Talk:iOS/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2


Infobox Photo

The infobox photo needs to be a screenshot of an iPod Touch or iPhone (iPhone OS, not an iPhone), not a photo of one of these devices. Althepal (talk) 20:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Done Althepal (talk) 20:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

iPhone OS or OS X Mobile?

Is it officially iPhone OS or Mac OS X Mobile? Until seeing this article, I thought it was the latter. Can we get a source? I see in the Apple discussions, everyone seems to call it iPhone OS, but still... Althepal (talk) 20:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, AlistairMcMillan. Althepal (talk) 20:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
The entire SDK and all documentation available (after free registration) at calls it "iPhone OS" -- KelleyCook (talk) 20:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
When Jobs annouced the iPhone at MacWorld 2007, He said that it ran "OS X" (Note that he did not say "Mac" as in "Mac OS X").
I don't think that calling this article "OS X" would be suitable because "OS X" most commonly refers to "Mac OS X".
Taking into consideration references to "OS X" and "iPhone OS" (In the SDK), then wouldn't it be called "iPhone OS X"?
--The Land of Smeg (talk) 06:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
That's not what Apple calls it on the page for WWDC08. I guess it's not "OS X" any more. Guy Harris (talk) 02:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


I support the merge of iPhone SDK and iPhone OS. Mathiastck (talk) 18:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I support merge of iPhone SDK and iPhone OS also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Nah. Whitedealer (talk) 00:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I support the merge —Cliffb (talk) 01:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I doubt there really is much more to talk about. I believe a section in the iPhone OS should be sufficient. -- KelleyCook (talk) 21:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I would not merge - not yet anyway. The SDK isn't the OS. The kit and its release are quite notable, as this dominated the news for months before and during its debut. As developers explore the nuances of the SDK, there will undoubtedly be more worthy information included in this article. If not, then merge. TunaSushi (talk) 15:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

iPod touch

RoddyYoung (talk) 14:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

What about it? TunaSushi (talk) 15:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Eh, nothing. Whitedealer (talk) 00:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


Thank you for expanding it. Whitedealer (talk) 22:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Most of the "expansion" was just undoing most of these changes. (The only part that wasn't was leaving in the change to the section name.) Guy Harris (talk) 23:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

iPhone OS image as sppedy deletion?

okay, someone who chose the iPhone OS image as speedy deletion should GET A LIFE.

There is no free alternative to the image, and therefore is okay to use the image as fair use, since without the screenshot, it would be hard to describe how the OS looks like.

If there person deletes the image, then delete the other images in Mac OS pages as well. Bentoman (talk) 14:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

the image's quality does not lead to any need to keep it. the article would be better off without a picture than that thing, IMHO. – ɜɿøɾɪɹℲ ( тɐʟк¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs ) 04:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Screenshot+Third Party Apps

That screenshot was taken with a Scanner. It looks horrible becausr the scanner and the iPhone have lights. I suggest that it can be replaced with one from the iPod Touch, that way it would emphatise the fact that both devices use the same operative system. Also, I suggest that you add a Third Party Software because I is strong and I think at least 20% of the owners of these devices have unlocked their system in order to install it. Wikifan21century (talk) 07:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the full size image, it seems unlikely that it was scanned: at that size we'd see the individual pixels. It definitely looks rendered to me, especially comparing small details to it and my iPhone. I've yet to see a decent, reliable ref for a % of jailbroken phones, but since this is more about the OS itself, maybe that should be mentioned in the iPhone article? – ɜɿøɾɪɹℲ ( тɐʟк¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs ) 13:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The current screenshot contains a third party app (facebook). I think it should show the default state of your iPhone OS, without any third party features (talk) 14:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I had one up there before that had a webclip of Wikipedia, in addition to the standard layout. I think that served the purpose well, but that image is now orphaned and liable to be deleted. I'm not going to edit the page to put it back in. I got caught up in nonsense about similar stuff before, and frankly, I don't care that much. Feel free to swap them out, its Image:Iphone front.pngɜɿøɾɪɹℲ ( тɐʟк¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs ) 19:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


I'm no expert on the area. But I think MacOS X is not actually based on the Mach kernel, as stated in the article, but on the XNU kernel, which derived from the Mach. I didn't want to just change that, but if someone feels I'm right, please do. You can check MacOS X's article on Wikipedia to see what I mean. Again, I didn't just change it because I wanted somebody else's opinion, but please, do change it if I'm right. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I too thought it seemed a bit odd, but it is almost the same as the text Apple uses on the iPhone Dev Center (registration required). That page says: "In iPhone OS, the underlying system architecture, and many of the technologies, are similar to those found in Mac OS X. The kernel in iPhone OS is based on a variant of the same basic Mach kernel that is found in Mac OS X." — Epastore (talk) 17:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
As you said it's a _variant_ of Mach. So XNU seems more correct (talk) 14:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

new screenshot

I uploaded a new screenshot, taken shortly ago on my phone. it looks like WP hasn't regenerated the smaller versions yet, but if you click on it in the page, you'll see that it goes to a color-correct and native sized image. – ɜɿøɾɪɹℲ ( тɐʟк¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs ) 00:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

iPhone OS: fork or branch?

