4 ms·

From a consumer perspective, who actually cares?

by marban 3y ago

baz00 3y ago
Yeah I don't give a shit myself. I mean 850 meg is what an hour of decent quality streaming and we get one of these every month or two. Meh. Even when I was stuck tethered on 4G for 9 months this wasn't a big issue.
jasoncartwright 3y ago
Users on slower, lower quality, or metered internet connections
harha 3y ago
Not macOS but my iPhone is struggling with space to update and there’s a ton of data I just can’t delete like data X stores somewhere or WhatsApp that duplicates photos in addition to a massive amount of system files that aren’t specified.
- bradknowles 3y ago
  On the iPhone and iPad, there are options you can select to let Apple unload certain applications or data to iCloud, where you can re-download them again in the future if you need them. This lets the system clear space for large downloads like this. You just have to know which options to enable.
- PrimeMcFly 3y ago
  I mean, that's what you get for buying a device that nanny doesn't let you have complete access to.
  - danielheath 3y ago
    You mean, not a pinephone / framework laptop?
    - PrimeMcFly 3y ago
      Well, Android was the more obvious implication, but I bet you know that and disagree. Which is weird because many manufacturers don't restrict flashing a different rom, and even with standard Android you have more access than iPhone gives you.
      - majewsky 3y ago
        > many manufacturers don't restrict flashing a different rom Manufacturers don't, but app makers do. I know people running on LineageOS that have to keep a second smartphone on stock Android for their banking authenicator app (which fails on Lineage because it's not the manufacturer-supplied ROM and that supposedly means it's been hacked).
        PrimeMcFly 3y ago
        If it couldn't be fooled through software (and there are sandboxing solutions to run stuff that needs google services etc) I don't think I'd stay with such a bank.
  - saagarjha 3y ago
    I would prefer to have access to the filesystem too but this isn't really a solution to the problem. People shouldn't have to go around deleting System32 to make space on their device so they can update…
    - PrimeMcFly 3y ago
      At least if you could access the file system you could remove a lot of junk, like the duped picture files you referenced. I agree though software updating is widely inefficient given how it could be done.
    - seec 3y ago
      Yeah, the only reason this is a concern and a problem sometimes is because of Apple greed. Considering how much they charge for storage, you don't go for the large version, and since everything is soldered then it might become a problem in a future update. For example, Apple Watch series 3 cannot update without replacing the whole system for at least 3 years. In this case they didn't even sell more storage. In the end, whatever; it's just Apple nonsense, better be done with them and look for hardware elsewhere than care about all this...
  - harha 3y ago
    There's a few reasons I can't do that and even though I've been using Linux since the mid 2000s, I don't want to spend my time tinkering. Apart from that, the bigger issue is that this is something that affects many users and the selling point of Apple was always that it should just work, which it clearly doesn't in this case.
whatever1 3y ago
In the US many internet providers have data caps. And very frequently there is no alternative provider in the same area, so no pressure to lift the caps. Comcast for example has an 1.2TB per month cap and $10 for each additional 50GB chunk. With 4k shows on Netflix, online gaming, and 60gb device updates it’s very easy to hit the cap.
- Osiris 3y ago
  I got a deal on Comcast to get 1.2Gbps + unlimited bandwidth for $80. I was previously using Century Link Small business at 150Mbps + unlimited. According to their app, I'm consistently using 3-4TB per month. I don't know what the breakdown is but my guess is it's mostly streaming video and video game downloads.
- fransje26 3y ago
  https://youtu.be/vbHqUNl8YFk?feature=shared&t=31 https://youtu.be/vbHqUNl8YFk?feature=shared&t=31
rekoil 3y ago
We need to look at this from several angles. Yes, most have fast internet these days, which means that for a single person the time spent downloading a 1GB update isn't really a problem like it might have been 10 years ago, but what about the literal hundreds of millions of other macOS users? We're talking hundreds of petabytes of network traffic that happens multiple times a year. Say that update could have been optimised down to say 100MB through shipping only binary diffs instead of complete executables, that's hundreds of petabytes of network traffic that doesn't need to be transferred, which means less link congestion, less packet processing, less data temporarily stored not just on customer machines but in datacenters as well. Unnecessarily large updates in systems with hundreds of millions of users has a non-negligible environmental impact.
- Gigachad 3y ago
  It's still pretty negligible. Take public transport once instead of driving and you've more than offset a lifetime of downloading OS updates. There are so many low hanging enormous fruit to pick that it makes almost no sense to start with the very difficult and insignificant ones.
  - rekoil 3y ago
    I'm not 100% convinced it's all that negligible, but in general I agree with your sentiment. Inefficient software updates are a pet peeve of mine. If I download 5GB of software patches I'd expect to see major differences after applying the patch, but most of the time these days it's barely noticeable changes, yet the patches are still huge. Just look at the iOS 17 OTA packages for iPhone 14 Pro. - 16.6.1 -> 17.0: 3.3GB - fair enough, new major version - 17.0 -> 17.0.1: 452MB - security updates and bugfixes - 17.0.1 -> 17.0.2: 384MB - security updates and bugfixes - 17.0.2 -> 17.0.3: 450MB - security updates and bugfixes - 17.0.3 -> 17.1: 1.35GB - this one is interesting, an update from 17.0.2 to 17.1 is actually about 150MB smaller than from the latest version which uses the same upgrade package as 17.0 GM - 17.1 -> 17.1.1: 395MB - security updates and bugfixes - 17.1.1 -> 17.1.2: 414MB - security updates and bugfixes In total, I've downloaded about 3.44GB of updates for my iPhone since the iOS 17 upgrade in September, and have received WiFi AirDrop support, some security fixes, and better Home app Matter support. Security fixes are in general just a few lines of changed code, and should result in minimal changes to a binary, so if you just diff the new binary with the old one it should come out pretty minimal, yet the patches are several hundred megabytes. Someone in a different thread suggested Apple were doing partial binary patching, but I don't see it.
ChrisRR 3y ago
Given that Apple often comes under fire for using non-upgradable storage, a lot of people care

