Jump to content

Talk:iOS 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sven nestle2 (talk | contribs) at 03:00, 23 September 2013 (→‎Security flaw). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Puffery

Can we make this article read less like a press release please? --31.205.51.40 (talk) 11:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It has died a death, hasn't it? I'll do a bit on it, but there's not much more than reshuffling that can occur at this time.  drewmunn  talk  12:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

iOS X Game controller API

Dear wiki apple user group, can we ad Game Controller support to the new features in iOS7, its Final now. And we need as many support from the community as we can get to make this a hit!

Why is this wiki page so marketing minded, all commerce. Why? There need to be more background information on this page, the Company's view is only one way to look at iOS 7.

The new interface design, and all the speculation, and what the influence android did with the overall design in iOS 7.

Is iOS more open to developers, and what is changing in apples own marketing concept that now this is possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.170.245.115 (talk) 08:35, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We'd need a reliable source please. Also, there's very little information at this time, so we're doing the best with what we have. It's significantly better now than it was in the hours after the launch, and it'll get better as more information is available.  drewmunn  talk  08:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

I've deleted the criticism section for now, for a few reasons:

  1. The software hasn't even been released. This article is about the software, not a pre-release version of it or a couple of screenshots of the pre-release.
  2. The betas haven't even been fully released, so no accurate views can be gauged about the overall software from them either.
  3. There were no cited sources.
  4. It was badly laid out.
  5. Its existence and layout biased the article very much to focus on negative press, even though nothing negative has been said in any of the citations.

Please do not re-add the section without first finding reliable sources, and ensuring balance is maintained. "Reception" is better than "criticism", and helps ensure the article is in line with Wikipedia guidelines. Until such a time when we have something solid to document, we should not document anything. Even when reliable sources are found, it is vital that we note that the comments come from a pre-release beta, not the final version. We have not even seen what it will look iPad yet, so we cannot infer that very niche comments apply to the whole of a very versatile OS.  drewmunn  talk  19:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Correct! This section is an example of inappropriate editing, and the response to its removal is abusive. Look no further than what wikipedia is not, or whatever document on edit wars, to see why this is an abuse of Wikipedia. By the way, I am embarassed to share a community with people who abuse their edit comments to shriek insults at good-faith users, in an emotional defense of their anonymous unencyclopedic editing, while initiating a childish editing war. Be ashamed of yourselves. Make an account.
I redid this junk section instead of deleting it, to temporarily acquiesce to edit-warring bullies. I had their behavior analyzed by an admin, who did identify it as an edit war contrary to Wikipedia's best interests, who did confirm that the correct etiquette is to remove contentious data pending a civil discussion here, and who will consider issuing bans if their behavior resumes. By the time I saw it, the section was blatantly negatively biased, negatively named, largely unreferenced, referenced by not clearly reliable sources, and presented needlessly as a list instead of as prose (apparently to emphasize the perceived legitimacy, as if the product is all systemically bad).
However. Even if a source is all negative, that doesn't make it unreliable. Legalistically speaking, we are not arbiters of truth; we are only here to discern reliable sources and to represent what they say, in proportion to what they say. See also Wikipedia:UNDUE#Due_and_undue_weight. Counter-however, we must be sure if a source is reliable in the first place. See also Wikipedia:RS/N. This is an encyclopedia, not a gossip zone or a newspaper or a list of information, and we must stick to notable information, especially on a quasi-secret project, under NDA, which is subject to radical and rapid change.
Thank you to Sonicdrewdriver for bringing this more to light in a diligently civil fashion, and for following Wikipedia's protocol to both the letter and the spirit. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 17:25, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your work here! I am glad to see I wasn't fighting for the wrong side as well (there's always a bit of a nervous moment when you start to question your actions). Anyway, the section's much nicer now than before, especially the emphasis you've put on the pre-release status of the OS. Thanks again!  drewmunn  talk  19:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination

