[MartyMcfly]

In actuality, yes Apple may have the upper hand in releasing the OS direct to consumer, but remember most of these quick little updates like the recent 7.0.6 was to fix a problem. It was an update, not an Upgrade. Apple upgrades their OS with new features once a year, launched 2007 and on iOS7, 7 years later.

So once a year they provide the consumer with new features then the rest of the year stay stagnant only really pushing fixes. On the other hand, in one year or so BlackBerry jumped multiple OS that brought enhancements to the OS.

What? Technically an update is an upgrade.


Sent from my  using Tapatalk

[BCITMike]

Source?

Apple's SSL iPhone vulnerability: how did it happen, and what next? | Technology | theguardian.com

iOS 6.1.5 was first to have the bug. Apple became aware of it before January 8th, 2014 (when it first reserved the CVE number), which they only would have done after they confirmed the issue themselves. The fix (to this specific issue) was to remove 1 line of code, and it took more than 6 weeks to get the fix released.

iOS 7.0: Sept 18th
iOS 7.0.1: Sept 19th
iOS 7.0.2: Sept 26th
iOS 7.0.3: Oct 22nd

So Apple has shown they are capable of fixing security issues and releasing a new firmware is 1-7 days, and yet it took over 6 weeks to get the release that removes 1 line of code. What are their priorities? Waiting for Olympics to be mostly over?

Sometimes, when a drastic change to a process is done, a lot of QA is required to check for issues. In this specific case of 1 line of errant code, it took over 6 weeks. That is my "what the f" point of view.

When all the Snowden leaks came out talking about how iOS is easily owned by NSA, it should have triggered a full scale security review at Apple. Obviously, they didn't.

[anon6040766]

What? Technically an update is an upgrade.


Sent from my  using Tapatalk

Semantics...yes Apple updated to 7.0.6 as even the device screen says a Software Update is available. let's be real though, what did 7.0.6 do, it fixed a security issue. So yeah, you could call it an upgrade but I guess I consider an upgrade when new features are brought like Siri or Notification Center.

So I guess regardless of whether you call it an update or upgrade I'm referring to fixes versus new features if that makes more sense.

Posted via my BlackBerry Q10 or Z30 on VZW from Philly

[raino]

Apple's SSL iPhone vulnerability: how did it happen, and what next? | Technology | theguardian.com

iOS 6.1.5 was first to have the bug. Apple became aware of it before January 8th, 2014 (when it first reserved the CVE number), which they only would have done after they confirmed the issue themselves. The fix (to this specific issue) was to remove 1 line of code, and it took more than 6 weeks to get the fix released.

If I'm understanding this right, we're basing Apple knowing about this off of a date they got the ball rolling on a fix ("(when it first reserved the CVE number)")? Is my understanding correct?

[anon6040766]

Semantics...yes Apple updated to 7.0.6 as even the device screen says a Software Update is available. let's be real though, what did 7.0.6 do, it fixed a security issue. So yeah, you could call it an upgrade but I guess I consider an upgrade when new features are brought like Siri or Notification Center.

So I guess regardless of whether you call it an update or upgrade I'm referring to fixes versus new features if that makes more sense. And Apple rolls the new features once a year. BlackBerry has done it 3 times in a year.

Posted via my BlackBerry Q10 or Z30 on VZW from Philly

Posted via my BlackBerry Q10 or Z30 on VZW from Philly

[BCITMike]

It's worth noting that the SSL flaw that is being patched is also used in the iOS update procedure. You may want to think twice about updating your iOS device when on a questionable WIFI source or having it set to autoupdate when on WIFI. Although unlikely, an MITM attacker could actually send you a modified version of the OS and because of the bug it would think it is from a legit source.

The argument against that, is there is still Apple signing to verify its from Apple. So it may be able to download the OS, but it shouldn't install it. But I wouldn't take Apple's word on that...

[BCITMike]

If I'm understanding this right, we're basing Apple knowing about this off of a date they got the ball rolling on a fix ("(when it first reserved the CVE number)")? Is my understanding correct?

We can only say they "at least knew" by this time. I doubt Apple is going to publicly say when they first knew, because they obviously did not react quick enough. They could have known Jan 7th, or they could have known a month before. I have yet to read where Apple discloses this and I doubt they will. It's just fodder for people to say 'not good enough'.

[raino]

We can only say they "at least knew" by this time. I doubt Apple is going to publicly say when they first knew, because they obviously did not react quick enough.

Thank you. That's exactly what I was getting at. Previously it was being implied that it was definitively known Apple acted in a timely fashion from the moment they learned about this issue to get an update out. What you're saying jives with this I read earlier today:

"For the protection of our customers, Apple does not disclose, discuss, or confirm security issues until a full investigation has occurred and any necessary patches or releases are available," says Apple. Which means it may know full well about unpatched vulnerabilities, but even if they're being actively exploited, you won't know about them.

