3 ms·

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

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.

simondotau 4y ago
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.
- NoPicklez 4y ago
  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.