdated (JavaScript in it), browsing is no more as fast and often pages would fail to load. So your only choice is to update the OS.

On the contrary, on Android you can install any browser engine to most phones, even as old as Android 5 or 7

I guess this is why my iPhone 2G has been unable to load any page at all on WiFi since 2020 or so.

 

[bzgnyc2]

Result: apple reputation tarnished by people complaining they get hacked running 5 year old platform, app devs forced to compile against ancient code base rather than adopt new APIs

Devs already support back at least 1-2 versions. If for nothing else to retain compatibility with older, still supported devices, that get dropped from the latest iOS (e.g. iPhone 11, iPad 7th generation). Right now most apps on my phone are compatible with iOS 15 (Duo Mobile requires iOS 16 supposedly due to a bug Apple introduced in the last update to iOS 15 that caused all its text to be in German).

If on the other hand Apple allowed people to downgrade at least to the previous version on their phone, more people who currently hold back on upgrades (e.g. see the sidegrade to iOS 18.7.3 thread) would be willing to give new versions a chance if they knew they could revert back if they don't like it. That the upgrade to iOS 26 is irreversible and I might hate it/it might slow down my phone more than I can tolerate means I haven't tried it yet even if it I might prefer it.

The default path should be the supported / auto-update path / no easy downgrade. For developers and other advanced users, a downgrade path (e.g. DFU restore) should be possible. Make participation in the developer program a requirement, etc.

 

[UliBaer]

Unlike macOS, by design iOS cannot even install third party browser engines. It means that when Safari gets outdated (JavaScript in it), browsing is no more as fast and often pages would fail to load. So your only choice is to update the OS.

On the contrary, on Android you can install any browser engine to most phones, even as old as Android 5 or 7

...and that is exactly the main problem with iOS. I only want an up to date browser and what do I have to do? I have to install a completely unwanted update to the whole system, although I only want an up to date browser. This is simply BAD = Broken As Designed - sorry, this could be extremely better, if Safari would not be an integral part of the OS, but instead be an separately installable unit. This is simply bad design by it's own... 🤮

[edit]
Alternatively it would be a very good idea to make it possible, to install independent browser engines like in all(!!!) other operating systems! This is not a benefit, this is (only one of) the Achilles heels in this fatal breed of an so called OS...

 

[Bazza1]

I'm reading articles suggesting iOS 26 (and .x) uptake has been very slow. They may be learning that creating an OS to appease stakeholders and create churn - rather than develop something people actually need - may not be the way to go.

See also, upcoming iPhone Fold and the iOS required for that.

For my part, I rather regret I gave up on my iPhone Mini 12 and iOS 17. 🤨

 

[johannnn]

If you have an iPhone 6s on iOS 15, an iPhone 11 on iOS 26, etc, tough luck, the device will be garbage.

And if you stay behind, your phones are garbage as well.

Just read the release notes, there are always numerous security fixes.

And each time there is a security fix, hackers reverse engineer the code change to be able to perform targeted attacks on those that stay behind

 

[Mr_Brightside_@]

And each time there is a security fix, hackers reverse engineer the code change to be able to perform targeted attacks on those that stay behind

When has this happened with iOS?

 

[bzgnyc2]

And if you stay behind, your phones are garbage as well.

I think there's a difference between vulnerable/higher risk and garbage. To me the latter means unusable. Some updates seem to reduce a phone's performance/battery life to unusable (or conversely, the inability to update say the WebKit means it can't practically browse the web). On the other hand, staying behind multiple major versions generally means one is accepting higher risk from vulnerabilities but the overall tradeoff many be worth it to that person if the device otherwise performs similar to original.

Also let's not assume that the latest versions are invulnerable. Some of the fixes only available for the latest iOS are to fix vulnerabilities only applicable to the latest iOS. Without contrary results of a deep security audit, I would have trusted iOS 18.7 over iOS 26.0 simply because the former probably fixed all the same known issues while it's unknown what iOS 26.0 introduced. At that moment in time, iOS 18.7 was better understood and battlehardened.

Just read the release notes, there are always numerous security fixes.

And each time there is a security fix, hackers reverse engineer the code change to be able to perform targeted attacks on those that stay behind

For the versions of iOS that Apple is still supporting (e.g. iOS 15 received security updates up until earlier this year and iOS 18 is still supported on the iPhone 11 and XR), I believe Apple should let people downgrade back to those versions if their needs warrant.