[Nigelbrown]

I disagree with the ease of update, I support a major government health system in Canada, and all the corporate iPhones needed an update. Many couldn't update unless in wifi, many couldn't completed the update and then immediately asked to be connected to iTunes, essentially bricking the phone. Many unhappy corporate users here....

Posted via CB10

[wincyUt]

YES.

And "Former tech giant," and "once wildly popular smartphone manufacturer," followed by the mentioning of how BlackBerry was "once beloved by athletes and celebrities," and "movers and shakers."

Also the ever present "...which has lost marketshare to rivals Google and Apple over the years" or "...which has seen its marketshare crumble in recent years."

I'm ready to write for BGR now.

Lmao!!! Good one. It seems like you are really ready to join BGR.

[wincyUt]

I disagree with the ease of update, I support a major government health system in Canada, and all the corporate iPhones needed an update. Many couldn't update unless in wifi, many couldn't completed the update and then immediately asked to be connected to iTunes, essentially bricking the phone. Many unhappy corporate users here....

Posted via CB10

Just curious, was that a one time occurrence or has your organization experienced this type of problem several times?

[SK122387]

I'm sorry but Apple is the most annoying OS out there...

Posted using my Z10

Apple isn't an OS... it's a company.

Their two operating systems are iOS and OS X

[bloodyrek]

Are iphones secure devices?

_ _ < For some reason the answer is only 2 letters.

[BCITMike]

Apple isn't an OS... it's a company.

Their two operating systems are iOS and OS X

I'd read that like he meant both

[canuckvoip]

What? Technically an update is an upgrade.


Sent from my  using Tapatalk

Not if all it did was make the phone do what it was supposed to do in the first place, ie expected.

[canuckvoip]

Are iphones secure devices?

_ _ < For some reason the answer is only 2 letters.

Sorry... Bwahahahahahahaha doesn't fit there.

[--TommesJay--]

You know how I updated from my first 10.2.1. to 10.2.1.2141?

Basically I didn't. I just got a notification out of the blue pushed to my HUB. As I opened it, it said the new OS was just installed. Yeah, a complete OS update running in the background without me even noticing it. So what's your point?

[wincyUt]

You know how I updated from my first 10.2.1. to 10.2.1.2141?

Basically I didn't. I just got a notification out of the blue pushed to my HUB. As I opened it, it said the new OS was just installed. Yeah, a complete OS update running in the background without me even noticing it. So what's your point?

It would help if you say who your question is directed at.

[Nigelbrown]

@ wincy

Multiple bricks reported in my authority. A few out if spaces, requiring itunes, and many not wanting to update.

Posted via CB10

[Nigelbrown]

If = of space, as in the update downloaded and the devices ran out of space.

Posted via CB10

[wincyUt]

@ wincy

Multiple bricks reported in my authority. A few out if spaces, requiring itunes, and many not wanting to update.

Posted via CB10

Again thanks for responding.
It's obvious that some of us do not have issues with the BB OS updates; I don't either. But what I am talking about is the ability for BlackBerry to uniformly and seamlessly push out OS updates without fragmentation globally. Currently this is not the case, unless you otherwise disagree. And if you don't agree, kindly explain.

[Troy Tiscareno]

Again thanks for responding.
It's obvious that some of us do not have issues with the BB OS updates; I don't either. But what I am talking about is the ability for BlackBerry to uniformly and seamlessly push out OS updates without fragmentation globally. Currently this is not the case, unless you otherwise disagree. And if you don't agree, kindly explain.

This simply isn't going to happen. It nearly didn't happen for Apple either, despite them having a HUGE amount of leverage back in 2006-2007 when they were not-so-secretly working on the iPhone and trying to negotiate with the carriers. Apple *wanted* to launch the iPhone on Verizon, but Verizon refused to let them control the updates, so they ended up going to their #2 choice, which was AT&T/Cingular, who were losing ground and needed a big win. They agreed to give Apple this unprecedented direct control over the phones that no other company, before or since, has been able to get.*

Android, WinPhone, and BB all have to wait for the carriers in the US to approve their updates. That isn't likely to change - if even Google, whose OS is on half the smartphones sold in the US doesn't have the clout and leverage to get this, why would BB, at 0.1% BB10 marketshare in the US?

*Google Nexus phones don't count, as Google can only directly update GSM phones, and only because they sold them to customers direct and unlocked. Even Google can't directly update their own Nexus phones on CDMA carriers (Verizon & Sprint).

[raino]

Even Google can't directly update their own Nexus phones on CDMA carriers (Verizon & Sprint).

Interesting. So Nexus 5 users on Sprint are at their carrier's mercy?

[Ment]

Interesting. So Nexus 5 users on Sprint are at their carrier's mercy?

yes tho Verizon doesn't offer the Nexus 5 because Google wouldn't budge on all Verizon crapware being installed and restrictions on Google Wallet.

[--TommesJay--]

It would help if you say who your question is directed at.

@ OP