Talk:IOS version history

History note

• Please note for keeping track of attribution history that at around 23:14, 28 January 2018‎, User:100.14.114.245 cut a long section out of iOS version history and pasted it into TvOS. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:24, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

IOS 12 Really Discontinued?

Right now, IOS 12 is listed as discontinued. However, it's gotten 3 security updates since IOS 13 was released, one in September, October, and December. Are we sure Apple isn't planning to continue issuing any more security updates going forward? 130.132.173.38 (talk) 20:30, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
So far, Apple is still continuing to release security updates, but we can't be sure if they're still going to do so moving forward. I'd say, since Apple doesn't have a set support policy and technically isn't obliged to support iOS 12, we should continue to mark it as discontinued. Herbfur (talk) 15:38, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
I have to agree with original poster, I do not agree that IOS 12 is really discontinued and therefore should be listed as supported but previous version. Jamieostrich (talk) 14:20, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

As of now, I agree, however, there isn't a corresponding color to the status of iOS 12. iOS 12 isn't obsolete or discontinued, since it's still receiving updates. It's also not the current version or a beta version. We'd have to add a new color to reflect the status of "Old version, still supported". I'm not sure if the other editors would agree to that, but I'll look into it. Herbfur (talk) 18:42, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I believe the colour to use on Wikipedia is Yellow. For example see History of Microsoft SQL Server. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Microsoft_SQL_Server Jamieostrich (talk) 14:30, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Hard to believe it’s been almost 4 years since IOS 12 released and they are still updating it RaccoonOrder (talk) 03:51, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

iOS 11

Do not remove the content about iOS 11 software issues. "GhOsti100" has censored such issues from the public which is not discussed nor justified. Given the wide news and media coverage on these issues, it warrants to be noted on Wikipedia. If "GhOsti100" works for Apple, you have a conflict of interests issue here and not suitable to edit this page. Do discuss before you make further editions. Fellow007 (talk) 21:37, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I don't remember removing iOS 11 software issues. If there are any big iOS software issues they are posted at the bottom of the history page along with the other iOS versions having big software issues that are notable from the media...I don't work at apple...I just post change logs and try to update this page when new iOS versions are posted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gh0sti100 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

iOS 9

Is this really necessary? Betas are beta, and are subject to a lot of change. when 9.0 comes out, will that replace the beta change logs? hbdragon88 (talk) 03:41, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

References for change log?

I see a list of changes in iOS 9 but no citation. Where is this list coming from? Phil.wasag (talk) 03:04, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I see many lists of changes for every release, but barely any citations. And shouldn’t WP:NOTCHANGELOG apply here? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 02:27, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Related discussion

This article has been mentioned as an example in a discussion about policy: WP:VPP#Are software changelogs acceptable? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 01:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I already purchased five warrantees for my children. I have my order number. I just didn’t remember if I made an account or not. How do I add them to this account? Millijobenson0401 (talk) 16:31, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Download Size of Software Update

Pacerier (talk) 19:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC): ❝

In the table, should we also include the download size of the software update?

E.g. the size of iOS 7.1.2 is 3.8 GB.

I believe this information is both interesting and notable once we have the full list (or close).

❞

Baseband version for 9.2 beta 1

Baseband for Iphone 5 is now 9.00.03 - appears to be a downgrade to that which comes with 9.1 stable release. I am unable to edit the article, could someone enter this for me? thank you 212.50.177.101 (talk) 15:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 October 2015

iOS 9.2 Public Beta 1 Rineshpuvathour (talk) 06:38, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -- ferret (talk) 18:44, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Apple TV Software 7.2.1

New firmware has been released:
https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202157
https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT205795
https://www.theiphonewiki.com/wiki/Firmware/Apple_TV
Please fix the 7.2 entry stating that it is the final release version.
84.173.209.116 (talk) 17:16, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Done. Guy Harris (talk) 19:09, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

watchOS documentation

watchOS and tvOS are both based on iOS. Yet, tvOS is listed here but watchOS is listed somewhere else.
That version history part should be added to this article. 84.173.194.76 (talk) 20:28, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

tvOS is also listed somewhere else. Is there any reason to list either of them here? Guy Harris (talk) 20:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I believe both should appear here and be removed from the tvOS and watchOS articles. 84.173.194.76 (talk) 20:40, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

They have separate SDKs and separate release numbers and some of their own APIs, so I believe it's better to list them there. Guy Harris (talk) 21:04, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

tvOS and watchOS are often vulnerable to the same kind of iOS software bugs. See https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201222

A lot of the iOS kernel code is probably nearly identical on all platforms. Of course, it will be very difficult to exploit these bugs on an Apple Watch as the hardware is so different.

Also, this article is called "iOS version history" and special iOS versions like tvOS and watchOS are part of that history. 84.173.194.76 (talk) 21:29, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

This isn't about bugs, it's about the release history of OSes. Apple treats tvOS and watchOS as separate OSes from iOS, even if they share a lot of the same code base. (Heck, OS X and iOS share code, both at the UN*X layer and Core Foundation/Foundation, as well, and there are bugs to which they're both vulnerable....)

So I, at least, consider them separate OSes, not "special iOS versions". Guy Harris (talk) 22:10, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

The user Jasonanaggie has merged the Apple Watch comparison table into the List of iOS devices article.