Apple might find more people would be willing to try a new major version if they knew it isn't a one-way ticket. And if someone wants to go to the trouble of a full reset (e.g. DFU reinstall) to do a downgrade after trying out the new version, they probably have a real reason.

 

[throAU]

When has this happened with iOS?

Who knows? But that’s going to be how border security get in.

 

[UliBaer]

Who knows? But that’s going to be how border security get in.

Normally the border patrol politely asks you to unlock your phone for inspection. If you deny to unlock your phone, they simply don't let you enter the country and send you where you came from on your own cost.

 

[I7guy]

I think there's a difference between vulnerable/higher risk and garbage. To me the latter means unusable. Some updates seem to reduce a phone's performance/battery life to unusable

For phones except the mini after the iPhone XS, this doesn’t seem to happen. 32 bit devices were notorious for having reduced performance. They had no headroom.

(or conversely, the inability to update say the WebKit means it can't practically browse the web). On the other hand, staying behind multiple major versions generally means one is accepting higher risk from vulnerabilities but the overall tradeoff may be worth it to that person if the device otherwise performs similar to original.

Yeah that’s the way Apple operates. They don’t update individual components of an older operating system.

Also let's not assume that the latest versions are invulnerable. Some of the fixes only available for the latest iOS are to fix vulnerabilities only applicable to the latest iOS. Without contrary results of a deep security audit, I would have trusted iOS 18.7 over iOS 26.0 simply because the former probably fixed all the same known issues while it's unknown what iOS 26.0 introduced. At that moment in time, iOS 18.7 was better understood and battlehardened.

It’s true updating code to fix a vulnerability can introduce new vulnerabilities. Been known to happen. But that’s the way she goes.

For the versions of iOS that Apple is still supporting (e.g. iOS 15 received security updates up until earlier this year and iOS 18 is still supported on the iPhone 11 and XR), I believe Apple should let people downgrade back to those versions if their needs warrant.

They don’t allow upgrading. Been a hue and cry for years and they still don’t allow it. That’s one of the things about being in the Apple ecosystem.

Apple might find more people would be willing to try a new major version if they knew it isn't a one-way ticket. And if someone wants to go to the trouble of a full reset (e.g. DFU reinstall) to do a downgrade after trying out the new version, they probably have a real reason.

Apple would rather have less adoption than allow downgrading. Less headaches for them imo. Eventually they know they will get there.

 

[turbineseaplane]

"any iOS version we want" is likely too much to expect, but I do think they should be supporting each version for 2-3 years, which would allow folks to continue on iOS 18 just fine until LG gets more fleshed out.

(without having to play games to ensure they don't get "force updated" I mean).

 

[bzgnyc2]

For phones except the mini after the iPhone XS, this doesn’t seem to happen. 32 bit devices were notorious for having reduced performance. They had no headroom.

The dropping of 32-bit iPhones made sense to me in the sense of "raising the lowest common denominator". We're 10+ years past that -- the iPhone 5 was the last 32-bit phone. However phones like the OGSE were noticeably slower with worse battery life as the iOS versions got further from the release OS. Other people have reported similar or worse with their phones under newer OS.

Yeah that’s the way Apple operates. They don’t update individual components of an older operating system.

Agree that's what they do and I don't like it. I believe forcing all browsers to use the builtin WebKit and then not making updates available after a certain point destines many devices to e-waste before their time. In the case of the OGSE, there's not even a comparable replacement on the market.

They don’t allow upgrading. Been a hue and cry for years and they still don’t allow it. That’s one of the things about being in the Apple ecosystem.

Apple would rather have less adoption than allow downgrading. Less headaches for them imo. Eventually they know they will get there.

Agree that's what they do and the argument in this thread is they shouldn't. I believe my suggestion is a reasonable middleground between the extremes of any iOS on any device and Apple's current approach.

 

[!!!]

All the arguments I've seen, security, developers, etc. are all mute points when you consider it's the user who is choosing what OS they want. When they choose to install an older OS, they do so for their own reasons (performance, usability, reliability, support for older apps, etc.) not for security. If a user wants to use an older OS, it's on them to employ their own security best-practices and download older software that still supports their chosen OS version.

