Talk:IOS version history

Unlocking solution

i want to add unlocking solutions into iPhone os history page!!!?? but someone undo my changes without any reason!!!Codegear (talk) 05:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

User modifications

No mention of which versions have available user modifications? Ie: where can I install user created software, and where can't I? TimRiker (talk) 17:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:Be bold and add it yourself, but make sure it is reliably sourced. -- 18:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Listing beta versions?

What has been the policy with listing beta releases in this article? There have been a number of reports in the online media about a 2.0.1 version being tested just a few days after 2.0 hit the street. There is also reporting going on now about a 2.1 release going out to developers.[1][2][3]. 2.0.1 may not warrant listing as there hasn't been any confirmation from Apple on it, but being that 2.1 has been given to developers it looks like a real candidate for listing here. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 15:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Please stop editing out the 2.1 beta release date. The "July 24, 2008" date was the day the beta was released, which is what that portion of the table (see the key) represents. Once the final version is released, the article will be edited (pretty color change and release date).

Currently, the "future" portion of the article comes across very ambiguous: stating the beta version will be released in the "future."

I do, however, appreciate the combining of the duplicate references 70.119.180.155 (talk) 08:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

iPod touch upgrade charges

I added the specific US amounts to the pervious bullets. If anyone can find a better reference for the 2.0 upgrade, it would be a welcome change. Descender27 (talk) 17:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the addition, but this information (with is US-centric anyhow) is not supposed to be part of Wikipedia per WP:NOPRICES. I've reverted it. -- KelleyCook (talk) 17:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

2.1 Beta Version Release Date

The 2.1 developer beta was already released. The section labeled as 2.1 is in blue as it is only a developer beta at the moment. Once a final/public release is, well, released, the article will be edited to reflect the official release date. As I've stated numerous times before, it is very ambiguous to state that the beta is to be released in the "future" or "late 2008" when it has clearly been released. 70.119.183.138 (talk) 19:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

This really isn't very hard, release means publicly released not a limited beta offered to developers that will likely changed numerous times before it is released. Your fairly new, so please look at the history and see how this was handled for the (numerous) 2.0β releases. Don't put a date until you have a firm public release date. -- KelleyCook (talk) 20:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

No it isn't hard. Blue = beta. Release date of blue = release date of beta. Once beta becomes final, blue turns green, and release date is updated. And no, "release" != publicly released. I'm sure you can find the appropriate wikipedia article on software releases (or simply click). As for the 34160704516485 2.0 betas, that was due to heavy SDK revisions. Now 2.1 will include another SDK revision, but I highly doubt Apple will be seeding multiple betas due to time constraints (2.1 is due in September) as well as the fact that a limited amount of developers actually have the beta. And just because I post via IP does not mean I am "fairly new." I've contributed to many an article via many different IP addresses.70.119.183.138 (talk) 08:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

A) Read WP:OWN, Wikipedia builds pages on consensus and Public Release dates have been consensus on the Talk:iPhone before this page was split off onto a seperate article.

B) Read WP:CRYSTAL, Wikipedia does not purport to know the future and is not the site for rumors. All edits must be WP:VERIFIABLE, which means that we know there was a beta release which is slated for a mid-September release.

C) Wikipedia does not use color coding alone for any charts (Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Color coding).

Furthermore, your single purpose edits[4] are beginning to be disruptive. Please read policy and I strongly suggest you create an account if you wish to continue adding to Wikipedia. -- KelleyCook (talk) 12:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

A) So what works for one article doesn't particularly work for another? Where is the level of consistency? (See Safari web browser article)

B) No where in the article have I included a future release date. Likewise, there are no rumors in any of my edits. The release date of the current 2.1 beta is clearly defined (with a reference!). It is either you or someone else who continues to change the date. In fact, your edits are hardly consistent. You jump from "future," to "Late 2008" to "Autumn 2008."

C) I understand the color coding aspect of wikipedia's guidelines. However, there is a nice little reference that any color blind user could click on and navigate to the reference section, where it clearly states it is a beta release. Moreover, you come across as quite the hypocrite for allowing previous versions and current versions, of the firmware, to remain the way they are, as well as the Safari web browser version history section and the multitude of other articles which contain color-coded tables/diagrams.

My edits are nowhere near disruptive. In fact, they are quite contributive and are followed by references to boot. And I really hope the suggestion to create an account isn't a threat, because the last time I checked, anyone can contribute.

The fact of the matter is that the developer beta has been released, with a release date. Since wikipedia is a website which is constantly updated, once 2.1 final is released, then the date shall be updated. It cannot be any clearer. I do not wish to argue or fight with you on this matter (or any matter). And as per Wikipedia guidelines, there is no need for name calling ("Mr. NewBee Anonymous editor"). The facts are there, with reliable sources. 70.119.183.138 (talk) 08:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

KelleyCook: Once again, this is for the release date of the developer beta version of the iPhone firmware 2.1. The specific date (July 24, 2008) reflects the release date of the beta. There is a source provided as well. I also added "Developer Beta" in the "features" column for the color-blind and as a compromise. There is absolutely no reason as to why the date should be reverted back to "(future)," "Late 2008," or "Autumn 2008" since the beta has been released (broken record). Had the beta been announced, but not released, then yes, a specific date should not be included within the article.

