Clicking a button is not the same thing as signing a contract.
Actually, since the year 2000, in the United States at least, it is every bit the same thing, except for some very narrow types of Agreements.
I found that in exactly 5 seconds of Googling. Perhaps you might spend a couple precious SECONDS of your time before displaying your ignorance to all of Slashdotdom.
Um, my understanding is they were not GIVEN a unit at all, they were SOLD a unit. So how does First Sale doctrine not apply?
(Note: the price is irrelevant.)
I apologize for my ASSUMPTION. They were sold (under strict conditions) for US$1.00, ostensibly so that Apple could verify Name and Address through the Credit Card payment.
However, I am not sure that the Doctrine of First Sale gives the user unfettered "rights" to the goods, if they have specifically abrogated certain of those rights by way of a legally-binding Contract (Agreement).
And, as another Slashdotter has posted (who also received a Pre-Release AppleTV Developer Kit), the relevant portion of the Agreement (Contract) that was signed by iFixit in order to receive their Pre-Release AppleTV, makes it pretty clear that they were not to post a Review, Pictures, etc. of their Pre-Release AppleTV.
And before you start baying about how "Click To Agree" Online Contracts are NOT legally binding, you might want to get in sync with the year 2000, when that was changed, at least in the United States.
Yes, Virginia, you really HAD better read that EULA more carefully next time you just want to Install something; because you, like iFixit, really ARE "signing" (and agreeing to the terms of) a legal Contract.
So, with that in mind, there is absolutely no room for a defense of iFixit's actions that any reasonable person (or jury) would believe.
The developers agreement is exactly like any other EULA.
There is no difference.
But maybe the specific AppleTV Pre-Release Agreement is not (and most likely not; see below).
Courtesy of another Slashdotter who also received the AppleTV Pre-Release kit, here is the relevant section thereof, which any reasonable person (or Jury) would conclude iFixit willfully and wantonly violated.
Not every online contract is invalid ab initio In fact, as of the year 2000, in the United States at least, Electronically "signed" Contracts are every bit as legal and binding as paper equivalents.
Typical Slashtard, can't be bothered to do 5 seconds of Googling before exposing his ignorance to the world.
Those terms are not a valid contract and not legally binding on anyone.
Sez you. Prove it.
Also, keep in mind that they signed a SEPARATE, specific AppleTV Pre-Release Agreement, as per another Slashdotter who also received the AppleTV kit, the relevant portion seems pretty clear, and assuming it isn't a hoax, I would say that iFixit clearly violated same.
I don't see Macs4All or CanadianMacFan in here, either. There's usually a few more. Anyhow, Gibson, of GRC fame, is pretty level headed. I admire his work greatly. He's also a very eloquent conversationalist though much of what he says goes a bit over my head. He's pretty bright or I'm pretty stupid - both could be true.
Honestly, I didn't see this article until just now.
Gatekeeper isn't perfect, and I agree that if it were me designing the feature, it would have signed the.app Package, rather than just the Launch executable. But without digging into it, it seems like Gatekeeper was designed to strike a reasonable balance between "utterly safe" (which NOTHING is) and making Developers have to re-sign code every single time they update something in the App Bundle.
My feeling is that Apple may change that policy, though; since it does seem like a somewhat exploitable hole.
Such terms are never negotiated, never discussed, and rarely even read.
They do not represent a legal meeting of the minds. They are invalid as contracts. Apple's NDA is no more than the NDA for a video game beta - it's a click through page. There's a reason Apple isn't suing over this (they'd lose, with major consequences to click wrap bullshit).
If there was no NDA agreement signed, then the legal team couldn't do much.
They signed a Developer Agreement, and an additional Agreement when they got the Pre-Release AppleTV.
While I have not seen the Agreement that came along with the AppleTV Pre-Release "Kit", Apple's Developer Terms & Conditions clearly prohibit the release or discussion of Trade Secrets when it comes to "Pre-Release Materials", which clearly the AppleTV is.
Perfect example of a cure that is worse than the disease.
Really?
Tell me that when you're personal info is siphoned-off by the next cool Android App you sideload (or even get from Google Play).
Ya know, it's not the "Hello Kitty" wallpaper-type Apps that are obvious to spot when they ask for every Permission in the world; its the ones that SEEMINGLY have a perfectly-legitimate reason for wanting to see your phone-state, etc. that actually use that Permission nefariously that are the hard one's to catch.
