Inside iOS 9: Apple makes it easier to upgrade with automatic overnight updates, smaller files

Posted:
in iPhone edited November 2015
In a bid to drive the already-impressive iOS upgrade rate even higher, Apple has brought a bit of OS X to iOS 9 with a new automatic installation option that will let iPhones and iPads update themselves --?at a convenient time for the user.


"We're also changing the way software updates are presented to the user," OS X platform lead Andreas Wendker explained at Apple's Worldwide Developers Conference in June. "Users will be given a choice to install right now, or later at night when they might not need access to devices."

This change has brought iOS in line with OS X, which began offering such an option in Mavericks.

On the desktop, selecting "Try Tonight" will automatically install available updates between the hours of 2 a.m. and 5 a.m., whenever the computer is not being used. The update process is fully automatic --?the computer saves state, restarts itself when necessary, and presents the same state when the user logs on again.

The new iOS 9 update mechanisms appear to follow the same pattern. A post-update dialog shown on screen confirms that the update was successfully installed, and gives the user an option to read more information about the changes.

Apple has also reduced the amount of free space required to install updates on the device, from 4.6 gigabytes for iOS 8 to 1.3 gigabytes for iOS 9.

"So we think this is going to keep pushing users to update quickly, and will allow you to keep focusing your energies on the latest version of iOS," Wendker told audience.
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 46

    Brilliant! As usual for Apple. :) Such attention to detail.

     

    Best.

  • Reply 2 of 46
    saareksaarek Posts: 1,321member
    Cutting down the installation size is really important and I think this was a barrier to a lot of users.
  • Reply 3 of 46
    jfc1138jfc1138 Posts: 3,090member
    Will that be as critical if they bump their minimum storage to 32GB?
  • Reply 4 of 46
    wigbywigby Posts: 692member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jfc1138 View Post



    Will that be as critical if they bump their minimum storage to 32GB?



    I think this is partly Apple's way of telling us they intend to keep 16GB low end size for one more year. The 16GB, 64GB and 128GB sizing/pricing was hugely successful for them last year because most chose the 64GB thinking they were paying the same and getting more when they were really just getting what they should for that fair market price of flash RAM that Apple themselves set. It allows more wiggle room for Apple to price cleverly this September and the following Septembers.

  • Reply 5 of 46
    pmzpmz Posts: 3,433member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jfc1138 View Post



    Will that be as critical if they bump their minimum storage to 32GB?



    Absolutely no reason for them to do this.

    --------

     

    Slimmed down updates is great, and automatic overnight updates is even better. It should follow similar behavior to iCloud Backups and OS X Updates. Plugged in, Locked, Connected to WiFi, and between the hours of 2 and 4 am. Follow that criteria and almost all users will have the latest update within days.

  • Reply 6 of 46
    dipdog3dipdog3 Posts: 89member
    When you use your iPhone for an alarm so you make it that important meeting in the morning, it's going to suck if the update fails & your alarm doesn't go off!
  • Reply 7 of 46
    jfc1138jfc1138 Posts: 3,090member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by pmz View Post

     



    Troll post. Absolutely no reason for them to do this.

    --------

     

    .....




    "Troll post."

    Nonsense. A rather legitimate question, and answered as such by another poster. The sole reason for shrinking the update file size (and risking the consequent compromises to effectiveness) in these days of faster bandwidth is accommodating close to full devices: and devices with larger starting capacity are less likely to be "full" I would suggest (and I seem to recall, which is why I phrased the question that way, that there was firm speculation (okay maybe an oxymoron) that the minimum WAS going to be bumped to 32GB). OTOH this may be another nod towards the legacy device community alongside their notes of greater compatibility overall with older devices in the next OS release.

  • Reply 8 of 46
    websnapwebsnap Posts: 224member

    Quote:


    Originally Posted by DipDog3 View Post



    When you use your iPhone for an alarm so you make it that important meeting in the morning, it's going to suck if the update fails & your alarm doesn't go off!

     

    I have never had, nor heard of (unless jailbroken – then all bets are off) an update failing. At all. And I am a day one user of iOS. 