All of what I said applies to macOS, Windows, Linux, etc. It could also apply to iOS, if Apple signed all versions.

Ensuring users can't downgrade effectively "traps" the user into Apple's decisions. When Apple decided your purchased shows/movies were now going to be greeted by an ad for their streaming service, you were forced into accepting that. You have no ability to reject their decision to show ads on your device. Ditto for Apple Music being shoved in your face when you try to use your iTunes Library.

When Apple uses more complex software, and your device performs worse, you're forced to accept that. You're essentially being entrapped into buying a new device every few years. And no I'm not saying that "planned obsolescence" is a thing, I don't believe Apple is intentionally making the software more complex just to ruin older devices, I believe that the software is naturally growing to be more complex, and Apple does nothing about the fact that you can't downgrade, because it ends up benefiting them. They're not making decisions to make your phone worse, they're not just making decisions to make it better. The default action (not changing their signing policy) benefits them.

Remember, the iPhone is your device. You bought it. You own it. You should be allowed to do whatever you want with it, whether that's running the latest OS, or installing an older OS and being able to play older games, or whatever you want.

It's so tiring seeing so many people defend the decisions of companies who are trying to take ownership away from the devices we paid for.

 

[I7guy]

All the arguments I've seen, security, developers, etc. are all mute points when you consider it's the user who is choosing what OS they want. When they choose to install an older OS, they do so for their own reasons (performance, usability, reliability, support for older apps, etc.) not for security. If a user wants to use an older OS, it's on them to employ their own security best-practices and download older software that still supports their chosen OS version.

All of what I said applies to macOS, Windows, Linux, etc. It could also apply to iOS, if Apple signed all versions.

Ensuring users can't downgrade effectively "traps" the user into Apple's decisions. When Apple decided your purchased shows/movies were now going to be greeted by an ad for their streaming service, you were forced into accepting that. You have no ability to reject their decision to show ads on your device. Ditto for Apple Music being shoved in your face when you try to use your iTunes Library.

When Apple uses more complex software, and your device performs worse, you're forced to accept that. You're essentially being entrapped into buying a new device every few years. And no I'm not saying that "planned obsolescence" is a thing, I don't believe Apple is intentionally making the software more complex just to ruin older devices, I believe that the software is naturally growing to be more complex, and Apple does nothing about the fact that you can't downgrade, because it ends up benefiting them. They're not making decisions to make your phone worse, they're not just making decisions to make it better. The default action (not changing their signing policy) benefits them.

Remember, the iPhone is your device. You bought it. You own it. You should be allowed to do whatever you want with it, whether that's running the latest OS, or installing an older OS and being able to play older games, or whatever you want.

It's so tiring seeing so many people defend the decisions of companies who are trying to take ownership away from the devices we paid for.

You own the hardware not the software.

 

[thejadedmonkey]

You own the hardware not the software.

Have you ever tried to write your own OS for the iPhone. I would argue you don't really own the hardware either, you just get a perpetual license to use it. That's why the crazy Linux people who are all about having an unlocked bootloader get so upset.

 

[ricketysquire]

The question you should be asking is why does Apple feel the need to release a new OS every single year. If they didn’t release a new OS every year then they wouldn’t have to support so many releases. No one is asking for new OSs every year. Every year new features, new bugs, new issues and new things removed. Like we don’t need to constantly push new code, we don’t need new releases. The last thing a person wants to do is deal with headaches and slowdowns to justify some product manager’s salary.

 

[HouseLannister]

we don’t need to constantly push new code

Well, we kind of do. Things need to be updated. Whether your next OS is called 27.0 or 26.10.11, it's still new code. The number is completely arbitrary. (Windows 11 has been going for 5 years and has changed a bunch.) Security exploits get patched. Bugs get fixed (which sometimes results in all new bugs). New hardware is released, and new code is required to support it. It's constant new code.

What we don't need anymore is the bento box of new features or ads for an OS. Keep pushing constant code updates, but sell the phone based on the hardware. Apple has turned OS releases into crunch culture that far exceeds what the game industry is notorious for. If they can uncouple the updates from the hardware release schedule, they can work at a pace that is more manageable and able to scale.