Yes, that is possible on iOS; but history shows that, for whatever reason, the combination of fine-grained (and easily revokable) Permissions, and whatever Apple does as part of its Approval Process has resulted in an almost completely-sterile ecosystem.
Nope. We can get a Windows phone for considerably less. This may be the opening Microsoft needs.
...and get a considerably less valuable platform.
There's a reason that people are flocking in record numbers from Android to iOS, and NOT to Windows Phone, and it ain't no "Reality Distortion Field", or other such nonsense.
Meanwhile, the number of times Apple has "lost" a prototype somewhere is off the charts. Even back before anyone but the "Mac faithful" gave a tiny damn about Apple, they still pulled this shit. That's why it gets called out now. They've been doing it for decades and it no longer surprises us.
Who's "us"?
I can only think of one time in a very many years (the iPhone prototype that was left in a bar) that Apple has lost a prototype.
Yep. If you buy an object, you have every right to take it apart. It's pretty disgusting that there's a bunch of sycophants on Slashdot of all places criticizing this. This site has really gone to shit since the 90s.
Except they didn't BUY it. There was no "First Sale" doctrine in place here.
They were GIVEN a PRE-RELEASE unit, which was under NDA.
Then they just blithely IGNORED said Agreement. Yay, Anarchy!!!
Google doesn't deal directly with the telcos, except in the case of Nexus.
Telcos buy phones from the OEMs, the OEMs license the OS from Google. Google can't force the telcos to do shit without throwing all the OEMs under the bus and making them seriously consider moving to a competing platform, or in the case of Samsung, get whole-hog behind Tizen.
Quit making excuses for Google.
They are DEFINITELY powerful enough to force a new Reseller Agreement down pretty much every OEM's throat, except maybe Samsung.
And if Samsung is the sole major resistant OEM, guess what's going to happen to THEIR sales?
The reality on the ground is this: a large subset of the > 1 billion current Android devices will never be free of this vulnerability. And that's ok by the manufacturers and network providers, because it's a market opportunity.
And it's ok by Apple, too; who are beginning to see the record-breaking hordes of jaded Android users migrate back to the relative safety (and definitely better upgrade policy!) of iOS.
Probably market dynamics. Google doesn't have relationships directly with carriers except for with the Nexus devices. The carriers deal with the OEMs, and the OEMs deal with Google. Google has all the muscle, and none of the standing to get it done. The OEMs have none of the muscle, but all of the standing.
As Apple plays both the part of Google and OEM in their ecosystem, they have both the muscle and standing.
I agree that Google let the horse out of the barn in the beginning; but maybe the OEMs, if not the Carriers, will change their tune if enough migration away from Android happens.
It that world, even a 1% migration amounts to hundreds of thousands, if not a few million, lost sales.
What agreement? If you're talking about the TOS/EULAs that everyone "agrees to" when you start using a service/device I think several court cases have found them to be non-binding. They are so incredibly long, one sided and complicated that the average person can't be expected to know what they are signing. Beyond that the basic concept is you have purchased a device, you physically possess it, its yours, you can do whatever you want to with it. They can probably ban that device from interacting with their systems without much legal issue but banning an unrelated app on another service/device? That sounds pretty shaky.
Except there was no "First Sale" here.
Apple loaned (maybe "gave") these PRE-RELEASE units to certain Developers for the express purpose of getting a head-start on Developing APPS for the Device, not for spraying the TRADE SECRETS contained in said Device to their COMPETITION (giving THEM a head-start on copying said Device's proprietary features).
This was NOT your average "Click Through" contract that everyone signs a zillion of per month. It was a Developer Agreement. Big difference.
Not every online Agreement is tantamount to a "shrink-wrap" Agreement.
Refusing to bend over to fascist corporate rules is a holy endeavour. YOU'RE A FUCeeKINV SHEEP
So, you think Apple is alone in having people sign NDAs when they get Pre-Release materials?
How do you think all those equipment and software Reviews get published on the very DAY that a new tech Product is RELEASED?
In the Publishing world, they are called "Embargoed" stories. Same thing.
It's not corporate fascism. It is a compromise that works to both party's benefit. And to the Public's too. Or would you rather wait for a month or two before the first Review for a Product you were interested in was available for you to read?
