Talk:IOS/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Do we need that much detail about Android vs. iOS market share?

Does the first paragraph really need to say

In October 2015, it was the most commonly used mobile operating system, in a few countries, such as in Canada, the United States – but no longer in the North American continent as a whole, for smartphones – the United Kingdom, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Japan, and Australia, while iOS is far behind Google's Android globally; iOS had a 19.7% share of the smartphone mobile operating system units shipped in the fourth quarter of 2014, behind Android with 76.6%. However, on tablets, iOS is the most commonly used tablet operating system in the world, while it has lost majority in many countries (e.g. the Africa continent and briefly lost Asia).

rather than just something such as

As of October 2015, iOS is the second most commonly used mobile operating system, behind Android.

with appropriate citations? That's a statement that's not likely to change from day to day (as in "briefly lost Asia" - "brief" market share changes really aren't that interesting), and gives the most important point, namely that it's one of the two big mobile OSes but it's not the market leader. Guy Harris (talk) 01:41, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. For the lead paragraph, your change is a significant improvement. --Yamla (talk) 02:11, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Market Share

The source given for tablets compares only browser data so i've gotten rid of it since it's hugely misleading. I've stuck in a source for sales instead which shows what we all know: that Android sales are by and far massively higher than iPad sales (Well, there's hundreds of models on sale at different price points), though they did take years to get there. I've also added the words "by sales" since the section could be misinterpreted as it was worded. Now we're comparing sales for phones and tablets, rather than sales for phones and browser usage for tablets. Seems fairer, unbiased and more accurate. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 17:06, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I took what you added to the "Market share" section and put it in the lede, replacing the fussy details in question. (I also fixed the reference that claimed to be citing Gartner to cite Gartner rather than citing AppleInsider talking about Gartner.) Guy Harris (talk) 18:11, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

But...We didn't have an edit war yet? The system works! Hurrah! Thanks Guy ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 09:24, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure the browser date is misleading, possibly the other way around.. I do not disagree with "the second most commonly used mobile operating system, behind Android". Overall (worldwide) and combining (mobile/smartphones and tablets, note some analysts do not include tablets with mobile, others do or with desktop or keep it in its own category). I wrote at least parts of the complicated lead on this, and I'm ok, with it being elsewhere. I'm just trying to go out of my way to be fair to the iPad/iOS. If I put something about Android winning market share in it's article (or at usage share of operating systems) I try to clarify the tablet situation. Some of it may be appropriate here (or not, then at iPad?).

There are at least four views to "market share", ordered by what I think is most important: a) actual use (hard to know, excluding for browser use), b) installed base, c) browsing market share (best proxy for b?), d) market share in a quarter/year, e.g. Gartner's numbers, but not they are not a good substitute for installed base.

Keep in mind that worldwide the iPad have 2/3rds web browsing market share (contradicting d. "market share"). While 2/3, just eyeballing the global map it seems about in half of countries iPad is the most popular tablet (iOS), and in all of the rest of the countries Android tablets are most popular.[1][2]

Even when you have the right split/market share it can diverge much by continents/countries. E.g. In South America, Android has gained majority-stake on tablets (twice).[3] Android tablets have also had a (great) majority in Africa for some time.[4] In Asia, Android battles iOS for majority on tablets, where the iPad lost majority for six weeks (strictly iOS is currently below 50% now but Android also, even if you add "Unknown", and probably "Linux" etc.).[5] North America still has a safe majority (but lost it in Cuba[6] and almost in Guatemala[7]).

I find the comparison between browser usage and sales to be ridiculous since we don't know how that information is logged and you're comparing usage, not popularity: By visitors to a certain site? By a certain browser's usage? By a certain browser's usage on a certain site, in a certain country, with javascript enabled? If we're going from market share, then why even include browser usage? Market share by sales is more reliable by far, and we can actually see from the source how the information was logged. By your logic, my dad wouldn't be included in your argument since he's only used his tablet twice since christmas, and both times for playing tetris, instead of web browsing. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 09:43, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not saying any one statistic is perfect (and more than one can be reported, not saying both need to be in the lead, I just put there what I had available), especially when they are contradictory. One problem with (cumulative) sales, is that it is claimed that people hang on to their iPhones/iPads longer than Androids. You have no way of knowing, by looking at sales only. A higher percentage of sales of Androids may reside in landfills (or be used privately as you say, and nobody would know actual usage; of say [youtube] apps,that may be a better proxy for use than browser only, if you can find a source). That certainly applies to most PCs ever sold ("usage share of operating systems"-article starts with "shipments", yes, but the bulk of that article is based on browser usage (except for non-"client" computers), as a proxy for actual use, are you saying we should ignore it?). Last quarter [of the year] sales stats for Apple's products have, rightfully, been criticized. A full year (or more) is better, but those numbers ignore, the installed base (that is actually used), that is the important number you want to approximate, as Apple had a head-start on Android.