 

[I7guy]

The question you should be asking is why does Apple feel the need to release a new OS every single year. If they didn’t release a new OS every year then they wouldn’t have to support so many releases. No one is asking for new OSs every year. Every year new features, new bugs, new issues and new things removed. Like we don’t need to constantly push new code, we don’t need new releases. The last thing a person wants to do is deal with headaches and slowdowns to justify some product manager’s salary.

I want new features and I want new hardware. Those who don’t want that can purchase hardware every few years and never update iOS.

 

[HouseLannister]

I want new features and I want new hardware.

But do you have any reason to want both (either?) every single autumn? Is there any user benefit to the schedule adherence? It is only done for marketing purposes.

 

[Bazza1]

But do you have any reason to want both (either?) every single autumn? Is there any user benefit to the schedule adherence? It is only done for marketing purposes.

...and much like you get to choose when you get new hardware, you should be able to choose what apps - currently embedded - you want / need on your phone. Much like other Apple apps like Pages, shouldn't you be able to go to the Store and pick up what you need? Not merely hide by 'uninstalling' it as is the ability with some embedded apps.

 

[ricketysquire]

Well, we kind of do. Things need to be updated. Whether your next OS is called 27.0 or 26.10.11, it's still new code. The number is completely arbitrary. (Windows 11 has been going for 5 years and has changed a bunch.) Security exploits get patched. Bugs get fixed (which sometimes results in all new bugs). New hardware is released, and new code is required to support it. It's constant new code.

What we don't need anymore is the bento box of new features or ads for an OS. Keep pushing constant code updates, but sell the phone based on the hardware. Apple has turned OS releases into crunch culture that far exceeds what the game industry is notorious for. If they can uncouple the updates from the hardware release schedule, they can work at a pace that is more manageable and able to scale.

Agreed, I was talking more about new unnecessary features and design changes for design’s sake. I’m totally onboard with security and bug fixes. There’s just no real need to bundle a bunch of random features, UI Changes and new bugs into a new IOS “version” (as determined by the marketing people) every single year, while dropping support for an old one. I like the old days when Microsoft and Apple took time to make a new true OS release, when it was truly a compelling update. Like Tiger to Leopard or Vista to 7.

 

[I7guy]

Agreed, I was talking more about new unnecessary features and design changes for design’s sake. I’m totally onboard with security and bug fixes. There’s just no real need to bundle a bunch of random features, UI Changes and new bugs into a new IOS “version” (as determined by the marketing people) every single year, while dropping support for an old one. I like the old days when Microsoft and Apple took time to make a new true OS release, when it was truly a compelling update. Like Tiger to Leopard or Vista to 7.

And iOS 6 to iOS 7. And iOS 18 to iOS 26.

 

[HouseLannister]

I like the old days when Microsoft and Apple took time to make a new true OS release, when it was truly a compelling update.

And iOS 18 to iOS 26.

Hahaha. You are really stretching the definition of both "took time" and "compelling update" there. 🙄

 

[zarmanto]

... Maybe, but Apple allows you downgrade macOS versions on Macs. ...

... So why aren't Apple applies same logic to macOS? ...

... “I will irreversibly destroy every iOS device ever via irreversible software updates” sounds a LOT worse, in my honest opinion. ...

Some historical context that I think applies to both of these comments: macOS upgrades have not always allowed subsequent downgrades. In a small number of cases, the OS update required a firmware update as well, and that firmware update ended up breaking backwards compatibility on that Mac. And those update scenarios were actually much worse than the iOS updates under discussion herein, because 1) there was rarely any obvious warning of the consequences at the time of installation, and 2) there was no option to roll back the change, once the update was installed. (Source: personal experience)

From that, I think we can safely say that "backwards compatibility" was perhaps not necessarily a policy decision for those early versions of macOS; rather, it was a byproduct of a different software/hardware/architecture environment. The whole concept of "signed" installers wasn't even a thing yet, early on, and people commonly kept archives of all their old software, so that they could role back to whatever point they wanted on a whim. It was just an organic result of the status quo, rather than anything that Apple did intentionally. In fact, today, macOS updates are signed installers as well... and thus, now old macOS versions suffer the same fate as old iOS versions.

So really, Apple's policy of continuing to sign the previous version of a given OS for a week or two after releasing a major update to that OS is a shift in a more positive direction than their (non-)policies of years gone by. At least you have a (brief) opportunity to reverse gears, should things go really-really-badly after a major update.