"A few days later, we got an email from Apple informing us that we violated their terms and conditions—and the offending developer account had been banned. Unfortunately, iFixit’s app was tied to that same account, so Apple pulled the app as well. Their justification was that we had taken “actions that may hinder the performance or intended use of the App Store, B2B Program, or the Program.”
AFAIK, "terms and conditions" should not equate to a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA).
Maybe someone was under the influence of dyslexia, and injected NDA into the discussion after seeing/swapping letters in "DNA"?
The Apple Developer Terms and Conditions DOES prohibit the release of Trade Secrets regarding "Pre-Release Materials", so yes, it is a de facto NDA, which iFixit clearly violated.
The article never mentions a Non-Disclosure Agreement, and it never said iFixit was referring to the the developer NDA when they referred to Apple's "intent".
So yeah, whole arguments develop over conjecture.
The only thing for sure is that iFixit knew that Apple might not like it. They knew Apple might take action, and they were OK with that.
Puts Apple in a bad position for coming down hard on people for doing exactly what they usually do.
They didn't "come down hard". They have a legal team if they wanted to do that...
They very publicly break the NDA for personal profit and expect no action? They're lucky the actions by Apple weren't more sever honestly.
But was the NDA valid?
Ah, that's slashdot for you.
One poster speculates that they signed a NDA (phrasing it as a statement, not a speculation) and that they violated the hypothetical terms of the hypothetical NDA that they hypothetically agreed to. Another poster speculates on whether the hypothetical NDA, whose hypothetical terms we don't actually know, was valid.
To quote Twain, "There is something fascinating about slashdot. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact."
They signed a Developer Agreement, or they wouldn't HAVE a Pre-Release AppleTV.
I am thinking that Apple was thinking that iFixit would do a teardown of the AppleTV and keeps it under NDA, until the AppleTV units are available.
Giving iFixit some time to prepare before putting the photos and repair guides on their website and app.
I think Apple doesn't mind iFixit, Apple probably supplies most of the spare parts to iFixit.
I think Apple does mind that iFixit breaks the NDA, and I am not sure but the App was probably rejected because the contents contained information that was under NDA.
All iFixit has done here is made sure they won't receive any developer units from Apple in the future.
Apple has a looong history of "accidental" leaks. A month from now, Apple will quietly reinstate iFixit's account, and go back to business as usual. And yes, iFixit will continue to get pre-release gear.
It seriously wouldn't surprise me to someday learn that Apple outright conspired with iFixit on this one - iFixit looks good to their fans for "taking one for the team", Apple gets its standard slate of fake-viral marketing, everyone wins.
Yeah, that's why Jobs pretty much Banned ATI video cards for them leaking their inclusion in an soon-to-be-released Mac. And IIRC, that was something like HOURS before the formal announcement came.
Why the FUCK does it ALWAYS have to be a FUCKING CONSPIRACY when it comes to Apple? FFS!!!
Can you buy the new Apple TV yet? I'm sure if iFixIt had waited until they could purchase one instead of using a preview unit, they wouldn't have gotten as much flack as they did. They threw caution to the wind and it boomeranged back in their face.
That is EXACTLY it.
iFixit has been publishing Teardowns of RELEASED products for many many years without Apple Reprisal. But showing off the guts of a Pre-Release product is really not Kosher.
I dare say that most OEMs would react in at least as harsh, if not harsher, ways to the exposure of what is, at this point, "Trade Secrets".
I mean, what happens if the AppleTV is delayed due to a Production issue for 6 months? Theoretically, at least, that gives the Competition (and believe me, there IS Competition in the STB world!) a pretty hefty jump on updating their Boxen to match, or even exceed, Apple's product.
So, your only real solution? Buy a Nexus device. Those are the ones which always get updates. Pretty much every proprietary version will get support until the manufacturer moves on to the next model.
That's not your ONLY solution...
And iOS almost always reaches several models back with Updates. And if they are critical Updates, sometimes even further back than usual.
Slashdot Mirror
Clicking a button is not the same thing as signing a contract.
Actually, since the year 2000, in the United States at least, it is every bit the same thing, except for some very narrow types of Agreements.
I found that in exactly 5 seconds of Googling. Perhaps you might spend a couple precious SECONDS of your time before displaying your ignorance to all of Slashdotdom.