MAYBE the watchOS version history should now be merged into this article, too. 84.173.201.70 (talk) 10:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Or maybe not; I'm not convinced that Apple Watches belong in a list of iOS devices. Guy Harris (talk) 16:41, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

The iPhone wiki states (https://www.theiphonewiki.com/wiki/Apple_Watch): "The Apple Watch runs a slimmed down version of iOS 8. The user interface is managed by "Carousel" (instead of Springboard). Most frameworks are replaced with "Nano" equivalents."
Yet, I agree that some serious information is extremely rare. I guess, this is because the Apple Watch is so locked and complicated to hack. Once Apple is using the hidden diagnostic port for new bands with extra hardware features, it may not take long to attach a serial console to it and get some kernel debug info or other interesting stuff.
At least we can agree that the Apple Watch shares a lot of similarities with other iOS devices. 84.173.207.52 (talk) 15:09, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

And my Mac shares a kernel, libc, Core Foundation, Foundation, and a bunch of daemons with my iPhone, but that doesn't make it an iOS device. Yes, watchOS and tvOS share code with iOS - just as they all share code with OS X; that doesn't make them really the same OS. Guy Harris (talk) 18:31, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, what is iOS? iOS is a version of Mac OS X running on the ARM platform with a focus on mobility.
Apple's (Mac) OS X, however, requires an x86/x64 platform (may change in the future) and therefore the Apple Watch must be an iOS device ...
Anyway, I think we should end this discussion. :-) 84.173.207.52 (talk) 23:05, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

iOS is a Darwin distribution, just like OS X, watchOS and tvOS. They all take collections from Apple's parts collection and assemble them into an OS. Guy Harris (talk) 23:18, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

2nd gen iPod Touch

My 2nd Gen iPod Touch was not able to install any of the 4.x updates. I'm not sure what it's latest update was, but the information in this article is wrong. 135.26.31.16 (talk) 16:08, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

iOS 9.3 doesnt include all changelog

I would like to add more to the changelog of 9.3 also including the newer builds of 9.3 that fix activation issues of older devices. http://www.idownloadblog.com/2016/03/21/ios-9-3-released/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.172.221.237 (talk) 19:13, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Then do so. Guy Harris (talk) 19:43, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2016

Final build number for iOS 9.3.2 is 13F69 instead of 13F68. Jbctech (talk) 19:32, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Done along with other cleanups of the current versions table. Guy Harris (talk) 20:13, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

ios 10 and editing

hi i made an account like a week ago and still cant edit the doc to add features to the ios 10 update — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gh0sti100 (talk • contribs) 18:06, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

The template that's marking this page as protected says:

Note: This page has been semi-protected so that only autoconfirmed users can edit it. If you need any help getting started with editing, see the New contributors' help page.

The "autoconfirmed users" link goes to a section that says:

Several actions on the English Wikipedia are restricted to user accounts that have been created for a certain number of days and which have made a certain number of edits. Users who meet these requirements are considered part of the pseudo-group 'autoconfirmed'. The conditions for autoconfirmed status are checked every time a user attempts to perform a restricted action; if they are met, permission is granted automatically by the software. Although the precise requirements for autoconfirmed status vary according to circumstances, most English Wikipedia user accounts that are more than four days old and have made at least 10 edits are considered autoconfirmed. However, users with IPBE editing through the Tor network are subjected to stricter autoconfirmed thresholds: 90 days and 100 edits.

so making an account isn't sufficient - you also need to have made some number of edits (probably 10, as per the above).

You could also make an edit request, to request that an editor with permission to edit the page make the edits in question. Guy Harris (talk) 18:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Kernel (XNU) versions.

Hi, it would be great to have the corresponding Kernel a.k.a. XNU version listed in a separate column in the table under "Current Versions".

Thanks a lot,

--IOOI (talk) 22:27, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2016

Please add new iOS 10.0 beta 2 release. Release date is today, July 5, 2016 with build number 14A5297c. Jbctech (talk) 19:16, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

 Done Guy Harris (talk) 19:24, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

ios 10 version release dates

Hi all, the article currently states that 10.0 was released on 16 Sept; 10.0.1 on 13 Sept - ie before 10.0. Possible an error in copying some material from the table for iOS 9. I am sorry to say I don't know the correct dates, if this is in fact an error and not some oddity of release dates. Springnuts (talk) 19:02, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

adding sources to updates?

Hi guys my stuff was removed today for iOS 10.2 beta, that just dropped today as an update. I've been told I need to site my source for updates now? When did this start and why is this being policed now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gh0sti100 (talk • contribs) 21:53, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

That person should have removed many other unsourced entries if he wants to insist with removal of your edits. Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 22:45, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

All of the feature information needs to be sourced or it will eventually be removed. Kaldari (talk) 16:56, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

"Current Versions" table should be removed

The "Current Versions table" is a gigantic jumbled up mess, and it doesn't really add anything useful to the article, especially considering the fact that the most recent versions of iOS are now listed in the lead section, and they are also highlighted in green in the version history itself, so I think it should be removed. It'll clean up the article, and remove info that really isn't that necessary. Just my two cents. Kamran Mackey (talk) 03:30, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Disagree. The table is clearly a summarisation of data spread throughout different sections of the article. It makes it much easier to see an overview of the info in a single table, than unevenly separated throughout the article. Furthermore, this is one of the very reasons the table has been here for a long period of time. Jimthing (talk) 06:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