You seems to be casting all browser statistics in a bad light: "By visitors to a certain site?", of course not. They also track not just browsers, but the operating systems based on the user agent string. comp.arch (talk) 13:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

If you want to go by sales, can we say that Android tablets dominate iPad sales? I'm not pushing for that, see here about billion non-iPad (Android?) tablets sold last year. Or at least I assumed (since those chead tablets are not iPads, and I guess not Windows or otherwise.. Even if split two ways, then just Android and Windows would top iPads in sales..). comp.arch (talk) 17:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge with IPSW

Doesn't appear to need its own article. --  Kethrus |talk to me  12:58, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Since non-iOS iPod firmware also uses the IPSW format, it's more relevant to merge it with the iTunes article than this. — AYTK talk. 14:42, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, if this is to be merged, this is obviously the wrong target, even just by glancing at the source article. — Smuckola(talk) 19:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, wrong target article. It's an internal detail, best put Somewhere Else. Guy Harris (talk) 19:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Merge plz. Thanks.--Thejfh1999 (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose See this article Apple ordered to unlock San Bernardino shooter’s iPhone - this may be a subject in and of itself. -- Callinus (talk) 13:47, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on IOS. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080218214950/http://developer.apple.com/iphone/devcenter/third_party_apps.php to http://developer.apple.com/iphone/devcenter/third_party_apps.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:55, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Multiple version numbers in the infobox?

There is currently a discussion of whether Template:Infobox OS should be used with multiple version numbers - for example, to list both a "software update" and "next major release" beta, or to list betas from more than one release stream. If you believe that multiple {stable, preview} releases should never appear in that infobox, or if you believe that they should appear under some or all circumstances where there's more than one beta of the OS in question available, you might want to comment there. (I have no strong belief either way; I'm OK with the main OS page listing only the "next major release" beta, but listing betas from multiple streams if they exist, but I'd also be OK with other choices.) Guy Harris (talk) 08:08, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2016

Change the iOS Public Beta to Public Beta 3, released today, August 2, 2016 Build 14A5322e

Weaver.jarod (talk) 17:38, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Done - but in the template, as that's where the release information comes from. Guy Harris (talk) 18:00, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Does the article really need detailed included apps table?

Hi. I want to ask here before making any major changes to the article. The Included apps section causes a major layout problem, and the information is almost entirely unsourced. If you ask me, the table presents an enthusiast level of information, and that's not bad at all, but I don't think Wikipedia is the place for it. I'm wondering if we should 1) Remove the section entirely, 2) Remove the table and replace it with a regular, more basic list of apps and their functions, or 3) Leave it the way it is right now.

Thoughts? :) LocalNet (talk) 06:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I vote for alternative 1 - remove it. Guy Harris (talk) 06:39, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote. Do you think I should just remove it now or wait a few hours to hear others' opinions in case someone else has a strong opinion on this? LocalNet (talk) 06:48, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Screenshot image copyright violation?

Unless I'm missing something, this edit reverts to a version that uses an image that this edit to ARM architecture removed for being a "copyvio image".

So is the iOS 9 home screen image in question a copyvio image or not? Neither of the two images in this article have, on their information pages, any claim of a copyright violation not covered by "fair use"; they have "non-free image rationales" for some pages - they don't have "non-free image rationales" for the pages from which they were removed; is that the issue here? Guy Harris (talk) 16:25, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeap. Our fair-use policy requires a detailed fair-use rationale for each specific use of a copyrighted image. Note that the image we are using now seems to have a rationale saying, "To illustrate the default layout and configuration of the iOS 9 homescreen as released by Apple on an iPhone 6s". That's not enough. The license requires the image be used in the context of "identification of, and critical commentary on, the software in question." For that image, the rationale could be tuned up to indicate that it is being used in articles which provide critical commentary on the software in question, so I didn't bother challenging it. The old image, though, didn't even bother with even the slightest attempt at a rationale. And in ARM architecture, the image was unambiguously used solely for illustration, not for critical commentary on the software. Happy to explain more if you like. Note that Wikipedia's WP:FU policy is tricky and you most certainly shouldn't take my word as gospel. --Yamla (talk) 16:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2016

Could somebody add "(as iPhone OS)" next to the Start date and age template, so that it says "|released = {start date and age|2007|06|29} (as iPhone OS)" to show its original founding name?