Um, my understanding is they were not GIVEN a unit at all, they were SOLD a unit. So how does First Sale doctrine not apply? (Note: the price is irrelevant.)
I apologize for my ASSUMPTION. They were sold (under strict conditions) for US$1.00, ostensibly so that Apple could verify Name and Address through the Credit Card payment.
However, I am not sure that the Doctrine of First Sale gives the user unfettered "rights" to the goods, if they have specifically abrogated certain of those rights by way of a legally-binding Contract (Agreement).
And, as another Slashdotter has posted (who also received a Pre-Release AppleTV Developer Kit), the relevant portion of the Agreement (Contract) that was signed by iFixit in order to receive their Pre-Release AppleTV, makes it pretty clear that they were not to post a Review, Pictures, etc. of their Pre-Release AppleTV.
And before you start baying about how "Click To Agree" Online Contracts are NOT legally binding, you might want to get in sync with the year 2000, when that was changed, at least in the United States.
Yes, Virginia, you really HAD better read that EULA more carefully next time you just want to Install something; because you, like iFixit, really ARE "signing" (and agreeing to the terms of) a legal Contract.
So, with that in mind, there is absolutely no room for a defense of iFixit's actions that any reasonable person (or jury) would believe.
The developers agreement is exactly like any other EULA.
There is no difference.
But maybe the specific AppleTV Pre-Release Agreement is not (and most likely not; see below).
Courtesy of another Slashdotter who also received the AppleTV Pre-Release kit, here is the relevant section thereof, which any reasonable person (or Jury) would conclude iFixit willfully and wantonly violated.
Not every online contract is invalid ab initio In fact, as of the year 2000, in the United States at least, Electronically "signed" Contracts are every bit as legal and binding as paper equivalents.
Typical Slashtard, can't be bothered to do 5 seconds of Googling before exposing his ignorance to the world.
Those terms are not a valid contract and not legally binding on anyone.
Sez you. Prove it.
Also, keep in mind that they signed a SEPARATE, specific AppleTV Pre-Release Agreement, as per another Slashdotter who also received the AppleTV kit, the relevant portion seems pretty clear, and assuming it isn't a hoax, I would say that iFixit clearly violated same.
I don't see Macs4All or CanadianMacFan in here, either. There's usually a few more. Anyhow, Gibson, of GRC fame, is pretty level headed. I admire his work greatly. He's also a very eloquent conversationalist though much of what he says goes a bit over my head. He's pretty bright or I'm pretty stupid - both could be true.
Honestly, I didn't see this article until just now.
.app Package, rather than just the Launch executable. But without digging into it, it seems like Gatekeeper was designed to strike a reasonable balance between "utterly safe" (which NOTHING is) and making Developers have to re-sign code every single time they update something in the App Bundle.
Gatekeeper isn't perfect, and I agree that if it were me designing the feature, it would have signed the
My feeling is that Apple may change that policy, though; since it does seem like a somewhat exploitable hole.
Such terms are never negotiated, never discussed, and rarely even read. They do not represent a legal meeting of the minds. They are invalid as contracts. Apple's NDA is no more than the NDA for a video game beta - it's a click through page. There's a reason Apple isn't suing over this (they'd lose, with major consequences to click wrap bullshit).
Prove it, or STFU.
If there was no NDA agreement signed, then the legal team couldn't do much.
They signed a Developer Agreement, and an additional Agreement when they got the Pre-Release AppleTV.
While I have not seen the Agreement that came along with the AppleTV Pre-Release "Kit", Apple's Developer Terms & Conditions clearly prohibit the release or discussion of Trade Secrets when it comes to "Pre-Release Materials", which clearly the AppleTV is.
Perfect example of a cure that is worse than the disease.
Really?
Tell me that when you're personal info is siphoned-off by the next cool Android App you sideload (or even get from Google Play).
Ya know, it's not the "Hello Kitty" wallpaper-type Apps that are obvious to spot when they ask for every Permission in the world; its the ones that SEEMINGLY have a perfectly-legitimate reason for wanting to see your phone-state, etc. that actually use that Permission nefariously that are the hard one's to catch.
Yes, that is possible on iOS; but history shows that, for whatever reason, the combination of fine-grained (and easily revokable) Permissions, and whatever Apple does as part of its Approval Process has resulted in an almost completely-sterile ecosystem.
