My point is in relation to the post above, where its about Apple's marketing. It is improving, but it looks different to the average consumer when you say ""we have improved the security of x" as opposed to "we have fixed these existing defects that did x".

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.

I still don’t understand it. Like, my new toothbrush (“Now removes more plaque!”) should disparage the old model (“fixed bristle design flaw that left pockets of plaque on occlusions near front of mouth where interior bristles were too short”).

But ok. Someone thinks companies should try to paint themselves in the worst possible light because reasons. I guess that’s a take.

You've completely missed my opinion on the matter.

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.

Apologies, I could have been more clear that I was in fact expressing my disagreement with the framing that you relayed, and understood it was not you personally I was disagreeing with.

I still don’t understand the difference between "improving" and "fixing defects/gaps". There might be a difference in tone, but I see no difference in information content.

Please read my comment with the context of the original comment, rather than reading mine 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.

I get all of that. I just don’t see why this is an issue. Far as I can see the accusation is that Apple communicates in a manner less consistent with people who contribute to open source projects and more consistent with just about every major consumer-facing corporation on the planet — then yeah, you’re completely right. I’m just trying to work out where the controversy is. Or why it matters.

It only mattered because the original commenter further up complained because they wanted Apple to communicate more like as you say, open source.

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.