108.45.29.72 (talk) 21:41, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

The original name was "OS X", if you believe Steve Jobs when he announced the iPhone. In fact, it wasn't running OS X, it was running a derivative of OS X that hadn't yet been given a name. It got a name on March 8, 2008, when the iPhone OS SDK beta was released. So it wasn't released "as iPhone OS" on 2007-06-29, it wasn't released as anything other than "the OS X that the iPhone runs" or however you want to translated what Jobs said. Guy Harris (talk) 22:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Fluff in lead

iPad tablets are also the second most popular, by sales, against Android since 2013, when Android tablet sales increased by 127%.

Not worthy of the lead IMHO. We got the "big thing" idea already from other text. — MaxEnt 01:30, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

As of June 2016, Apple's App Store contained more than 2 million iOS applications, 725,000 of which are native for iPads. These mobile apps have collectively been downloaded more than 130 billion times.

Dear lord, I hadn't even got to this passage yet. — MaxEnt 01:32, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I disagree completely. This is the iOS article, not iPhone. The iPad info and App Store info is important and essential information. What would you even suggest to do different with it? LocalNet (talk) 04:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2017

I think the offer from the producer to make the OS accessible for blind people and others should be more reflected in the text. Excellent sources for this are:

• https://www.cnet.com/news/apple-iphone-voiceover-technology-for-the-blind/
• http://www.afb.org/info/living-with-vision-loss/using-technology/cell-phones-tablets-and-other-mobile-technology-for-users-with-visual-impairments/apple-ios-for-iphone-and-ipad-considerations-for-users-with-visual-impairments-and-blindness/getting-help-with-ios-accessibility/12345
• https://techcrunch.com/2016/06/26/accessibility-was-all-around-this-years-wwdc/
• https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/05/how-the-blind-are-reinventing-the-iphone/256589/

I would change the text to something like this: iOS offers the most advanced accessibility features for users with vision and hearing disabilities at all big mobile OS. A lot of third party hard- and software supports the operating system. 2A02:168:4CBD:0:DCEC:CED6:2FD5:DFA5 (talk) 20:35, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi! Thank you for the post and for the sources! We can expand on info in the Accessibility section, but I'm not sure the info qualifies for the lead. I will have a closer look at the sources in the coming days and see if I can use it to expand on the section :) LocalNet (talk) 20:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Closing request as answered per LocalNet. ProgrammingGeek ^talktome 17:46, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh my goodness! I forgot about this! I am so sorry! I will begin looking at the sources right now. Thank you @ProgrammingGeek: for posting a new comment here so I was reminded! :) LocalNet (talk) 17:48, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done :) LocalNet (talk) 18:24, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2017

The comment about iPad hardware sales at the end of the first paragraph is inappropriate for an article about iOS. 24.96.64.165 (talk) 05:49, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi there! I think I agree with you. I will remove it :) LocalNet (talk) 07:09, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2017

Please modify the pie chart to show all iOS versions. Here it is:

Platform usage as measured by the App Store on June 20, 2017.

  iOS 10 (65%)

  iOS 9 (16%)

  iOS 8 (5%)

  iOS 7 (4%)

  iOS 6 (3%)

  iOS 5 (3%)

  iOS 4 (3%)

  iPhone OS 3 (0.75%)

  iPhone OS 2 (0.24%)

  iPhone OS 1 (0.01%)

And fix the errors. Copy the source of this pie chart and add it to the page. 64.237.234.224 (talk) 14:17, 20 June 2017 (UTC) 64.237.234.224 (talk) 14:17, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

No. You forgot to provide the reliable citation for this information. And it's not clear why you are providing a chart from February, 2017. --Yamla (talk) 14:21, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I changed the date to the correct one, Please re-accept this. 64.237.234.224 (talk) 14:24, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

No. Still no reliable citation. --Yamla (talk) 14:41, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

'at present' rather than 'presently'

Please correct the grammar in the second sentence to read "which at present" rather that "that presently". The word 'presently' is use to refer to something which is about to, but has not yet occurred. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.195.85 (talk) 14:05, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Both Merriam Webster and Oxford Dictionaries appear to disagree with you, permitting "presently" to refer to the "present time". Can you please source your claim? --Yamla (talk) 15:31, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Darius robin revert my edit without explanation

User:Darius robin continuously revert my edit without clearly explanation. When I try to discuss this in his talk page, no any response, instead, he go on to revert my related edit in Template:Infobox OS without explanation. What should I do on this?