As to your claims of vandalism, if you read the vandalism page correctly, nothing I have edited consists of vandalism whatsoever. I have done nothing but contribute to the article in a positive and factual manner. I was the user (via a different IP) who ported over the Safari web_browser #Version_history template over to this article, as to create some sort of level of cross-article consistency. Something simple in which you fail to understand. If you really want consistency throughout the article, a simple "Beta" under/next to the beta version would not suffice as the other sections are colored only (sans corresponding text: previous version, current version, etc). And just because you do not agree with an edit I or another user makes, does not give you the right to automatically purport it as vandalism.

Now I have been very civil, mature, and professional about this. If you continue to behave in a childish, trigger-happy, manner, I will make all efforts to contact the appropriate administrators for some sort of resolution. 70.119.183.138 (talk) 08:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Version Info

I fixed up the version info, including adding the build numbers. The build numbers and dates were all taken from my own archive of the firmware files that I have been keeping since 1.0 came out. If anyone has any questions, feel free to ask. --dennis (talk) 22:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Arranged the build numbers in columns. Thanks for the info! 70.119.183.138 (talk) 08:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit of 2.0.2 information

Cited source of Apple Insider mentioned that the fix "may" have fixed 3G connectivity issues. It only listed definitively the Bug Fixes and Change from music list to cover flow.Souch3 (talk) 18:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

New source listed with confirmed iPhone connection fix in 2.0.2, citedSouch3 (talk) 16:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The item listed for 2.0.2, "Switch from Music List to Cover Flow changed" is barely a sentence, and doesn't really make sense. How about at least a citation to help figure out what it means? – ɜɿøɾɪɹℲ _{( тɐʟк • ¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs )} 19:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

First 3G release was 5A345

The first retail iPhone 3G units came with build 5A345, so shouldn't that be in the list as the first 3G release? --Brouhaha (talk) 18:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

1.1.5

why 1.1.5 is considered as an old version now? --White hawk rz89 (talk) 03:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Because it is an old version - the current version is 2.0.2 _TalkIslander 08:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

But the last week it was listed as a current version. people which choose not to upgrade to 2.0.2 are getting an old version? --White Hawk (talk) 00:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Up until this point, 1.1.5 was the version that came out of the box, with version 2.x as an optional upgrade. As such, it appeared worthwhile to me to consider it as the "current" release of a separate, maintenance branch of the OS. Now that the 2nd hardware revision is out today, it looks as though all iPod touches manufactured from this point on will ship with version firmware version 2.x.

That being the case, if 1.1.5 really does mark the end of the line for firmware 1.x, then I think we can safely consider it "old" as of now. If Apple does surprise us by releasing further bugfix releases along the 1.1.x line, then I'd argue that as long as such releases continue to be made, the branch would deserve to be considered as "current" in parallel with the 2.x branch.Goosnarrggh (talk) 18:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I think there should probably be a distinction between old, unsupported and old, supported -- 1.1.5 is an old firmware, but it's still supported for now. It is there for people who don't want to pay to upgrade to 2.0/2.1. How about adding a new category for supported? --dennis (talk) 14:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

2.1 Versions

I did some looking around at the current versions of the 2.1 firmware for the iPod touch -- the 1st gen touch is 2.1 build 5F137. The 2nd gen touch is 2.1.1 build 5F138. Therefore, I separated these two versions in the list. I also separated out the 2.1 for the iPhone since it is still in beta until Friday. At that point, it's anyone's guess as to if it will be 2.1, 2.1.1, or 2.1.2. It will need to be updated again on Friday. --dennis (talk) 23:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Delete iPod touch references

this article is about "iphone OS versions" not ipod touch versions, does anyone else agree to remove the ipod touch verions from the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rashanir (talk • contribs) 15:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

NO, it shouldn't be removed because iPhone OS is the name of the operating system of the iPhone AND iPod Touch. --White Hawk (talk) 21:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic items

Kelley, I can concede about your deletion of the info box (I was thinking it was different from the iPhone page, however, I forgot there was a separate iPhone OS page which does have the duplicate content).

However, I completely disagree with your statements that the full change log is unencyclopedic. Given that Apple does not provide comprehensive feature changes, knowing every detailed change is extremely useful in this resource. By the definition (repeated below), encyclopedic content is verifiable and indeed, all these items are verifiable (I have verified them personally). If you would like to remove the "questionable sources" referenced I will not stop you, but please stop deleting important information just because you deem it "trivial"

gujamin (talk) 19:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)