     

    This is truly not something to be concerned about.

  • Reply 9 of 46
    jfc1138jfc1138 Posts: 3,090member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by wigby View Post

     



    I think this is partly Apple's way of telling us they intend to keep 16GB low end size for one more year. The 16GB, 64GB and 128GB sizing/pricing was hugely successful for them last year because most chose the 64GB thinking they were paying the same and getting more when they were really just getting what they should for that fair market price of flash RAM that Apple themselves set. It allows more wiggle room for Apple to price cleverly this September and the following Septembers.




    Hadn't some one of repute reported out a firm-ish bump to 32GB? That was actually the spirit of why I asked that, as as you say this would seem to be an indication there won't be a storage minimum bump. And as I prefer using a computer to moderate the updates where free capacity is just about a non-issue I'm pretty agnostic on the whole thing.

  • Reply 10 of 46
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    I got a kick out of this when Craig announced it as I remember some people here claiming file size isn't an issue because people can just update from iTunes. But Craig specially said one of the reason iOS 8 adoption rate was slower than usual is because people didn't have enough free space to do an OTA update. I'm so glad Apple is fixing this. The app thinning stuff looks great too.
  • Reply 11 of 46
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    wigby wrote: »

    I think this is partly Apple's way of telling us they intend to keep 16GB low end size for one more year. The 16GB, 64GB and 128GB sizing/pricing was hugely successful for them last year because most chose the 64GB thinking they were paying the same and getting more when they were really just getting what they should for that fair market price of flash RAM that Apple themselves set. It allows more wiggle room for Apple to price cleverly this September and the following Septembers.

    Well iOS 9 will be available for any device that got iOS 8 so my guess is it's a nod to older devices which I'm sure a lot of them are 16GB or even some 8GB.
  • Reply 12 of 46
    jbdragonjbdragon Posts: 2,246member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by DipDog3 View Post



    When you use your iPhone for an alarm so you make it that important meeting in the morning, it's going to suck if the update fails & your alarm doesn't go off!

     

    Well hopefully that won't happen!   Microsoft is forcing automatic updtes with Windows 10.  Google has been doing Automatic updates with Chrome forever.  Lets hope for better testing before throwing a auto update release out there.  Otherwise everyone with a iphone could be screwed at once, instead of a few people who warn everyone else to NOT get that update!!!!

  • Reply 13 of 46
    jbdragonjbdragon Posts: 2,246member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jfc1138 View Post

     



    "Troll post."

    Nonsense. A rather legitimate question, and answered as such by another poster. The sole reason for shrinking the update file size (and risking the consequent compromises to effectiveness) in these days of faster bandwidth is accommodating close to full devices: and devices with larger starting capacity are less likely to be "full" I would suggest (and I seem to recall, which is why I phrased the question that way, that there was firm speculation (okay maybe an oxymoron) that the minimum WAS going to be bumped to 32GB). OTOH this may be another nod towards the legacy device community alongside their notes of greater compatibility overall with older devices in the next OS release.


     

    I still believe Apple will keep the 16 Gig phones as the low end.  Because it's $100 to get 64 Gig's, and 16 Gig's a pretty much a joke for anyone except for those Minor Smartphone users that just wants to make calls, a few messages, a little twitter and facebook and a few pictures and that's it.   So most people are spending a extra $100 to get the 64 gig version.  If the low end was 32gig's, how many of those that spent the $100, wouldn't have and been happy with 32 gig's?   my last iPhone, the iPhone 4 was 32gigs.   I used it for over 4+ years.  I tend to hold onto my phones for a long time, so my iPhone 6 I just got the 128 gig version!!!  What the hell.   

     

    If Apple can just bump up from 16 to 64 and get people to jump on that for another $100, that's more money into Apple's pocket.  I sure don't see this changing for the iPhone 6S or 6S+. 

  • Reply 14 of 46
    ecatsecats Posts: 272member
    By moving Photos to the cloud, reducing the size of apps and updates this will allow a 16GB iPhone to be a sensible choice for a price-conscious buyer.