No, it's not a "summarisation". It's an outdated table that has almost no useful info whatsoever, and you're the only one who's been reverting my edits, along with an IP address user. Pretty sure they aren't a "longterm" editor like you said in your revert edit summary. I know when stuff is irrelevant and needs to be removed, and the current version table needed to be removed. Like I said, it adds unnecessary bulk to the article. If a better implementation of the table can be created, and if it's moved near the bottom of the article, then it can stay. Until then, it has no place in the article. Kamran Mackey (talk) 13:52, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

That is not how things are done on WP. We do not take unilateral decisions for everyone else, especially when others, including myself, disagree with the very actions you are making to long term data existing on this article. If you are making a fundamental removal of a piece of data from an established article page, then you MUST open and have a discussion about it beforehand. And if there is a disagreement, such as there is already, then you need to open a dispute resolution accordingly BEFORE re-editing the same removal of data. Please note, that this type of behaviour will not be tolerated on WP, and any future repeated removal of said data before the undertaking of the appropriate course of actions described, will result in further actions to stop you proceeding. Serious WP editors would have already continued along the correct editing procedures already, so one has to wonder why you are not doing so. Thank you. Jimthing (talk) 08:50, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

iOS 10

iOS 10 is "iPhone 7 and iPhone 7 Plus only". This does not seem to be correct. I have iOS 10 on my iPhone 6. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomihasa (talk • contribs) 17:03, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

10.0 was the version that shipped with the 7 and 7 Plus, whereas 10.0.1 was the version released to all other devices, including the 7 and 7 Plus. Bbb2007 (talk) 17:10, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

touch > Touch

A quick note for user KamranMackey to actually read and follow the guidelines BEFORE repeatedly reverting correct edits. Read here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:IPod_Touch#iPod_touch.2C_not_iPod_Touch and then the FAQ at the top. Plus, we do not use piped links for capitalisation lowercase attempts at 'fixes' either, see WP:NOPIPE. Regards. Jimthing (talk) 10:43, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Need to Add 10.3.2 to "Table of versions: iOS 10.3.x"

We need to add a row in the table "Table of versions: iOS 10.3.x". Not sure how to do that.

Here's the Support article with the list of updates from 10.3.1 to 10.3.2: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT207798

iOS 10.3.2 (Redacted) Billselak (talk) 19:25, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Question

Hi everybody! I have a question for those editing on this page. Isn't it a violation of WP:NOTCHANGELOG? "Wikipedia articles should not be: Exhaustive logs of software updates". I could understand summarizations of the various iOS articles, but these tables are filled with deep and detailed information, much of it also unsourced..? LocalNet (talk) 12:13, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on IOS version history. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110501035135/http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2008/06/09iphone.html to https://www.apple.com/pr/library/2008/06/09iphone.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://support.apple.com/kb/TS2404

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:05, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Works, but the Apple press releases are still online, they just moved them. I updated the links. Guy Harris (talk) 08:59, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Device End of Life

The Current Versions table has been made concise at the expense of accuracy. It does not include the iPhone 5, iPad 2, and iPad 3, in the end of life columns as it should.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pkirvan (talk • contribs) 22:34, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

So fix it. Guy Harris (talk) 00:14, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

The iPhone 6 Plus should also be listed as having iOS 12 as its last update.Pkirvan (talk) 19:03, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

So fix it. Guy Harris (talk) 20:38, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Life's too short to spend in Wikipedia edit wars. I'll leave the editing to the guys with time on their hands to debate semantics and the intricacies of Wikipedia's many rules.😃 The fact that it isn't fixed already despite being clearly wrong and this being a high traffic page means fixing it isn't going to be easy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pkirvan (talk • contribs) 03:31, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

iOS 11.3 beta 2 iTunes

iOS 11.3 beta 2 requires at least iTunes 12.7.3 on the iPhone X. link --2A02:810C:CBC0:457C:4D19:F8B4:7A21:76EB (talk) 17:49, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

The text that flows around the new wider version table is too narrow

The newer wider version tables wide enough that the text that flows around it is awkwardly narrow. The equivalent table in macOS#Release history is full-width, with no text flowing around it. Should the new table be full-width as well? Guy Harris (talk) 18:10, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Copyright issues

Everything on this page has to be in your own words. You cannot directly copy, or closely paraphrase, whatever official release notes Apple posts. Doing so also introduces tone issues and promotional wording that is inappropriate for our MoS and other guidelines. ViperSnake151  Talk  19:08, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

"Beta versions in all areas except for introduction are based off of public betas"

[Citation needed] on that claim. If, for example, two developer betas come out after public beta 1 and before public beta 2, clearly they cannot both be based on a public beta. And if they release all subsequent betas to developers and then to the public, they will probably not call the developer releases of the next beta "beta 2", as that would make the beta number go backwards, so even if all subsequent releases are both developer and public betas, "public" will still be needed as a disambiguation and clarification. Guy Harris (talk) 02:32, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

iPadOS

Should we make a separate history update table for the iPadOS since Apple announced 2 separate operating systems? LukeA1 (talk) 08:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes - on the iPadOS page, not here, just as tvOS and watchOS have their own tables.