@Yamla:, my revert should not count in 3RR in this case?

--Ans (talk) 04:05, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:3RR most definitely applies here. This is categorically not an exception to that policy. --Yamla (talk) 13:20, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

"Implications for advertisers"

"Intelligent Tracking Prevention is a feature of Safari's WebKit." in edit summary. No need to revert (all the other) info because of info that's commented out. I regard info in comments, invisible, kind of like Talk-page.

It doesn't matter if only in Safari or WebKit. Just as with WebView in Android, I believe it's an integral part of the OS. Similar to Microsoft famous case with the government.. I believe the Safari web browser is not separately installable (or uninstallable?) and thus part of the OS. And I believe usable by general apps (as with WebView), at least e.g. Firefox for iOS; not all may know this, but Firefox that generally uses its Gecko webengine, is prevented from doing so on iOS; I assume all restrictions, because of "Intelligent Tracking Prevention" (that yes, should be in article[s]), applies to it, that is all browsers, and all apps that render web pages (ads) in that way (not sure if iOS allows for ads other ways..).

At least, there are for sure "implications" for Safari, and as I said thus iOS 11. Also, isn't it ok to quote the CEO of StatCounter on it as his view? comp.arch (talk) 10:58, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Comp.arch: Thanks for coming to the talk page! Please note that information written in an article, even if through hidden parameters, is still written in the article, and I try to address any relevant info I see. You're actually the first person I have seen who writes things in hidden ways, and I'm not entirely sure why? If it was relevant, shouldn't it have been visible to readers? If I understand you correctly, you believe that Intelligent Tracking Prevention, a feature of WebKit rendering used in the Safari app, is an integral part of the operating system. I got a little confused by your Microsoft and Firefox examples, so please let me know if there is info there I didn't answer through my reply. But in regards to WebKit, I can see your point. However, I have some issues with how the information is presented in the article.

• First and foremost, it was written in the "Market share" section, which relates to how big or widespread the iOS platform is. I don't personally have any problems with mentioning that iOS 11 has overtaken 10.3, but my bigger concern is how valid the info will be in the long-term. Should we update that statistic every time a new version overtakes an old one? I think that's unnecessary.

• Second, the report used was a StatCounter press release, followed by StatCounter statistics. Seeing as StatCounter is a firm working with statistics, I assume they update stats very often - it's their job. Not all of that reporting is noteworthy to the general public, and I want us to find secondary news reports to establish what information is actually important to the average reader, especially in context to long-term history. Additionally, StatCounter is not the only firm doing this work, so it can appear promotional towards their brand to exclusively use their statistics. LocalNet (talk) 11:12, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I thought United States v. Microsoft Corp. was well know where Microsoft got into hot water with bundling a web browser (or not having a way of uninstalling) for competitive reasons. You're always limited in some way in what the OS allows you to do. Yes, there are probably ways to show ads, without using HTML (unless EULA just forbids, don't know that for a fact). While it seems you have a web browser choice, you don't actually have a web engine choice in iOS, so Apple would be violating the same laws, if they where market dominant (they're however no longer, with a possible exception for iPads).

At first I only meant to add statistics info ("fastest adoption rate", contradicting another source, kind of but they're saying how fast to 60%), then noticed a drop in iOS 10, that I thought relevant, it wasn't because only for 10.0. I'm mostly ok with the articles as is after your reverts. The "implication" part just go in along the way as I noticed it in the same press release. I guess it's still relevant (in another section). comp.arch (talk) 11:28, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• @Comp.arch: Ahh, I now understand the Microsoft situation. I agree with your points regarding the bundling of Safari and the forced use of WebKit, but I did some research and it appears that Intelligent Tracking Prevention is only on desktop Safari, not the mobile version, and is therefore written about appropriately in macOS High Sierra's Safari section.