    Currently a decent library of photos and apps would fill the device and prevent any attempts at updating.
  • Reply 15 of 46
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,668member
    jfc1138 wrote: »

    "Troll post."
    Nonsense. A rather legitimate question, and answered as such by another poster. The sole reason for shrinking the update file size (and risking the consequent compromises to effectiveness) in these days of faster bandwidth is accommodating close to full devices: and devices with larger starting capacity are less likely to be "full" I would suggest (and I seem to recall, which is why I phrased the question that way, that there was firm speculation (okay maybe an oxymoron) that the minimum WAS going to be bumped to 32GB). OTOH this may be another nod towards the legacy device community alongside their notes of greater compatibility overall with older devices in the next OS release.

    Apple doesn't work on a technology as significant as this to make like easier for one more year of users. In fact it clearly benefits as users. Once all apps update we can expect fairly huge savings particularly in games.

    It's future proofing. Games can shave off 50% or more so they can add more resources and code overall.
  • Reply 16 of 46
    boredumbboredumb Posts: 1,418member

    "In a bid to drive the already-impressive iOS upgrade rate even higher"...

    Actually, I hope they don't make it more "inline with OSX"...

    I haven't yet upgraded to 10.10.3 because of general concerns about photo collections and streams.

    But I DO have a lovely reminder box on my desktop which can't be removed and takes precedence

    over anything else on the desktop.

    I have to say I don't particularly appreciate this as a way to bump up the "already-impressive"

    upgrade rate...and it'd be even worse to have an unavoidable reminder on the smaller iPhone screen,

    were they actually to design it that way.

  • Reply 17 of 46
    cpsrocpsro Posts: 2,890member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jfc1138 View Post



    Will that be as critical if they bump their minimum storage to 32GB?



    What do you think the answer to that question is? :rolleyes: Naturally it won't be as "critical", but for users who are close to maxing out their 32GB storage, it will still be critical.:p  And I would expect the baseline for some models to remain 16GB for a good deal longer, as the 1.3GB update size makes this practical.8-)

  • Reply 18 of 46



    I just wish Apple offered incremental updates for the built-in apps in legacy versions of iOS.

    At least security updates or fixes for crashes, e.g., Safari on iPad1 with Apple's very own Swift Developer blog page.

  • Reply 19 of 46
    jfc1138jfc1138 Posts: 3,090member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by JBDragon View Post

     

     

    I still believe Apple will keep the 16 Gig phones as the low end.  Because it's $100 to get 64 Gig's, and 16 Gig's a pretty much a joke for anyone except for those Minor Smartphone users that just wants to make calls, a few messages, a little twitter and facebook and a few pictures and that's it.   So most people are spending a extra $100 to get the 64 gig version.  If the low end was 32gig's, how many of those that spent the $100, wouldn't have and been happy with 32 gig's?   my last iPhone, the iPhone 4 was 32gigs.   I used it for over 4+ years.  I tend to hold onto my phones for a long time, so my iPhone 6 I just got the 128 gig version!!!  What the hell.   

     

    If Apple can just bump up from 16 to 64 and get people to jump on that for another $100, that's more money into Apple's pocket.  I sure don't see this changing for the iPhone 6S or 6S+. 




    Yes that's the aspect I forgot about: the legacy installed base for the iPhone is enormous and respecting customers like that IS a good thing no matter if a future minimum storage offer was larger. I take it they're doing something similar (backward compatibility) with El Capitan.

  • Reply 20 of 46
    singularitysingularity Posts: 1,328member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by websnap View Post

     

    Quote:

     

    I have never had, nor heard of (unless jailbroken – then all bets are off) an update failing. At all. And I am a day one user of iOS. 

     

    This is truly not something to be concerned about.


    I have had the rather unpleasant experience of updates failing on vanilla iOS, so now you cant say you have never heard of this happening.

    It does happen and it can put the fear of God (other supranatural entaties are available) in you when it does. There's nothing like having an expensive paperweight and an overwhelming urge to find a computer post haste to get it fixed!

Sign In or Register to comment.