What worries me is that we would have a copy-paste situation 99% of the time between the iPadOS and iOS tables, i.e. the updates would be near identical. tvOS and watchOS are a completely different story and it makes sense for me that they have their own version update page. LukeA1 (talk) 21:01, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Off-Topic: Shrinking/moving of tables in the Version history section

BTW, this page has a "This article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably." hatnote. macOS has no single page with a history update table; instead, pages for newer macOS releases have "Releases" tables giving the release history for betas, the original release, and updates, so perhaps the history update table here should be split up and tables for each major release moved to the appropriate "iOS {N}" page. Guy Harris (talk) 17:47, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I personally don't know. Currently, when navigating the Version history section on a desktop computer we can shrink the tables to make it more tolerable but the mobile version of Wikipedia is a completely different story. The entire table is displayed and there is no way to shrink it. It would be a great idea to post this proposal as a feature request to the interface admins unless the function already exists (which I'm not currently aware of haha). Another way of temporary resolving this mess is to combine the various software increment tables (e.g. Table of versions: iPhone OS 1.0.x and Table of versions: iPhone OS 1.1.x into a single table and call it iPhone OS 1). If we were to remove the tables completely off of this article the article wouldn't make much sense any more which is OK in my opinion. LukeA1 (talk) 21:01, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Remove iPads from the iOS 13 compatible devices?

I'm not entirely sure if I'm right on this, but should we remove the iPads from the iOS 13 compatible devices? iPadOS is technically different from iOS 13.

I'd say "yes, with a note indicating the iPadOS is now a separate OS" (although it presumably shares most of its code with iOS). Guy Harris (talk) 18:57, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

iOS 13.1

I think we should give iOS 13.1 it's own table. There are a few problems with not doing this. Firstly, he head of the table says iOS 13.0.x, but the version listed is 13.1. Secondly, and more importantly, iOS 13.0 is what introduced the features listed, not 13.1. Because of this, I think iOS 13.1 needs a new table dedicated to 13.1.

@JdRDMS:  Done Your requested edit has been implemented! Also, please sign your posts. SportsFan007 (talk) 00:18, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

iOS 9.3.6 ipad3

See https://appleinsider.com/articles/19/07/22/apple-issues-ios-936-and-ios-1034-updates-for-older-iphone-and-ipad-models Jidanni (talk) 12:01, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

What about it? It does mention the 3rd generation iPad in the table for 9.3.x. Guy Harris (talk) 17:06, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

iOS 13.3 Features

Can someone update iOS 13.3's features section to use the release notes, to give a more complete picture of what it does? I would do it myself but I'm not very good with the source editor, and the visual editor won't load on any device I try. I apologize, and thanks in advance. [Update: Finally got the visual editor working, so I updated it myself. Thanks anyway] JdRDMS

Limited support?

Several releases are claimed to have "limited support" on certain devices. For example, under iOS 13, the article says "Limited support on iPhone 6S/6S Plus and iPhone SE." What does this mean, and where is this information coming from? I don't see anything about some devices having "limited support" in Apple's official announcements of new iOS versions, nor do I see it in any of the secondary sources cited in the article.50.93.222.39 (talk) 22:43, 14 February 2020 (UTC)Beth

Two questions about edit reversions

Two things: If we can't just put the changelog in the tables, should we just put a link to a website that has it, like iDownloadBlog? Second and more importantly, what was the problem with the security content links that were removed? Thanks in advance for explaining it to me. JdRDMS — Preceding unsigned comment added by JdRDMS (talk • contribs) 20:50, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

You can't copy text from Apple's website. You can link to it and you can rewrite it in your own words. Hut 8.5 22:48, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

iOS 12.4.6 is out

Plz add this to the article, thanks! RobertCars824 (talk) 20:50, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Done. Guy Harris (talk) 21:33, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

The page is too long

This page is the second-largest page on Wikipedia. It's time for a split, as new iOS versions will continue to be produced. Word count is 72010 words - recommended size is 10000 words maximum. Please see Wikipedia:Splitting for more information on how to perform a split. — Diannaa (talk) 13:17, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

It's ~6,444 words long not counting words from tables and reference section. See Wikipedia:Article_size#Lists,_tables_and_summaries then the last sentence in Wikipedia:Splitting#Size_split which may defend article with table from splitting. We can talk about template limit and other hard limits though, they're absolutes for splitting. Right now there are 997,859 bytes of 2,097,152 template limit of this article. While it's cool to see it being second largest page based on [Special:LongPages], I don't think it's a valid pointer for splitting. Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 04:07, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Maybe it should just be cut into pieces and the pieces dropped into the "{iPhoneOS,iOS} N" articles. At least some of those articles 1) indicate what's new in the major release and 2) have an "Updates" section indicating what's new in the updates, and I'm not sure there really needs to be a separate list of similar information with all the releases joined together in mostly-collapsed tables. And the subsections of "Notable software bugs and issues in iOS" section, with the current exception of the one for iOS 13, begin with a "Main article: iOS N § Problems" link to a section of the "iOS N" article. Guy Harris (talk) 11:11, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Should this become "iOS and iPadOS version history"?

iOS's version history and iPadOS's version history are tied somewhat more closely that either are tied to tvOS or watchOS; new releases and betas usually come out at the same time, with the same version number and the same build number, and with a lot of common new features.