Informations regarding Criticism

It seems that Drew's leg has been pulled out by an IP User. According to that user Sonic was found doing vandalism. Yes, I saw that user had done a lot of work in adding detailed informations regarding criticism of that OS. In my opinion at least a slight informations must be there regarding criticism of the beta OS. Also i appreciate Drew's work in adding information in the talk page refering the question "why not to add criticism section ?" but i remember slightly during the release of Windows Developer Preview (a RC version of Windows 8) in 2011, Lisa had added the critical reception in Windows 8 article when the preview was released. I hope Lisa's work has been deleted till now, but i'm sure that the feedback regarding the preview version was there at that time.Himanis Das  talk 09:41, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. "Critical reception" is not "criticism". Currently, Windows 8 has a "reception" section. You should really learn more English. See Wikipedia:Criticism § "Reception" or "Response" section. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:48, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not entirely sure if anything's gone on in my absence, but last time I was here, the following was happening: An IP user had added a completely unsourced section entitled "criticism". At that time, it was one of one two or three sections, and their use of subheadings had made it a massive part of the article. This is not how Wikipedia should be laid out, so I removed it. This change was reverted by an IP, so I removed it again, and added my reasoning on the talk page (see above). No attempts to converse or reach consensus were made by the IP users, and the content was re-instated, along with one or two references. Another user, Smuckola, significantly altered the content so it was in line with the requirements, including the replacement of "criticism" with "critical reaction" which, as noted above, is different and acceptable. Since then, as far as I'm aware, everything's been hunky dory!  drewmunn  talk  09:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Drew. Nice to have the whole story. All this time I was thinking "why am I drawn into the cross-fire?" Well, at least now I know. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 21:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Transclusion of table!

Table should to be 'transcluded' into this page from the main iOS version history page – this is VERY important as it helps significantly by stoping double editing and many errors creeping in across both pages continually, and they then don't both have to be checked through continually for inaccuracies.
I don't know how to set this up?? Anyone? Jimthing (talk) 05:54, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done The Anonymouse (talk) 16:56, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nice one, thanks on it's way! ;-) Jimthing (talk) 01:09, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Q3—Q4

Please see Talk:OS_X_Mavericks for consensus on the use of "Q3—Q4" in the case of articles like this. Thanks! — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 08:18, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's incorrect. After editing the last few years of Apple pages on these "Fall" release announcements, the previous consensus was always to use "Fall (Northern Hemisphere) or Spring (Southern Hemisphere)", for very clear reasons: (1) "Fall" for half the world (Southern Hemisphere) is wrong, as it's actually Spring, and Apple's S-Hem sites advertise the date on them as "Spring", and (2) we do not use "Q3–Q4" or similar, as Northern Hem's "Fall" is not the WHOLE of these two quarters so is misleading, but rather just the Autumn months of Sep/Oct/Nov., whereas Q3 is Jul/Aug/Sep and Q4 is Oct/Nov/Dec, so using that is much too ambiguous being anywhere during Jul/Aug/Sep/Oct/Nov/Dec (i.e. HALF the year!) – hence seasons being entirely different to quarters. So there is clear reasoning already behind such decisions. Jimthing (talk) 10:02, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Fall" is rather ambiguous too; it can mean anything from early-August (seven weeks after midsummer) to December 23rd. What Apple may consider "Fall", i.e. early September, is to many people the very end of Summer. And that's just in the northern hemisphere. See also WP:SEASON, which says that season names should be avoided, not just for southern hemisphere reasons, but also for equatorial reasons too. Sceptre (talk) 10:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In this context, the method previously described is appropriate, as the company concerned (Apple) have used the term "Fall" as per N-Hem usage, and it's not up to us to second-guess their meaning, but to just write what was described in the announcement and subsequent advertising across their sites. And what they always use is "Fall" (or "Autumn") on their N-Hem sites, and "Spring" on their S-Hem sites, thus the appropriateness of both for clear usage here. e.g.'s:
I personally prefer "late 2013", but I'll go with consensus unless it feels like changing...  drewmunn  talk  10:45, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but as said, that's not what was quoted when explaining the exact usage by Apple in WWDC and across their sites. It's also not accurate enough, as "late" implies right near the END of the year (Dec), and not the three months of Fall/Spring (Sep/Oct/Nov) per hemisphere. Jimthing (talk) 15:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When using "late", the year is split into three sections, "early", "mid", and "late", which is a wider bracket than the Qs, but I find it nicer! I see your point though...  drewmunn  talk  16:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The given nomenclature of "Q3—Q4" *is* the process of not second-guessing Apple. As has been established here, the term 'fall' is meaningless and inconsistent, and that's the problem that Apple presents us with. They didn't say something like "before the last leaf of autumn has fallen in the hemisphere of its American origin, verily there shall be a release of this system of operation" and yet they use abstract and non-technical timeframe terms. People can clearly read the given references and make up their minds on ambiguity, and it's not our job to do so; it's our job to avoid ambiguity. As the subject was correctly settled in Talk:OS_X_Mavericks, we use a range and we use objective business nomenclature. Thanks! — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 18:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Know that, should I by some miracle become the head of marketing at Apple, the above quote shall become my way of launching products.  drewmunn  talk  18:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you did become that, also note my assessment of their product names. ;-) Anyway, at first I was resistant due to the obvious consensus and the obvious correctness of said consensus, reinforced by a desire to not tolerate bullies on Wikipedia, but life's too short to mess with it. Do whatever! It'll all be moot upon release. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 21:13, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After editing the last few years of Apple pages on these "Fall" release announcements, the previous understanding was always to use "Fall (Northern Hemisphere) or Spring (Southern Hemisphere)", for very clear reasons: (1) "Fall" for half the world (Southern Hemisphere) is wrong, as it's actually Spring, and Apple's S-Hem sites advertise the date on them as "Spring", and (2) we do not use "Q3–Q4" or similar, as Northern Hem's "Fall" is not the WHOLE of these two quarters so is misleading, but rather just the Autumn months of Sep/Oct/Nov, whereas Q3 is Jul/Aug/Sep and Q4 is Oct/Nov/Dec, so using that is much too ambiguous being anywhere during Jul/Aug/Sep/Oct/Nov/Dec (i.e. HALF the year – entirely misleading) – hence seasons being entirely different to quarters; there is clear reasoning already behind such decisions.