From a consumer perspective, who actually cares?

by marban 3y ago

From a consumer perspective, who actually cares?

Yeah I don't give a shit myself. I mean 850 meg is what an hour of decent quality streaming and we get one of these every month or two. Meh. Even when I was stuck tethered on 4G for 9 months this wasn't a big issue.

jasoncartwright 3y ago

Users on slower, lower quality, or metered internet connections

harha 3y ago

Not macOS but my iPhone is struggling with space to update and there’s a ton of data I just can’t delete like data X stores somewhere or WhatsApp that duplicates photos in addition to a massive amount of system files that aren’t specified.

bradknowles 3y ago
On the iPhone and iPad, there are options you can select to let Apple unload certain applications or data to iCloud, where you can re-download them again in the future if you need them. This lets the system clear space for large downloads like this. You just have to know which options to enable.
PrimeMcFly 3y ago
I mean, that's what you get for buying a device that nanny doesn't let you have complete access to.
- danielheath 3y ago
  You mean, not a pinephone / framework laptop?
  - PrimeMcFly 3y ago
    Well, Android was the more obvious implication, but I bet you know that and disagree. Which is weird because many manufacturers don't restrict flashing a different rom, and even with standard Android you have more access than iPhone gives you.
    - majewsky 3y ago
      > many manufacturers don't restrict flashing a different rom Manufacturers don't, but app makers do. I know people running on LineageOS that have to keep a second smartphone on stock Android for their banking authenicator app (which fails on Lineage because it's not the manufacturer-supplied ROM and that supposedly means it's been hacked).
      - PrimeMcFly 3y ago
        If it couldn't be fooled through software (and there are sandboxing solutions to run stuff that needs google services etc) I don't think I'd stay with such a bank.
- saagarjha 3y ago
  I would prefer to have access to the filesystem too but this isn't really a solution to the problem. People shouldn't have to go around deleting System32 to make space on their device so they can update…
  - PrimeMcFly 3y ago
    At least if you could access the file system you could remove a lot of junk, like the duped picture files you referenced. I agree though software updating is widely inefficient given how it could be done.
  - seec 3y ago
    Yeah, the only reason this is a concern and a problem sometimes is because of Apple greed. Considering how much they charge for storage, you don't go for the large version, and since everything is soldered then it might become a problem in a future update. For example, Apple Watch series 3 cannot update without replacing the whole system for at least 3 years. In this case they didn't even sell more storage. In the end, whatever; it's just Apple nonsense, better be done with them and look for hardware elsewhere than care about all this...
- harha 3y ago
  There's a few reasons I can't do that and even though I've been using Linux since the mid 2000s, I don't want to spend my time tinkering. Apart from that, the bigger issue is that this is something that affects many users and the selling point of Apple was always that it should just work, which it clearly doesn't in this case.