• In regards to what you wrote on the iOS 11 talk page that Apple is a primary source for adoption rates, that's true. But we're not sourcing Apple, but rather third-party websites using its information. Had there been multiple media publications discussing StatCounter's statistics, that would make it noteworthy for the news media and for a general audience and therefore would probably justify inclusion in the article. But I haven't seen a single source do so, unfortunately. LocalNet (talk) 12:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2018

Change "11.2.5 beta 2" to "11.2.5 beta 3" and change "15D5046b" to "15D5049a" 2601:800:C100:DD28:3875:1E0C:30CC:F0E6 (talk) 00:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 02:29, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

It says that in a template, not in the article itself; you need to click on the "[±]" box at the end of the "Last preview" entry in the infobox to change it. I've just updated it (by copying over the information and references from the template for iOS 11). Guy Harris (talk) 03:50, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2018

Please change "The Secure Enclave is a coprocessor found in iOS devices that contain Touch ID" to "The Secure Enclave is a coprocessor found in iOS devices that contain Touch ID and Face ID" because the iPhone X has Face ID instead of Touch ID and also contains The Secure Enclave.

Source: https://support.apple.com/en-in/HT208108 116.75.226.81 (talk) 18:13, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Done, with the minor change of using 'or' instead of 'and'. --Yamla (talk) 18:15, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Ios (island) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:15, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2018

2405:204:91A7:AD52:5FE2:A73C:A3A0:69FF (talk) 08:34, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

You have to actually request a particular change; you can't just say "please edit this page to do something unspecified". Guy Harris (talk) 09:06, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Request

— Preceding unsigned comment added by コロコロコミックエラー (talk • contribs) 01:42, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Guy Harris (talk) 03:54, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2019

• {defaults}

24.43.26.36 (talk) 01:22, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: No request made. Egsan Bacon (talk) 01:33, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

All

Every app Kbeard123 (talk) 05:53, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Another weird redirect

Like macOS, every time I try to type in iOS, it auto-corrects it to IOS. This is not proper. Remove this. 111.88.15.218 (talk) 16:09, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

And, as I said on Talk:MacOS, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (technical restrictions) says:

Some page names are not possible because of limitations imposed by the MediaWiki software. In some cases (such as names which should begin with a lowercase letter, like eBay), a template can be added to the article to cause the title header to be displayed as desired. In other cases (such as names containing restricted characters) it is necessary to adopt and display a different title. This page describes appropriate ways to handle these situations.

...

Restrictions on page titles are listed at Wikipedia:Page name § Technical restrictions and limitations. The most commonly encountered problems are that:

• titles cannot begin with a lowercase letter;

and as Wikipedia:Page name#Technical restrictions and limitations says,

A pagename cannot begin with a lowercase letter in any alphabet except for the German letter ß.

so the URL has to end with "MacOS". If you want that restriction removed, you'll have to talk to the people who maintain this particular MediaWiki installation (the English-language Wikipedia) to get it removed. Guy Harris (talk) 16:54, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Software updates clutter

Right now under the software updates section there is quite a bit of visual clutter.

---

=== Software updates ===

Main article: iOS version history

See also: iPhone OS 1, iPhone OS 2, iPhone OS 3, iOS 4, iOS 5, iOS 6, iOS 7, iOS 8, iOS 9, iOS 10, iOS 11, iOS 12, and iOS 13

---

I suggest deleting the 'see also' links. They serve little purpose - and they're all linked on the iOS version history page. 61.245.139.33 (talk) 02:43, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 04:53, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

iOS version links

@Deacon Vorbis: I don’t see the link your are talking about. SportsFan007 (talk) 01:42, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

It's the {{main}} article hatnote to iOS version history at the beginning of the section; this was mentioned in the edit request immediately above as well. This gets an interested reader to an overview of all iOS versions, with plenty of links to the specific version articles. Having 13 see alsos in a section hatnote is really a misuse of the template. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:53, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2020

change the (formerly Iphone OS) to (Formerly known as Iphone OS) MrMoffattPlayz (talk) 22:39, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Change is unnecessary and most other wikipedia pages use just (formerly...) not (formerly known as...) Nithin^talk 22:50, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2020

202.80.218.224 (talk) 09:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

You forgot to make your specific edit request. --Yamla (talk) 10:08, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 September 2020

The lead states that the latest beta is iOS 14 beta 6, while the latest beta is iOS 14 beta 7 as of September 3. 93.42.68.194 (talk) 11:13, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done Guy Harris (talk) 16:44, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 September 2020

(again) The lead states that the latest beta is iOS 14 beta 7, while the latest beta is iOS 14 beta 8 as of September 9. 93.42.68.194 (talk) 17:16, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done Guy Harris (talk) 19:08, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2020