Nope. We can get a Windows phone for considerably less. This may be the opening Microsoft needs.
...and get a considerably less valuable platform.
There's a reason that people are flocking in record numbers from Android to iOS, and NOT to Windows Phone, and it ain't no "Reality Distortion Field", or other such nonsense.
Meanwhile, the number of times Apple has "lost" a prototype somewhere is off the charts. Even back before anyone but the "Mac faithful" gave a tiny damn about Apple, they still pulled this shit. That's why it gets called out now. They've been doing it for decades and it no longer surprises us.
Who's "us"?
I can only think of one time in a very many years (the iPhone prototype that was left in a bar) that Apple has lost a prototype.
Citation on the "Off the charts" claim?
Yep. If you buy an object, you have every right to take it apart. It's pretty disgusting that there's a bunch of sycophants on Slashdot of all places criticizing this. This site has really gone to shit since the 90s.
Except they didn't BUY it. There was no "First Sale" doctrine in place here.
They were GIVEN a PRE-RELEASE unit, which was under NDA.
Then they just blithely IGNORED said Agreement. Yay, Anarchy!!!
Except not.
Google doesn't deal directly with the telcos, except in the case of Nexus.
Telcos buy phones from the OEMs, the OEMs license the OS from Google. Google can't force the telcos to do shit without throwing all the OEMs under the bus and making them seriously consider moving to a competing platform, or in the case of Samsung, get whole-hog behind Tizen.
Quit making excuses for Google.
They are DEFINITELY powerful enough to force a new Reseller Agreement down pretty much every OEM's throat, except maybe Samsung.
And if Samsung is the sole major resistant OEM, guess what's going to happen to THEIR sales?
The reality on the ground is this: a large subset of the > 1 billion current Android devices will never be free of this vulnerability. And that's ok by the manufacturers and network providers, because it's a market opportunity.
And it's ok by Apple, too; who are beginning to see the record-breaking hordes of jaded Android users migrate back to the relative safety (and definitely better upgrade policy!) of iOS.
Probably market dynamics. Google doesn't have relationships directly with carriers except for with the Nexus devices. The carriers deal with the OEMs, and the OEMs deal with Google. Google has all the muscle, and none of the standing to get it done. The OEMs have none of the muscle, but all of the standing.
As Apple plays both the part of Google and OEM in their ecosystem, they have both the muscle and standing.
I agree that Google let the horse out of the barn in the beginning; but maybe the OEMs, if not the Carriers, will change their tune if enough migration away from Android happens.
It that world, even a 1% migration amounts to hundreds of thousands, if not a few million, lost sales.
What agreement? If you're talking about the TOS/EULAs that everyone "agrees to" when you start using a service/device I think several court cases have found them to be non-binding. They are so incredibly long, one sided and complicated that the average person can't be expected to know what they are signing. Beyond that the basic concept is you have purchased a device, you physically possess it, its yours, you can do whatever you want to with it. They can probably ban that device from interacting with their systems without much legal issue but banning an unrelated app on another service/device? That sounds pretty shaky.
Except there was no "First Sale" here.
Apple loaned (maybe "gave") these PRE-RELEASE units to certain Developers for the express purpose of getting a head-start on Developing APPS for the Device, not for spraying the TRADE SECRETS contained in said Device to their COMPETITION (giving THEM a head-start on copying said Device's proprietary features).
This was NOT your average "Click Through" contract that everyone signs a zillion of per month. It was a Developer Agreement. Big difference.
Not every online Agreement is tantamount to a "shrink-wrap" Agreement.
Refusing to bend over to fascist corporate rules is a holy endeavour. YOU'RE A FUCeeKINV SHEEP
So, you think Apple is alone in having people sign NDAs when they get Pre-Release materials?
How do you think all those equipment and software Reviews get published on the very DAY that a new tech Product is RELEASED?
In the Publishing world, they are called "Embargoed" stories. Same thing.
It's not corporate fascism. It is a compromise that works to both party's benefit. And to the Public's too. Or would you rather wait for a month or two before the first Review for a Product you were interested in was available for you to read?