whatever1 3y ago

In the US many internet providers have data caps. And very frequently there is no alternative provider in the same area, so no pressure to lift the caps. Comcast for example has an 1.2TB per month cap and $10 for each additional 50GB chunk. With 4k shows on Netflix, online gaming, and 60gb device updates it’s very easy to hit the cap.

Osiris 3y ago
I got a deal on Comcast to get 1.2Gbps + unlimited bandwidth for $80. I was previously using Century Link Small business at 150Mbps + unlimited. According to their app, I'm consistently using 3-4TB per month. I don't know what the breakdown is but my guess is it's mostly streaming video and video game downloads.
fransje26 3y ago
https://youtu.be/vbHqUNl8YFk?feature=shared&t=31 https://youtu.be/vbHqUNl8YFk?feature=shared&t=31

rekoil 3y ago

We need to look at this from several angles. Yes, most have fast internet these days, which means that for a single person the time spent downloading a 1GB update isn't really a problem like it might have been 10 years ago, but what about the literal hundreds of millions of other macOS users? We're talking hundreds of petabytes of network traffic that happens multiple times a year. Say that update could have been optimised down to say 100MB through shipping only binary diffs instead of complete executables, that's hundreds of petabytes of network traffic that doesn't need to be transferred, which means less link congestion, less packet processing, less data temporarily stored not just on customer machines but in datacenters as well. Unnecessarily large updates in systems with hundreds of millions of users has a non-negligible environmental impact.

Gigachad 3y ago
It's still pretty negligible. Take public transport once instead of driving and you've more than offset a lifetime of downloading OS updates. There are so many low hanging enormous fruit to pick that it makes almost no sense to start with the very difficult and insignificant ones.
- rekoil 3y ago
  I'm not 100% convinced it's all that negligible, but in general I agree with your sentiment. Inefficient software updates are a pet peeve of mine. If I download 5GB of software patches I'd expect to see major differences after applying the patch, but most of the time these days it's barely noticeable changes, yet the patches are still huge. Just look at the iOS 17 OTA packages for iPhone 14 Pro. - 16.6.1 -> 17.0: 3.3GB - fair enough, new major version - 17.0 -> 17.0.1: 452MB - security updates and bugfixes - 17.0.1 -> 17.0.2: 384MB - security updates and bugfixes - 17.0.2 -> 17.0.3: 450MB - security updates and bugfixes - 17.0.3 -> 17.1: 1.35GB - this one is interesting, an update from 17.0.2 to 17.1 is actually about 150MB smaller than from the latest version which uses the same upgrade package as 17.0 GM - 17.1 -> 17.1.1: 395MB - security updates and bugfixes - 17.1.1 -> 17.1.2: 414MB - security updates and bugfixes In total, I've downloaded about 3.44GB of updates for my iPhone since the iOS 17 upgrade in September, and have received WiFi AirDrop support, some security fixes, and better Home app Matter support. Security fixes are in general just a few lines of changed code, and should result in minimal changes to a binary, so if you just diff the new binary with the old one it should come out pretty minimal, yet the patches are several hundred megabytes. Someone in a different thread suggested Apple were doing partial binary patching, but I don't see it.

ChrisRR 3y ago

Given that Apple often comes under fire for using non-upgradable storage, a lot of people care