In the Face ID section, it states, "Face ID is a face scanner that is embedded in the notch on iPhone models X, XS, XR, 11, 11 Pro, 12, and 12 Pro. It can be used to unlock the device, make purchases, and log into applications among other functions. When used, Face ID only temporarily stores the face data in encrypted memory in the Secure Enclave, as described below. There is no way for the device's main processor or any other part of the system to access the raw data that is obtained from the Face ID sensor.[203]" Although this is correct, three phones that run Face ID have been forgotten. These are the iPhone 12 Pro, iPhone 12 Mini, the iPhone 11 Pro Max, and the iPhone XS Max. Sources: 1) https://www.apple.com/iphone/compare/?device1=iphone11pro&device2=iphone11promax&device3=iphone11 2) https://www.apple.com/iphone-12/ 3) https://www.apple.com/shop/refurbished/iphone/iphone-xs-max RandomGuy1039 (talk) 16:01, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 16:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

(Presumably whoever created the list figured that "iPhone XS" and "iPhone 11 Pro" included both the regular and phablet variants, and that "iPhone 12" included the small variant. I think listing everything explicitly is clearer.) Guy Harris (talk) 21:09, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 December 2020

I am surprised screenshot capturing is not mentioned yet.

1. After Various accessibility functions enable users with vision and hearing disabilities to properly use iOS., I suggest adding this in a new paragraph:

On earlier iPhones with home button, screenshots can be created with the simultaneous press of the home and power buttons. In comparison to Android OS, which requires the buttons to be held down, a short press does suffice on iOS. On the more recent iPhones which lack a physical home button, screenshots are captured using the volume-down and power buttons instead.

2. I suggest adding the highlighted part: Various accessibility functions described in {{section link||Accessibility}} enable users with vision and hearing disabilities to properly use iOS

3. Another distinction worth mentioning is that iOS depends on both internet connection (either WiFi or through iTunes) and a working SIM card upon first activation.

79.249.155.254 (talk) 00:29, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I will put it, but in a different spot. F.Colline (talk) 22:15, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2020

iOS 14 is now available, so the lead should be edited accordingly 93.42.68.194 (talk) 17:04, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Please format your request in the proper format (change x to y). Please include your citations. --Yamla (talk) 17:22, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

The lead now reflects that. Guy Harris (talk) 05:52, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• IPhoneXiOS15.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:53, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Please insert a valid screenshot

According to this edition that is performed by bot User:JJMC89 bot:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=IOS&type=revision&diff=1040328510&oldid=1040008930

The file "File:IOS 15 Homescreen.png" does not have the appropriate license to be in this article, please someone add a valid screenshot (it is better to be a screenshot of version 15 of iOS) to the Infobox of this article. Thanks, Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 14:06, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

There's already a valid screenshot, albeit of iOS 13. --Yamla (talk) 14:33, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

@Yamla: I think that the position of that screenshot should be changed into Infobox. Do you agree with me? Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 14:39, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I hold no strong opinions there. I see you made the change and I certainly don't object to that change. --Yamla (talk) 15:14, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

@Yamla: I'm sorry for making this haste. But Infoboxes have structured data for semantic web applications and this change have many benefits for this purpose, so the correct position is at the article's Infobox. Thanks again, Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 15:46, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 September 2021

Aknip (talk) 16:30, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Add the "Not to be confused with iPadOS, the version of iOS used on iPads since iOS 13"

plus i have way longer than 4 days and i have 10 edits so idk

 Already done — LauritzT (talk) 16:52, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

RM notification

A request has been made to move Ios to Ios (island) to allow ios to redirect to this article. Watchers of this page may wish to weigh in at Talk:Ios#Requested_move_7_October_2021. —В²C ☎ 08:43, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2021

43.252.244.196 (talk) 00:48, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

You forgot to make your specific edit request. --Yamla (talk) 00:50, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

SEP security flaws

"In 2020, security flaws in the SEP were discovered, causing concerns about Apple devices such as iPhones.[216]"

The cites link is about Intel processors and SGX. That is not the SEP, not even close. Unless a better source is found this should be removed. https://techcrunch.com/2020/03/10/new-flaw-in-intel-chips-lets-attackers-slip-their-own-data-into-secure-enclave/

I replaced the bogus reference with a reference about a flaw found in the SEP. Guy Harris (talk) 06:44, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2022

Change the following text:

   On the more recent iPhones which lack a physical home button, screenshots are captured using the volume-down and power buttons instead.

To:

   On the more recent iPhones which lack a physical home button, screenshots are captured using the volume-up and lock buttons instead.