From TFA:
"A few days later, we got an email from Apple informing us that we violated their terms and conditions—and the offending developer account had been banned. Unfortunately, iFixit’s app was tied to that same account, so Apple pulled the app as well. Their justification was that we had taken “actions that may hinder the performance or intended use of the App Store, B2B Program, or the Program.”
AFAIK, "terms and conditions" should not equate to a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA).
Maybe someone was under the influence of dyslexia, and injected NDA into the discussion after seeing/swapping letters in "DNA"?
The Apple Developer Terms and Conditions DOES prohibit the release of Trade Secrets regarding "Pre-Release Materials", so yes, it is a de facto NDA, which iFixit clearly violated.
In their history, they've done this to every Apple product so far. So what are they worried about now?
But can you show me any other Apple product teardown by iFixit that was POSTED before the product's Availability Date?
The article never mentions a Non-Disclosure Agreement, and it never said iFixit was referring to the the developer NDA when they referred to Apple's "intent". So yeah, whole arguments develop over conjecture. The only thing for sure is that iFixit knew that Apple might not like it. They knew Apple might take action, and they were OK with that. Puts Apple in a bad position for coming down hard on people for doing exactly what they usually do.
They didn't "come down hard". They have a legal team if they wanted to do that...
They very publicly break the NDA for personal profit and expect no action? They're lucky the actions by Apple weren't more sever honestly.
But was the NDA valid?
Ah, that's slashdot for you.
One poster speculates that they signed a NDA (phrasing it as a statement, not a speculation) and that they violated the hypothetical terms of the hypothetical NDA that they hypothetically agreed to. Another poster speculates on whether the hypothetical NDA, whose hypothetical terms we don't actually know, was valid.
To quote Twain, "There is something fascinating about slashdot. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact."
They signed a Developer Agreement, or they wouldn't HAVE a Pre-Release AppleTV.
I am thinking that Apple was thinking that iFixit would do a teardown of the AppleTV and keeps it under NDA, until the AppleTV units are available. Giving iFixit some time to prepare before putting the photos and repair guides on their website and app.
I think Apple doesn't mind iFixit, Apple probably supplies most of the spare parts to iFixit.
I think Apple does mind that iFixit breaks the NDA, and I am not sure but the App was probably rejected because the contents contained information that was under NDA.
Precisely!
All iFixit has done here is made sure they won't receive any developer units from Apple in the future.
Apple has a looong history of "accidental" leaks. A month from now, Apple will quietly reinstate iFixit's account, and go back to business as usual. And yes, iFixit will continue to get pre-release gear.
It seriously wouldn't surprise me to someday learn that Apple outright conspired with iFixit on this one - iFixit looks good to their fans for "taking one for the team", Apple gets its standard slate of fake-viral marketing, everyone wins.
Yeah, that's why Jobs pretty much Banned ATI video cards for them leaking their inclusion in an soon-to-be-released Mac. And IIRC, that was something like HOURS before the formal announcement came.
Why the FUCK does it ALWAYS have to be a FUCKING CONSPIRACY when it comes to Apple? FFS!!!
or apple could have NOT been a bunch of dbags...
yeah i know. never happen. but it's the easiest thing. do nothing.
Protecting Trade Secrets and enforcing a signed NDA is not douchebaggery.
Let me guess: You have never developed anything under NDA.
Can you buy the new Apple TV yet? I'm sure if iFixIt had waited until they could purchase one instead of using a preview unit, they wouldn't have gotten as much flack as they did. They threw caution to the wind and it boomeranged back in their face.
That is EXACTLY it.
iFixit has been publishing Teardowns of RELEASED products for many many years without Apple Reprisal. But showing off the guts of a Pre-Release product is really not Kosher.
I dare say that most OEMs would react in at least as harsh, if not harsher, ways to the exposure of what is, at this point, "Trade Secrets".
I mean, what happens if the AppleTV is delayed due to a Production issue for 6 months? Theoretically, at least, that gives the Competition (and believe me, there IS Competition in the STB world!) a pretty hefty jump on updating their Boxen to match, or even exceed, Apple's product.
That is EXACTLY why there are NDAs.
So, your only real solution? Buy a Nexus device. Those are the ones which always get updates. Pretty much every proprietary version will get support until the manufacturer moves on to the next model.
That's not your ONLY solution...
And iOS almost always reaches several models back with Updates. And if they are critical Updates, sometimes even further back than usual.