WP is not a vote (WP:NOTDEMOCRACY). As discussed in previous years, if Apple use Fall then that's the term that should be used, it's not up to WP users to self-define the term by so-called "business" operating quarters, as they are not accurate to the term used in advertisement by the company concerned. Seasons can be defined internally be a company, as much as they can be by the traditional understanding of a term, but regardless should not be interpreted by users here by wrongly making assumptions of the term. Jimthing (talk) 00:00, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confidentiality

Hello: How much of this should really be reported (features, etc.) due to Apple's Registered Apple Developer Agreement? The agreement specifically states, "Unless otherwise expressly agreed or permitted in writing by Apple, you agree not to disclose, publish, or disseminate any Apple Confidential Information to anyone other than to other Registered Apple Developers who are employees and contractors working for the same entity as you and then only to the extent that Apple does not otherwise prohibit such disclosure." [1] This also goes for the OS X Mavericks page. Garrett247 (talk) 07:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We get our information from reliable sources, who have published the data themselves. We don't accept statements from people that are not backed up such a source. As we have not signed the agreement as an entity, Wikipedia does not have to abide by it. It is up to the individual sources to decide what to publish, and we document what they report. The only place this line is blurred is in the use of screenshots, but we circumvent this by not allowing self-taken shots to be used. The current image is from a news outlet, who published it themselves, and we use it under our Fair Use disclosure. We also accept images from Apple themselves, but not from individual editors who have downloaded the beta. I hope this clears things up!  drewmunn  talk  07:09, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"We get our information from reliable sources, who have published the data themselves." Where? I see not a single citation in the table, where the vast majority of the information that would be covered by NDA appears. Without citations, this table comes across as, at best, the result of a collusion between the article's editor(s) and those subjected to an NDA, and, at worst, the result of a dev breaking his NDA. If this data is truly in the public domain, it should be properly cited. Otherwise, it should be removed until the public release of iOS 7. Edrarsoric (talk) 02:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The table is transcluded from iOS version history, and a source is provided at the top of the table: Apple's "What's New" page for iOS.  drewmunn  talk  08:29, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"A source is provided at the top of the table". I'll confess I can't find this citation. Could you be more specific? All I can find is citation #17 here or #93 on the page from which this table is transcluded, both of which are part of the last sentence before the table, not the table itself. Also, as an example, I can't find any mention of, ""New" banner on newly installed apps have been replaced with blue dots" on the cited page, nor screenshots that would suggest this is the case. As another example, there's no mention of, "Inter-app Audio" anywhere on the cited page. Could you indicate where these particular pieces of information were released to the public, if not on the page that is debatably cited? Edrarsoric (talk) 20:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's source 17, at the top of the table (not in the table). As the list was constructed as part of a page I'm not an editor of, I haven't personally checked through all of the elements against the contents of the citations, but a quick cross-check did suggest that it was all backed up. Anything that isn't should be removed or backed up with other sources.  drewmunn  talk  21:30, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"[A] quick cross-check did suggest that it was all backed up." Without being snotty (though at this point it's difficult not to be), could you tell me where on the cited page the two examples I quoted are explicitly declared? Also, if you're "not an editor of" the page in question, and "haven't personally checked through all of the elements against the contents of the citations", why are you so keen to claim they're "kosher"? As things stand, I think I'd be justified in requesting this table be removed from both articles until iOS 7 is released in just under a week's time. Edrarsoric (talk) 21:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your last sentence also justifies why it shouldn't be removed. iOS 7 is less than a week away. It's absolutely pointless to remove something only to have it be added back in less than a week later. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 21:50, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"It's pointless" isn't an argument, but a decision. What's the argument for it being "pointless"? That it would take too much time? It could be removed in seconds. You guys seem to have a hard-on for this information: might I enquire why? Edrarsoric (talk) 21:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I meant that, because I don't watch the table's contributions, I don't know if things have been added or changed, but rely on the people there to police it. The fact that a source was provided, and that cursory checking of a sample of the points were backed up by that source, led me to believe that it was fully cited. As I said above, anything there that isn't backed up by source 17 either needs its own source, or needs to be deleted. Having looked through again, it seems that most is backed up, so it'd be silly to remove the entire table for the one or two unsourced statements. Remove what isn't, or find sources for them, that's my opinion. I see no need to remove the entire table.  drewmunn  talk  06:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Features / Devices Chart?