This is what the reference cited in the current article says. I have confirmed this is the correct procedure on my iPhone XR. 2600:1700:4CA0:3810:C788:2C31:C95E:9443 (talk) 00:14, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done RudolfRed (talk) 03:41, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Add citation about the renaming from iPhone OS to iOS

https://www.engadget.com/2010-06-07-iphone-os-4-renamed-ios-gets-1500-new-features.html

https://www.macworld.com/article/205857/iphone_os_4_wwdc.html

Looks like it happens when iOS 4 was introduced. Or perhaps someone can move the references from

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IOS_version_history#cite_note-:2-5

to here, as the renaming was mentioned and well-cited there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TerryJiang1996 (talk • contribs) 23:39, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Done. Guy Harris (talk) 08:25, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

XNU kernel

Do we really need to include what each version of the darwin kernel each iOS version was based on? I feel like this is just a garbled list that not many people who visit the iOS article would be interested in. In an edit summary, Guy Harris adds "Add Darwin version for iOS 16, for those who care (or should we just direct those who care to Darwin#Release history?"

I personally would be in support of deleting the text in question and directing people to Darwin#Release history. Plus we also have the collapsable table (that needs to be updated), so maybe instead we update the table instead. Curious to see the community's thoughts.

Text in question:

The original iPhone OS (1.0) up to iPhone OS 3.1.3 used Darwin 9.0.0d1. iOS 4 was based on Darwin 10. iOS 5 was based on Darwin 11. iOS 6 was based on Darwin 13. iOS 7 and iOS 8 are based on Darwin 14. iOS 9 is based on Darwin 15. iOS 10 is based on Darwin 16. iOS 11 is based on Darwin 17. iOS 12 is based on Darwin 18. iOS 13 is based on Darwin 19. iOS 14 is based on Darwin 20. iOS 15 is based on Darwin 21. iOS 16 is based on. Jake01756 🗩 🖉 05:17, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

As for the table, should XNU/Darwin versions just go into the table in Darwin (operating system) § Release history, so we rely on that section for the information that's now in the collapsable table? Guy Harris (talk) 06:05, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

History of bugs and crashes

The article currently includes this paragraph in the "History" section:

"On November 22, 2016, a five-second video file originally named "IMG_0942.MP4" started crashing iOS on an increasing count of devices, forcing users to reboot. It gained massive popularity through social media channels and messaging services."

While this is interesting trivia, I don't think it fits the rest of the article. iOS has had many critical bugs and crashes through its version history, including the "effective power" bug and a variety of lockscreen bypass tricks. I don't think it makes sense to single out this video as part of the operating system's "History". Would it be better to write about more bugs/crashes from iOS's past and put them all under their own section (or on the iOS Version History article?), or would it be better to just delete this paragraph? CauliflowerMoon (talk) 20:38, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Moved to Issues relating to iOS. This article needs to focus on the big picture, like for example a (missing) Architecture section, or a section on iOS software development (that could be a summary of a standalone article), not routine coverage like these types of bugs. DFlhb (talk) 19:15, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2023

I suggest that the entire "Further reading" section be removed because it's hopelessly outdated (do we really need to list programming guides for iPhone 3 when everyone uses iPhone 14 now?). 93.72.49.123 (talk) 13:57, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:05, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Those links were definitely not great, so I endorse this removal.

But in general, we should be careful about removing things just because they're old. I remember an old Stanford OpenCourseWare course on iOS development (was on iTunes U), which is still to this day a fantastic resource on learning Objective-C and UIKit. Old doesn't necessarily mean out of date, and it would be nice if someone could find a link to that old Stanford course (I haven't been able to). DFlhb (talk) 16:01, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I would be more careful to follow WP:FURTHERREADING. The course wouldn't fit the scope of Wikipedia per WP:NOTAGUIDE. – The Grid (talk) 17:08, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Team-B-Vital Improvement Drive

Hello all!

This article has been chosen as this fortnight's effort for WP:Discord's #team-b-vital channel, a collaborative effort to bring Vital articles up to a B class if possible, similar to WP:Articles for Improvement. This effort will run for up to a fortnight, ending early if the article is felt to be at B-class or impossible to further improve. Articles are chosen by a quick vote among interested chatters, with the goal of working together on interesting Vital articles that need improving.

