4 ms·
Well, you could argue that the 4.0 update was an active stance against fragmentation, by rendering all old devices unusable and therefore forcing customers onto
by cstuder 16y ago
Well, you could argue that the 4.0 update was an active stance against fragmentation, by rendering all old devices unusable and therefore forcing customers onto a commond new platform: the iPhone 4.
- StavrosK 16y agoI don't know whether to laugh or cry at this.
- olefoo 16y agoYou do know that that's the central complaint of the lawsuit? And that had Apple stated publicly that the 3G phones were no longer supported, that would have been just fine. I own multiple apple products and the one thing that's sure to make me contemplate my choices in a less than favorable light is the idea that I can't trust an update not to break functionality.
- minalecs 16y agoi googled but unable to find link. Can you provide a link where they stated the iphone 3G is no longer supported, they stated features would not be supported but not the phone itself. Major release features of 4.1 was to support 3G.
- olefoo 16y agoNote the use of the word 'had' in my comment. In normal english usage that represents an 'if' statement. The english language is a wonderful instrument, too bad there are so many deaf to it's charm.