Should we rename this to "iOS and iPadOS version history" (or "iOS/iPadOS version history"), and rename the version template it uses to "Template:iOS and iPadOS versions" (or "Template:iOS/iPadOS versions"? The iOS 13 section is currently an iOS/iPadOS 13 section, and we could make the iOS 14 section work that way as well (completely mirroring the style of the iOS 13 section). Guy Harris (talk) 23:48, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I think that’s a good idea, but the article is already too long. Figuring out the best way to split the article should be taken care of first. Abobeck11 (talk) 03:51, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Changing the title would only add 11 characters to the title, which wouldn't make the article significantly longer, and it would only acknowledge what's already true of the article. Removing iPadOS content wouldn't make the article significantly shorter; to do that, we'd either have to discard a lot of information or move most of its contents into the "iOS N" articles. If we do the latter, we might also want to merge iOS 13 and iPadOS 13 into an "iOS 13 and iPadOS 13" article, and do the same for iOS 14 and iPadOS 14. Guy Harris (talk) 12:35, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Device codes

As a non-technical reader, I wonder what the section "device codes" is meant for. This seems more like a device related thing rather than being connected to the operating system. Some words explaining this list would definitely be needed here, otherwise I would rather remove the section and move it somewhere else as it confuses the reader. It is also having far too much detail for a general encyclopedia type of entry.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.96.98.225 (talk) 07:29, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

It is used for the baseband section of each iOS version's table, where it is noted what devices have a specific baseband firmware, though it may indeed be pointless. --93.42.68.194 (talk) 20:39, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Probably used for jailbreak compatibility look up but lot must have changed then. Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 07:34, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Whether or not to keep the Baseband / Device Codes / Known issues and problems parts of the article

These thoughts just came into my head. The vast majority of people reading this article probably do not take much interest in knowing what their device's baseband version is, which is what the device codes are usually used for, to denote a device's baseband version, and the baseband version is already denoted in the Settings app in modern iOS versions under the General -> About section under the title "Modem Firmware". As for the "Known issues and problems" section, the issues for a given iOS version are already documented in the respective article and as such I personally don't see much use in having the same things repeated as the section isn't particularly related to the iOS version history and rather related to the iOS versions themselves. I personally hold the opinion that this article might be better served if it is purely a article documenting the release notes / changes of iOS releases, instead of regurgitating material already written in other iOS-related articles. Removing these parts from the article would also remove quite a bit of article bloat, and reduce the article's size a fair bit and with the recent calls of article splitting, I'd like to think that any attempts to clean up the article would be decently received. This is just my stance and I know some editors might disagree with this, but it might be a good idea, at least to me. - Kamran Mackey (talk to me · my contributions) 04:56, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with your suggestions. --93.42.68.194 (talk) 11:38, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. The baseband may be important in some cases, to denote changes in which devices are supported, especially where support for a new model is added in the middle of a major release, or where updates are released only for certain devices. Additionally, having a list of issues for each iOS release in one location is convenient and useful. However, I think we could reasonably split out this section into its own article, which could reduce the article's length. Herbfur (talk) 20:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@Herbfur: I don't agree here. Mainly because the baseband isn't particularly noteworthy, and iOS features exclusive to newer devices can be marked as exclusive to said devices in different ways rather than relying on the baseband & device codes. As for the known issues remark, I somewhat agree, however the issue of notability (WP:NOTABILITY) relating to said problems would arise as while iOS does have its fair share of problems, I don't believe they would be notable enough to have its own article. Take the Android version history article for instance. Android has a lot of bugs & security issues, but the article lacks a section related to problems that arose in each Android version (even though Android does get its fair share of bugs in each major version), and as far as I'm aware, an article related to Android's bugs and security issues doesn't exist. So sadly I don't see a point in having a section related to iOS problems in this article or even having it be its own article compared to just having the version-specific issues in their own article. Just my two cents. - Kamran Mackey (talk to me · my contributions) 14:32, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

@KamranMackey: I suppose that's true. I think it could be useful to have all the baseband information in a table on its own, maybe in a different article. I'm no longer opposed to removing the baseband section. As for the known issues, I think Android is inherently different from iOS by nature. Given that there's a huge variety of Android devices, there are a lot more ways Android can fail than iOS, which is a more controlled environment. I think the known issues are still notable and worth mentioning, and having them in one place might be more convenient. Herbfur (talk) 17:38, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: Create templates akin to the Android version table and Android version templates to further reduce article bytes

I propose that we split off the individual template code used in the article into their own templates. A lot of the bytes that the article takes up is purely the amount of template code used for the 49 major and minor operating system versions and their respective tables, similar to what was done for the Android version history article back in 2017. Splitting the template code into their own central templates would also make it easier for editors to add new tables for new iOS versions as they are released by Apple. We would need to make the templates unique to this article, while perhaps maintaining the support for the colors used by some of the tables in the article, such as the Discontinued and Current color codes. - Kamran Mackey (talk to me · my contributions) 12:54, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

