Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Why not let 4s users update to older iOS versions?
- Thread starter Dmaynard83
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I could get on the internet, make calls and send SMS way back on iOS4. Now on iOS7; I can still get on the internet, make calls and send SMS. Big deal if a certain app doesn't support an older device now. Far better that, than a sluggish phone which you want to toss in the trash because it's running an o/s it can't handle. I would soooo much rather have a four year old Android device on its original o/s than an iPhone 4 running iOS7.
These are my exact thoughts. People with older iPhones (4/4s) I think just want the basic features to run as smooth as it did when they got the phone. They don't care about unsupported apps.
Jailbreak == exploiting a security hole.
Yes, companies do not like security holes in their software, especially not if said software could potentially be used to access the credit card data of hundreds of millions of people.
Like they care whether a user's rooted/jailbroken phone is secure or not. It is enough for them to put the info out there and to wash their hands of any support.
That's my point though. Apple discourages a lot of people from jailbreaking by endlessly pronouncing that it's unsafe. It's something that the average user listens to and Apple doesn't have to do much more about it.
But the reality is that it's no more unsafe than a stock iPhone. What you do after you jailbreak is what determines whether your phone is secure or not.
Because one of the best features (to developers) is the relative LACK of fragmentation in the iOS field. You can be nearly certain that nearly 90% of iOS users will be on the latest version. https://developer.apple.com/support/appstore
In Android, there is MASSIVE fragmentation of versions. Sometimes near-identical hardware from different hardware vendors will be on wildly different update cycles. With Apple it's easy: "If they have a device newer than 2011, they're nearly guaranteed on iOS 7." With Android, it isn't.
And Apple makes their money off the developers, so they want to keep stable platforms for those developers. Yes, they do fragment off devices (older iPod touches, original iPad, soon to be the iPhone 4,) but other than the iPod touch, they haven't fragmented a device off less than three years from release. Personally, I'm surprised the iPad 2 will remain supported in iOS 8. But that was the first really-high-volume iPad, and was sold up until just a couple months ago. So they don't want to alienate such a high-volume model quite yet.
In Android, there is MASSIVE fragmentation of versions. Sometimes near-identical hardware from different hardware vendors will be on wildly different update cycles. With Apple it's easy: "If they have a device newer than 2011, they're nearly guaranteed on iOS 7." With Android, it isn't.
And Apple makes their money off the developers, so they want to keep stable platforms for those developers. Yes, they do fragment off devices (older iPod touches, original iPad, soon to be the iPhone 4,) but other than the iPod touch, they haven't fragmented a device off less than three years from release. Personally, I'm surprised the iPad 2 will remain supported in iOS 8. But that was the first really-high-volume iPad, and was sold up until just a couple months ago. So they don't want to alienate such a high-volume model quite yet.
True, but I was getting at the issue of why Apple don't allow 'fragmented' versions of iOS. Lots of people cite the jailbreaking community, when that's a bunch of BS (IMO). Apple couldn't care less about jailbreakers. If a device becomes vulnerable when jailbroken, and they've warned you not to, then it's not their problem. Rightly so.
I've never heard of anyone's data being compromised due to jailbreaking. Can you cite an actual case of it leading to someone's personal data being accessed without their consent?
However, promoting the idea that jailbreaking seriously compromises the security of a device goes along with my theory of ensuring that most people won't risk it.
I think what he/she was saying is the ACT OF jailbreaking is by utilizing a security vulnerability. Not what is done on the phone after the fact.
Apple patching a method of jailbreaking in iOS is Apple patching a security hole in iOS.
Apple doesn't need to make you think one way or another. If there is a jailbreak for iOS #.#.# there is a security vulnerability.
Really? Follow tech articles, I feel I see a new one every couple weeks.
http://www.sektioneins.de/en/blog/14-04-18-iOS-malware-campaign-unflod-baby-panda.html
Yes, there is a vulnerability. But that vulnerability is no more or no less than on stock. It's the SAME vulnerability. It's just being "exploited" by the jailbreak for one purpose. That same vulnerability can also be exploited on a stock iPhone for something entirely different.
But jailbreaking an iPhone buy using an exploit or series of them doesn't mean that the phone is now more vulnerable.
I'm not sure what you are trying to convey? What gave you the impression that I said "a jailbroken phone is more vulnerable then stock" in the post you quoted?
I said Apple is patching security vulnerabilities in iOS that are methods used for jailbreaking.
Hmm, four years ago, I remember having Froyo or Gingerbread which were pretty stuttery. I think I'd rather take an iPhone 4 with iOS 7 over that. Now, a 4-year old Nexus S running Jelly Bean (which is way smoother than Gingerbread)? Sure, I'd take that over iPhone 4+iOS 7.
There are plenty of Android phones for various price points. That's why Google has been improving performance of Android even on low-end devices. Alas, iOS tends to be developed around and optimized for current flagships so older devices tend to be left by the wayside when it comes to performance.