Thank you! Remagoxer (talk) 00:00, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2024

รบกวน (talk) 13:36, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 15:49, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Improving this article

The article is way too long to comfortably read, maybe split it into multiple? Also how is only C-class? In my eyes it's at least B. Mseingth2133444 (talk/contribs) 01:35, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

iOS is coming up on twenty years in existence. I'd say it requires a significant amount of wordage, though I'm sure it can be tightened up. Seasider53 (talk) 01:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Split to Security and Privacy of iOS

I recommend splitting the section titled "Security and Privacy" into a new article as it contains too much detail that would be better off on its own. Maybe also reducing the detail in the "Jailbreaking" section. Please discuss. Mseingth2133444 (Did I mess up? Let me know here) 16:07, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I think it's useful information to have, but I agree that it might be better off in its own article, together with the jailbreak stuff. The primary reason for my thinking is that it's more technical information that requires a slightly deeper level of technical understanding, which clashes a bit with the rest of the article.

We can always transclude lighter, more summarized parts from the new security article into the iOS article and slap a hatnote on it that refers to the new security article. ConcurrentState (talk) 18:23, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Does anyone oppose or can we move the content? Mseingth2133444 (talk/contribs) 23:42, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I'd say go ahead and be bold. This talk page doesn't seem that active and if it turns out to be contentious it's easily reversed and discussed. ConcurrentState (talk) 03:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done @ConcurrentState See new article. Mseingth2133444 (talk/contribs) 16:43, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Please feel free to class the article. Mseingth2133444 (talk/contribs) 16:44, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Looks good at first blush. I'll spend some more time on it tomorrow to see if any improvements could be made and to class it. ConcurrentState (talk) 07:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

@Mseingth2133444, I've bumped the class to B because it seems to meet the 6 criteria listed for B over at WP:ASSESS. Also added a banner shell with wikiproject banners from projects that I think would be a good fit.

I'll see if I can find some time this weekend I can dedicate to the new article and the general iOS article's S&P section. Ideally I'd transclude something digestible (whether already existing or something I created) from the new S&P article into the S&P section on the general iOS article. ConcurrentState (talk) 20:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good. Mseingth2133444 (talk/contribs) 17:29, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Official website

There's been some back and forth on whether the official website is https://www.apple.com/ios/ or https://apple.com/ios (without the www). Although modern browsers tend to hide the www bit, the official url does indeed include it. You can test this using a tool such as Wget.

wget --max-redirect 0 https://apple.com/ios redirects to https://www.apple.com/ios.

wget --max-redirect 0 https://www.apple.com/ios/ios-17/ redirects to https://www.apple.com/ios/ios-17/.

As HTTP 301 is a permanent redirect, we are obligated by RFC 2616 to update the url on our side to the result of the redirect. I have done so. --Yamla (talk) 11:27, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I did this also, but @Strugglehouse reverted my edit. Hopefully this confusion is no longer there. Mseingth2133444 (talk/contribs) 15:27, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

RFC 2616 says

The requested resource has been assigned a new permanent URI and any future references to this resource SHOULD use one of the returned URIs.

so it's SHOULD, not MUST. Also, Apple's arguably not using 301 correctly, there, given that, unless Apple plans never to release a version of iOS called something other than "iOS 17", that redirect isn't truly permanent - it'll presumably change some time later this year. They should probably use 307 Temporary Redirect instead. Guy Harris (talk) 20:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm happy with Guy's compromise. Apple's indeed not using 301 correctly, they should be using 302 I believe. --Yamla (talk) 21:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, 302 sounds more like "this is here, for now", which pretty much covers "www.apple.com/ios/ goes to the page for the current version of iOS"; 307 might be more like "road closed, here's the detour". Guy Harris (talk) 21:50, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

iOS based on Darwin/XNU, not macOS

In the fourth paragraph, there is a description: "iOS is based on macOS. Like macOS...", but later it says "The iOS kernel is the XNU kernel of Darwin." This is quite confusing, as it seems to imply that iOS is a subsystem of macOS. However, they are both operating systems based on the XNU kernel. I suggest changing the earlier statement to "based on XNU" or "based on Darwin". Nasyxx (talk) 08:01, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

macOS, iOS, etc. are operating systems based on:

• the XNU kernel from Darwin;
• the libSystem library from Darwin;
• other libraries from Darwin;
• various daemons from Darwin;
• the Foundation framework, not from Darwin;
• other stuff not from Darwin.

I suggest that "based on XNU" is quite incomplete (the application binary interface for those OSes is based on calls to various dynamically-linked libraries, not on system calls to XNU!), and that even "based on Darwin", although it includes most if not all of what's necessary for UN*X programs, doesn't include some non-Darwin libraries that are common to all of those OSes and that typical apps use. Guy Harris (talk) 09:17, 24 March 2024 (UTC)