3 ms·
I don't agree that the article makes or implies this claim. A more plausible timeline is that Apple (incredibly) intended to roll out a client-side update fix
by cjbprime 8y ago
I don't agree that the article makes or implies this claim. A more plausible timeline is that Apple (incredibly) intended to roll out a client-side update fix on a relaxed schedule, until the repro went viral and forced their hand on a server-side shutdown.
It is not credible to imagine that an emergency disabling of Group FaceTime takes a week.
- netsharc 8y ago> roll out a client-side update fix on a relaxed schedule "There's a bug that allows our devices to be used as eavesdropping tools. But let's relax about it!"
- sangnoir 8y ago> "We at Apple believe that privacy is a fundamental human right but also recognize that not everyone sees it that way," Cook said[1] I guess that "not everyone" includes some product people working on FaceTime. 1. http://time.com/5433499/tim-cook-apple-data-privacy/ http://time.com/5433499/tim-cook-apple-data-privacy/
- darkpuma 8y ago> A more plausible timeline is that Apple (incredibly) intended to roll out a client-side update fix on a relaxed schedule The most plausible scenario is that somebody at Apple threw the original report in the figurative trash bin after failing to read it or failing to realize the significance of it (although given the clarity of the report, failing to read it and failing to understand it are virtually the same thing.)
- cjbprime 8y agoRight, sure. I mean the most plausible explanation given that Apple said that they were previously aware of the problem and had a scheduled fix in the pipeline to roll out within a week.