To add onto this, I don't really think this will face much rejection (if any at all), but doing this would mean doing it gradually until it has been done for all versions, as it would admittedly take a single editor too long to replace all of the tables in one single edit. I also already have a good starting base for the template saved in a local article draft. Just trying to figure out the best way of going about allowing a color parameter for the template. - Kamran Mackey (talk to me · my contributions) 12:59, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Actually, looking at the Android version table template, turns out it already has a color parameter! Meaning that we can actually do this without problems. Minor update: Nevermind, it uses the color parameter for 5 parts of the template and I'm not entirely sure how it would work. I'll figure it out though. Might have to take a look at other templates. - Kamran Mackey (talk to me · my contributions) 13:08, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

To think converting something into templates to help saving article size is very, very ignorant. Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 16:11, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I think you'd be mistaken. The article size has been lowered to 415k bytes (when rounded) by moving some of the iOS versions to the new iOS version table & iOS version templates and that'll only be further reduced as more tables are converted to the new format. The proof is in the pudding; check the edit history. - Kamran Mackey (talk to me · my contributions) 16:54, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Being ignorant this hard and we'll see some templates not rendering properly like has been happening in other articles with ignorant maintainers. Articles have their include size limits and it isn't obvious to most people. Bloating in there and who knows if we'll be seeing slower performance because of your article size arguments where templates have been saving a bit from there. The direct table and HTML codes are more efficient just as much this type of article needs, please do not convert them into templates. Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 18:35, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm using pretty much exactly the same code used for the Android version history templates just adjusted for the needs of the iOS article, so I don't think your point about "them not rendering properly" is valid and your point further becomes moot due to me actually checking the Wikipedia app rendering on iOS and Android (I could check mobile web, but I'm pretty sure the rendering for that is the same as the desktop view), and there are absolutely no issues, especially when it's just wikitable code. Look at the code itself for the templates, they're quite literally just wikitable snippets with usable parameters. Also, calling people ignorant isn't going to win you any friends. In fact, it's just toxic. Please refrain from doing that. - Kamran Mackey (talk to me · my contributions) 18:44, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

That's because we haven't hit the limit yet. When hitting that limit, the templates will fail to render, there's no "might". Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 21:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

@Rukario-sama: We have a ways to go yet before the limit is reached, and that gap was further widened with the separation of the known issues section to its own article. I'm aware of the constraints imposed, and I keep them in mind with every edit I do, its why I'm trying to considerably reduce the amount of bytes templates *and* other parts of the article use, to get further away from the 2 million byte limit.

To add onto this, below is the current NewPP report for the latest revision of the article:

<!-- 
NewPP limit report
Preprocessor visited node count: 64085/1000000
Post‐expand include size: 924345/2097152 bytes
Template argument size: 278121/2097152 bytes
Highest expansion depth: 19/40
Expensive parser function count: 5/500
Unstrip recursion depth: 1/20
Unstrip post‐expand size: 628317/5000000 bytes
Lua time usage: 1.130/10.000 seconds
Lua memory usage: 7.51 MB/50 MB
-->

And here is the NewPP report for the latest revision pre-template changes, baseband removal, and the split off Known issues section:

<!--
NewPP limit report
Preprocessor visited node count: 98935/1000000
Post‐expand include size: 1022858/2097152 bytes
Template argument size: 89793/2097152 bytes
Highest expansion depth: 21/40
Expensive parser function count: 7/500
Unstrip recursion depth: 1/20
Unstrip post‐expand size: 875027/5000000 bytes
Lua time usage: 1.145/10.000 seconds
Lua memory usage: 7.45 MB/50 MB
-->

1.02 million bytes down to 924k template bytes. I'd say that's a pretty dramatic decrease in bytes used, and it gives us a LOT of breathing room for new iOS versions. - Kamran Mackey (talk to me · my contributions) 22:12, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Besides, I'd really want you to stop trying to shave article size even if it's just a little bit. Table code was fine. Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 18:35, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

@Rukario-sama: Sorry, but you don't get to control that. It has been mentioned by several Wikipedia editors that the size of the article was too big and as such it has been decided that the article tables shall be migrated over to a new table format to reduce article size, plus having one unified table is easier for editors. Edit: It should also be noted that the article size issue was actually brought up by a Wikipedia administrator (Diannaa) back in May as well, so I'm taking her opinion to heart. - Kamran Mackey (talk to me · my contributions) 19:30, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

It wasn't at all that easier to use, you said it, it was only you who decided that templates should be used to save article size! This isn't what people used to say about the large articles. They always say split. Please at least try to build consensus for using that template. Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 21:01, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

@Rukario-sama: Splitting isn't the only way of saving article size and a lot of other editors know this. You're the only one who seems opposed to using the exact same table but in template form to erase wikitable code duplication. Using a template allows more flexibility and consistency, especially when it comes to new editors who might want to edit the article without copy-pasting a giant template blob. The template is for consistency, not entirely to reduce article size. We did that already by splitting off the Known Issues. If swapping to the template reduces article size further, that's good too. But instead of trying to edit war, which is what you seem to be wanting to do, take a long hard look at the pros and cons of using a template vs duplicated wikitable code. However, if you revert again without looking at this constructively, there's honestly no point to me further continuing this conversation. Edit: I should note that you are right. I didn't wait until any comments were made before the move to the new templates, and I admit that that is entirely my mistake. For that I apologize. - Kamran Mackey (talk to me · my contributions) 21:27, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

