These other things like bugs and vulnerabilities are external to its perfection, and so they originate elsewhere, maybe in the past, maybe as something random, but certainly something devoid of meaning when compared to the ideal and its experience. Individual products are not Apple, because they are not perfection, but they align to it, and perfection is what makes it always seem just out of reach. The Apple experience exists above and over the material bounds of memory handling and input validation, so these things are external, and in the brand language, they are only ever allowed to exist in the past. By way of example, this is why their security advisories can come off as weird to analysts who confront and solve things.
The best writers speak the language of memory, and a trillion dollar company probably has more than a few of them. Consider that 80% or more of what you believe about reality comes through one of their products, and you are in-effect entranced by them. Their responsibility is to sustain this experience of hypnotic comfort and perfection. The advisory language is reduced until there is nothing left to remove, then calibrated to cause nothing more than a small ripple in your bliss.
It sounds like CCP doctrine.
Unfortunately the rest of the way cannot vote out the US's interference.
That being said I keep hearing that argument that some people don't like democracy(i.e like the U.S) and would rather live under an authoritan and conservator rule so we should let them be ruled that way. But how could they choose if they are not given a choice? Do women in Afghanistan prefer not to go to school? Let them vote and for that freely. They could simply not go to school after all.
Operation Condor, the lawfare coups of the 2010s...
All in the name of democracy and choice for the peoples affected, right? And they chose to have that interference, right? Napalming Korea to the north of the 38th parallel was their choice, right? Syngman Rhee was the democratic leader of choice for the ones to the south of that parallel, right? Yeah...
> I think you detracted from the OP. Apple's views are on its products. It doesn't care about the rest of the world (i.e android) so your comment it's a bit misplaced.
You mentioned the US being able to vote out bad leadership and abuse of the ruling party. I just responded to that.
Got it.
An empire of technology, A king among kings, Apple reigns supreme With sleek devices and shiny things.
From iPhones to iPads, They rule the world of tech, With their sleek design And user-friendly interface.
They've conquered the market With their innovation and might, And their loyal followers Stand by them, day and night.
Their empire continues to grow, Expanding far and wide, Apple is a force to be reckoned with And a true global empire, inside and out.
All software has bugs. Mistakes are made. Do release notes need to self-flagellate? I don't see the value.
The thing I just improved is subject to future improvement. Subtly different than saying “fixed the input validation routine”, which implies some finality, or overcommitment.
Some still might interpret that as Apple using CYA language or a lack of admission, but to me it seems like a fairly pragmatic statement of what seems like reality.
(To be clear, it may have been, but we don't know without actually seeing what change they made to the code.)
Clearly there's already something dealing with bad memory and Apple just made it a bit better, surely this isn't worth rebooting my phone for!
This hides the severity of the problems the patch fixes. The word "fix" is nowhere on that page. Presumably, Apple are releasing these poor-quality release notes in order to protect their public brand. Those corporate objectives are coming at a cost of writing quality and clarity.
Note, at this time, these CVEs are not public, so the savvy user can not search them up themselves.
I think patch notes are important, and reasonable effort should be made to make them clear. Instead, effort was made to obscure. Clarity should be the default!
I'm not sure what the lag is, but from what I've seen all Apple CVE's are made public at some point. The last one I got before this bunch (from [email protected]) was a month ago (relating to iOS and iPadOS 16.1.1 addressing a libxml2 integer overflow - CVE-2022-40303). If you look up that CVE at mitre.org, it's no longer marked as "RESERVED".
In relation to someone being annoyed that Apple doesn't openly say the former. It's because of their marketing and image that they say the latter, it always have been.
Going to negative to less negative is still a positive change.
In relation to someone being annoyed that Apple doesn't openly say the former. It's because of their marketing and image that they say the latter, it always have been.
To the average consumer they like seeing the former, but for tech heads we prefer to see the latter.
If something is perfect, how do you improve it?
In relation to someone being annoyed that Apple doesn't openly say the former. It's because of their marketing and image that they say the latter, it always have been.
But ok. Someone thinks companies should try to paint themselves in the worst possible light because reasons. I guess that’s a take.
I agree with you and that was my point. Tt was the original poster who thought companies should paint themselves in the worst possible light.
I was supporting another commenter who simply explained why it is that companies paint themselves in the best light.
You need to have read my comments in relation to what I was replying to, rather than in isolation.
The user was saying that Apple were wording their fixes of large gaps as simply improvements to the technology, rather than calling out that they had fixed what may have been a significant defects/issues.
My point is that you're right, there may not be a difference, but in tone it is different and that is why Apple have worded it that way. Apple is notorious for framing everything in the most positive light it can, which may not necessarily convey the severity of the gaps/defects that were improved.
I feel like I'm pulling blood out of a stone here.
Myself and another were just clarifying why it is that Apple communicates the way they do, whether it’s wrong or right. I didn’t have an opinion on the matter.
I think everyone reading this article would get the correct takeaway.
It's unsatisfying, but the answer to this has always and will always be no. There is never an upside for them to disclose any more than they have to.
https://apple.slashdot.org/story/18/12/08/1918204/apple-stor...
Ah, I see you haven't played knifey spooney before.
Having bugs looks bad for PR. So they hide those under Newspeak.
And shipping improvements with bug fixes was always a recipe for disaster.
As it goes with improvements, they keep coming.
Wouldn't it be better for Apple to own up to the fact that these defects are indeed defects, and be transparent about what measures they are implementing that prevent such defects from being added to the code base or from being exploited?
Google wrote about the former a couple weeks ago[1] and Apple itself is not doing badly in the latter department.[2]
[1] https://security.googleblog.com/2022/12/memory-safe-language...
[2] See Luca Todesco's talk from October: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mQAYeozl5I