81–90 of 101 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are not 8 major versions between iOS 18 and iOS 26. Apple skipped the monotonously increasing version numbering system since iOS 1 during WDDC 2025 to adopt a year suffix based versioning system. iOS 17, then iOS 18, then iOS 26, then iOS 27. You're not the only party confused.
Haha thanks! Good to know they are on years now. Back to random version numbers in 5 year? :p
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the most secure Except for withholding iOS 18 security fixes when public exploits are fixed in iOS 26.
Even then. I'll take a leaky iOS 18 over pretty much any leaky Android or internet-connected TV or whatever. iPhones are still the least bad option, for regular people who aren't planning to solder anything, select their boot loader on launch, or recompile a kernel.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not going to happen (despite my still being on 18.x) because they want to force you to upgrade to 26 for publicity. As simple as that. The new "security upgrade available" will (I bet) be "to 26".
> for publicity Or don’t want to maintain two different security architectures. Apple has always been visually opinionated.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not going to happen (despite my still being on 18.x) because they want to force you to upgrade to 26 for publicity. As simple as that. The new "security upgrade available" will (I bet) be "to 26".
> for publicity Or don’t want to maintain two different security architectures.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> you are not allowed to install the patched 18 Is it “you are not allowed,” or Cupertino isn’t going to bother developing and testing?
> Is it “you are not allowed,” or Cupertino isn’t going to bother developing and testing? It is very firmly "you are not allowed". In fact you're not even allowed to switch back to iOS 18 at all. Only actively signed iOS IPSWs can be installed (barring historical cases where someone had saved signing tickets). You can see the current status at sites like https://ipsw.me and if you're on any iOS 26 supported iDevice c…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it's really as bad as all that, they'll patch existing older releases.
> If it's really as bad as all that, they'll patch existing older releases. They have patched existing releases of iOS 18... but then they artificially restricted those patches only to a couple of phone models that don't support iOS 26. So if you're on a vaguely modern iDevice and are still on 18 because you don't want the new UI and other fuckups you are not allowed to install the patched 18. It'd be one thing if yo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those trillions of dollars aren't going to find their way into the pockets of the shareholders if they have to pay some rubes to maintain old stuff!
> to pay some rubes to maintain old stuff Can LLMs backport fixes to stable branches?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Is it “you are not allowed,” or Cupertino isn’t going to bother developing and testing? It is very firmly "you are not allowed". In fact you're not even allowed to switch back to iOS 18 at all. Only actively signed iOS IPSWs can be installed (barring historical cases where someone had saved signing tickets). You can see the current status at sites like https://ipsw.me and if you're on any iOS 26 supported iDevice c…
The rollback provisions, granted. But I’m arguing the other stuff requires QC attention Apple may not want to provide to a legacy line. That isn’t not allowing something that can be done. It’s not building something they don’t want to.
Oh come on. This is HN, we know how development works, how modular an OS, how the patch process works and what that entails for testing in an incredibly restricted and limited hardware base. We know they have no issue doing retroactive updates for quite awhile on the same code base for Macs, which have enormously more hardware variance then iDevices. These are extremely high profit margin premium products. You really don't need to carry water for the multi-trillion dollar megacorp with absolute wide eyed credulity.
And on other systems, even if it wasn't supported, it'd be perfectly possible for hardware owners to patch various components or implement workarounds. It's only on iOS that Apple is utilizing technical controls to stop that dead.
>That isn’t not allowing something that can be done.
Yes, it is. They are 100% using their technical controls built into the underlying hardware and then on up for not allow something that can be done. They could trivially allow hardware owners, even if only as a buy-time option, to have the ability to add their own certificates to the iOS root of trust, and in turn install and modify any software they wished on their own to the extent of their abilities. Apple wouldn't have to do anything except not exert maximal artificial control.
They don't do that. They have the power. It's their responsibility in turn. It's pretty irritating anyone who has been around the block as much as you have would try to white wash that. FFS.