Would anyone be kind enough to consider making a "Features / Devices" chart that outlines which of the iOS 7 features (Parallaxing, Translucency etc.) are enabled on which devices (iPhone 4, iPad Mini, etc.)? I think that would be a very interesting read for most, and definitely most relevant. I haven't found something like that anywhere. You could be proud! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.187.104.213 (talk) 13:16, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already out!

iOS 7 is already out from yesterday. 1234567890Number (talk) 11:33, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This fact has been noted in this article since shortly after the launch yesterday. If you are still seeing a version of the page where this isn't acknowledged, try clearing your browser cache.  drewmunn  talk  16:24, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Security flaw

Seeming as this is becoming more of an issue than necessary, I thought I'd outline my opinions. The information on the security flaw is nowhere near lede-worthy. I have, for now, reworded it and moved it to Response. However, I still do have an issue with it, as I don't think it's particularly worthy for inclusion. A very similar bug existed in iOS 5 (it may have been 6, but I'm almost positive it wasn't), whereby the power off command could be used to bypass the passcode lock. This is not mentioned in the article for the iOS iteration (I've checked iOS 4, 5, and 6 to be sure I'm covering all bases), despite being, at the time, fairly prevalent. I've reworded it for now based on the fact that it was a little newsy, and presented the facts in a slightly erroneous manner; not all devices are affected by the issue (iPhone 5s, 5c, and iPad 2 don't seem to be). In my opinion, it shouldn't be here at all, really, until a fix is released and it's noted in the update information in the relevant table. Depending on consensus, however, I know it may be deemed worthy. Just whatever happens, this is not lede-worthy information at this time.  drewmunn  talk  12:47, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's worthy to be in the lead either, it just needs to be included in the article. Security is a huge issue for operating systems. I think it should be included in the history of the OS, as the Response section is for downloads and reviews, y'know, how people respond to the release of the operating system. Zach Vega (talk to me) 13:16, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The older iOS articles have a separate section for bugs, so maybe that would be the place when more surface. I've noted plenty of bugs, but I don't really think they're worthy of inclusion.  drewmunn  talk  13:25, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Security

"Seeming as this is becoming more of an issue than necessary".

Oh? That is not what she said. I think she said she doesn't want you spying.

  1. ^ "APPLE INC. REGISTERED APPLE DEVELOPER AGREEMENT" (PDF). Retrieved 11 July 2013.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:IOS_7&oldid=574127818"