@Diannaa, Herbfur, Guy Harris, and Plastikspork: I'm incredibly sorry for pinging you guys unexpectedly, but I wouldn't ping if it wasn't necessary. But I need more feedback on this. Reason I'm pinging you guys is two-fold: One, because I want to get constructive feedback from a couple Wikipedia administrators (who might know more about the technicalities of templates as well as article & template limits), and two, because I want to get feedback from a few editors who previously communicated on the talk page and are active editors who also contributed to this article in some way or another recently. We need to come to a consensus here, so here's a question. Should we split off the article into subpages into certain years (e.g. 2007-2009, before iPhone OS was renamed to iOS, 2010-2012, to reflect the pre-iOS 7 era, 2013-2016, to reflect the iOS 7 - iOS 10 era, and 2016 - 2020, to reflect the iOS 11 - iOS 14 era)? This might be the best course of action to avoid template and article limits entirely however I am 100% open to other ideas. I also want further comment on the use of the two templates I recently created and started using for the article. And @Rukario-sama:, while this conversation is ongoing please don't do any more reverts. If a consensus is reached where the older wikitable code should be reinstated, I will respect that. But to prevent an edit war, please keep the new templates in place. - Kamran Mackey (talk to me · my contributions) 21:53, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

@KamranMackey:Personally, I approve of your work with the templates. While it's a change, I think it reduces the article size in a meaningful way, while still maintaining the amount of content from before. I'm interested in hearing why some may oppose these edits, as @Rukario-sama: didn't give a reason in the edit summary and from what I can see in this talk page, the only opposition was that there wasn't consensus and the old way was fine. However, I think that, logically speaking, the changes worked and there isn't much reason to oppose them. Just my thoughts on that. Personally, for now, I'm not sure how close we are to the article length limit yet, but I don't think splitting is needed just yet. But we'd probably eventually have to split the article. I'm not sure how we'd split the article then because there aren't as clear splitting points as the similar split between Firefox version history and Firefox early version history, but I was thinking maybe, iOS 1-3, iOS 4-6, iOS 7-12, and iOS/iPadOS 13 and later? So somewhat similar to what you proposed. There'd have to be some consensus as to where to split, so that would have to be a continued conversation. Oh, and also, another thing. When you split off the section of notable bugs, I don't think you created the talk page notice on the Issues relating to the iOS operating system article, if you copied the content right from this article. I could do that if you'd like. But yeah, I approve of your work with the templates and thank you for your edits! Herbfur (talk) 14:37, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

@Herbfur: Yes, that would be greatly appreciated, thank you. And thank you for your feedback on my changes, it's greatly appreciated as well. - Kamran Mackey (talk to me · my contributions) 15:24, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

@KamranMackey: You're welcome, it's my pleasure :) Herbfur (talk) 22:51, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

So what is the reason why this article exists? Why isn't a lot of the information in it - including the information moved to Issues relating to the iOS operating system - just in the articles for the individual iOS versions? Guy Harris (talk) 21:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

My opinion is that version history tables like these are useful because they keep all of the changes stored in one convenient location. This way, if one is looking for the version in which a certain change was introduced, they could just search through one article instead of having to search through 14 articles, one after the other. They're also an easy way to stay up to date on the latest changes, especially when Apple is releasing updates to multiple versions at once. And I guess it also makes sense to have it in keeping precedent with the other major desktop and mobile operating systems also having similar tables. Herbfur (talk) 22:03, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

@Rukario-sama: WP:PA and WP:RESPECT. Even if you disagree with him, there's no need to make personal attacks. Comment on edits, not editor. Herbfur (talk) 19:14, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Slash vs. "and" in section titles

I'm following up on KamranMackey's revert of me. I think that that revert was unjustified, but we have a responsibility to uphold 1RR, so it's time to discuss the change. KamranMackey, I believe that the section titles should use "and" rather than a slash because that is more readable. In particular, according to the Manual of Style section titles should be formatted the same way as article titles; we would be much more justified in an article being titled "iOS 13 and iPadOS 13" than in one titled "iOS 13 / iPadOS 13", both because a forward slash can indicate subpages and because it's a needless abbreviation. As such, the sections so titled should also use "and". As extra context, I made the change here to support a simplification of a hatnote over at iOS version history. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 20:03, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

@Nihiltres: I didn't mean to offend with the revert, if that's what happened. But like I mentioned in the revert, I reverted your edit because it didn't match that of the various table titles which use the forward slash (and in my opinion look better that way). I also don't take issue with using the forward slash character. The vast majority of viewers / readers who view the article will know what the context means in the case of using the forward slash, so in my opinion I think the forward slash should remain in place. - Kamran Mackey (talk to me · my contributions) 21:16, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with KamranMackey. I don't think the slash is really ambiguous at all and I don't think we need to change it. But to be honest, I personally don't think this is a big issue at all and it really shouldn't matter which one we end up using. Herbfur (talk) 21:21, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. 13:26, 23 July 2020 (UTC)— Diannaa (talk)

@Diannaa: I sadly can't say I agree with this. Copyright is a finicky subject, but when it comes to release notes and other material denoting changes in a piece of software, I don't think it applies in this case. Release notes are generic and everyone uses them. With regards to Apple's product material such as videos and images, sure, I agree that they are protected under copyright and shouldn't be used unless resized to conform to the Wikipedia fair use guidelines due to their uniqueness. But for text that is as generic as release notes? I can't reasonably agree with this stance Wikipedia has when it is just release notes. I even read the "Guidelines for Using Apple Trademarks and Copyrights" document again on Apple's website and it says no such thing about not being able to use release notes. Maybe I'm looking at the entirely wrong document, but yeah. I get copyright is something that's taken seriously on Wikipedia, but I really, really don't think text-based material such as release notes are copyrightable and even Apple doesn't say as such. - Kamran Mackey (talk to me · my contributions) 18:13, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

This is the source webpage. It's marked as "Copyright © 2020 Apple Inc. All rights reserved." The Terms of use page says in part "no part of the site and no Content may be copied, reproduced, republished, uploaded, posted, publicly displayed, encoded, translated, transmitted or distributed in any way (including "mirroring") to any other computer, server, Web site or other medium for publication or distribution or for any commercial enterprise, without Apple’s express prior written consent." So it definitely enjoys copyright protection, and we definitely can't use it. It's a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy to do so.— Diannaa (talk) 21:16, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@Diannaa: I'll be contacting Apple's copyright team about this next week. Because there needs to be more clarity on Apple's end about what people can and can't use on their site. Because to me it seems a bit absurd that generic text such as release notes (along with security notes that just have generic descriptions about the given security issue(s), along with their CVE identifiers) enjoy copyright protection. - Kamran Mackey (talk to me · my contributions) 06:10, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

There is a section of the talk page Talk:IOS_version_history#Need_to_Add_10.3.2_to_"Table_of_versions:_iOS_10.3.x" which copies content from Apple's security page. 93.42.68.194 (talk) 15:14, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I have removed it. Thank you,— Diannaa (talk) 22:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

iOS 14.2 beta

Can someone add iOS 14.2 beta to the table? It came out 2 days ago already. I’m not sure how to do that. NikonSoup (talk) 10:45, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

2604:2000:1580:8e:8dc1:1471:5827:87e5 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) did so. Guy Harris (talk) 18:55, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

iOS 14.5 beta

Needs update with iOS 14.5 beta info. Pkirvan (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Done. Guy Harris (talk) 22:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

iOS and iPadOS 14.5

Both of these updates were released about an hour ago. GabrielBloom28 (talk) 19:09, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

The build number didn't get changed from 18D70 to 18E199. GabrielBloom28 (talk) 19:34, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

What I mean by this is the build number in the summary table that's at the top of the page. GabrielBloom28 (talk) 19:36, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

iOS and iPadOS 14.5.1

iOS and iPadOS 14.5.1 were released with bug fixes and important security updates. GabrielBloom28 (talk) 17:54, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

ios 14.7.1

pls make the 14.7.1 descriptors go in the 14.7.1 slot Nothingucando (talk) 22:17, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Done! SportsFan007 (talk) 05:47, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Unmentioned iOS 13 potential error?

According to [1], ARKit 3's new features requires an A12 Bionic chip or later. ARKit 3 debuted in iOS 13, which is listed to have "full support" on A11 devices, despite this being not the case. I was going to move it to the "almost full support" mini-category. However, I would rather gain a consensus on this change before making it public, so what are your thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.174.74.215 (talk) 21:56, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

ios 15.0.2

pls add 15.0.2 Nothingucando (talk) 19:54, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

What defines "obsolete" vs "discontinued?"

iOS 3.1.3 is listed as "discontinued" however it is not currently signed by Apple. iOS 4.2.1 is listed as "discontinued" too, but 4.1 isn't despite it still being signed. What is obsolete and what is discontinued? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evgtgvduuhuse (talk • contribs) 13:21, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Tables Removed

Someone removed the collapsible tables for iOS 1-9 and replaced them with different tables. Is there any reason for this?

The edit comment on that edit was "fixes slide to unlock on this mess of a page". Yes, some of the text changes appear to involve mentions of slide to unlock, but that's a rather huge change to just fix the discussion of slide to unlock.

@RealKGB: What was the purpose of the table format changes? And is the intent to replace the tables for all other major releases? Guy Harris (talk) 02:05, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

He hasn't replied in at least 5 days after this was posted. I went to his contributions page and his latest contribution was on June 11. 4 days before I posted this. What do you suggest we do?

~ The same guy under a different IP address 174.16.127.6 (talk) 00:52, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

They were pinged, so we've somewhat jumped ahead to the "D"iscuss stage of WP:BRD; given the lack of discussion, I see no problem with "R"everting their "B"old edit (with a check to see whether anything substantial, such as the discussion of slide-to-unlock, was improved, and, if so, we bring those changes back). Guy Harris (talk) 01:40, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I support this, that was a lot of content removed without any discussion or seeming reason. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:49, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree. I don't see how replacing the collapsible tables was even necessary. Especially since they were copied from these 9 articles [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] Also, there were some things mentioned in the collapsible tables that the other tables don't mention. 174.16.127.6 (talk) 18:18, 20 June 2022 (UTC)