Is it more of a fork or a branch (i.e. changes in one are merged into the other or is the core basis outright identical) of Mac OS X? To what extent? —Agentbla (talk) 12:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Added info to 3rd party application section

I added some stuff if thats ok ;)--JayBB (talk) 12:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Move page to "OS X iPhone"

Here's my justification. Any objection opinions? Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 21:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

i object as
  • its not really oficial yet
  • it could be just OS X, and iPhone being a discription, again we dont know yet

TrevorLSciAct (talk) 02:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear from what the banners say, but I guess waiting until Monday won't matter. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 02:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
that's all i'm saying, better to just wait TrevorLSciAct (talk) 03:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I would want something more official than a banner, as the massive amount of documentation in the (beta) SDK and the Steve Jobs iPhone OS 2.0 intro was pretty definitive on the matter. -- KelleyCook (talk) 13:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I watched the keynote and it really didn't clear any thing up, it doesnt seem apple's being very consistent with the name of the OS (because frankly its the device that requires marketing, not the OS inside), I think it should stay here. If anyone who was physically at the event has any light to shed that would be nice TrevorLSciAct (talk) 02:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC) accoding to this, I say the move is safe, tho would it not be better to have one "OS X" page, then break it down to Mac OS X and OS X iPhone? And it looks like they may phase out the Mac in Mac IS X, but this has not been done yet. TrevorLSciAct (talk) 05:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
The newly updated iPhone developer connection page ( ) still says "iPhone OS", so again the official name is unclear. It still might be good to wait a bit. -- KelleyCook (talk) 14:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Well since all the info for updating call it iPhone OS 2.0, even for the iPod touch I think it's safe to say it stays here. Your welcome for objecting to a move that would have been nothing but hassle. TrevorLSciAct (talk) 01:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I think Apple simply doesn't have their act together on this yet. The evidence: "Leopard" and "Snow Leopard" are version names for the "Mac" flavor of OS X. "iPhone" is another flavor of OS X, not a version. So to put Leopard and iPhone on the same level of importance does not make sense. What would iPhone OS 3.0 be called? "OS X iPhone 2?" Nonetheless, Apple does not always try to make sense with their naming conventions... but there is no point in rushing to conclusions until third parties have had a say on the matter. — Epastore (talk) 18:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Number of applications

I propose this line: As of July 30, 2008, there are 1,080 applications officially available for the iPhone, not including the ones built into the iPhone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noiselull (talkcontribs) 19:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

it changes way too often TrevorLSciAct (talk) 15:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

GPLv3 mention

Maybe my recent article written for the Free Software Foundation on the reasons why GPLv3 software can't be used on the iPhone would be an appropriate citation for the claim in the current article? Obviously I'm not going to add that myself :). But I wanted to float the idea if others think it's appropriate. It's at Johnsu01 (talk) 19:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

flash vs youtube

It supports youtube but not flash... dudh.? I thought Youtube stores all the videos in Flash (SWV) format. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

youtube is switching over too H.264, only videos that have so far been encoded in H.264 are viewable on the iPhone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:19, 12 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 (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. (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. (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. (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. (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! (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)


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)

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)

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)

That would have been me. I deleted it because I don't see how it's integral to the history of the iPhone OS. I don't see how which versions are unlockable are relevant to the version history. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Unlock history of iPhone OS is depends on the iPhone OS version. Peoples come to iPhone OS history page to decide about updating their phones. for users who have to unlock their phones this is very important question "Is my iPhone remains unlocked when I install this new version?" for answering this important question I add the baseband version to iPhone Os history page so most advance iPhone users can answer this question with this information! But what about the others!?? Now please let me add the unlock history in iPhone OS history (by changing baseband column color coding) ANSWER ME PLEASE Codegear (talk) 06:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

"Peoples come to iPhone OS history page to decide about updating their phones." That's not the purpose of this article, Wikipedia is not a guidebook. -- Atamachat 15:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Removing beta versions

Please don't remove the beta versions history!! An encyclopedia most contain the full history of iPhone OS Mojtaba Cazi (talk) 16:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no strong feelings one way or the other about listing old beta versions. But I do disagree with your assertion "an encyclopedia must contain the full history of iPhone OS". Why must it? (talk) 21:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

2.2 and Background Processes?

At WWDC 2008, they talked about a unified push notification service being available in September. (see And "On September 25, 2008, Apple released the first Beta SDK (labeled Build 9M2611) for targeting iPhone OS version 2.2 (Build 5G29)."

Did anyone played with the SDK to see if this service is available to developpers, and if so, if it could be a feature to add in the Developper Beta version 2.2? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:48, 24 October 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 (talkcontribs) 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)

iphone OS refers to the software used on both the iphone & ipod touch; so the references should remain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlos nomad (talkcontribs) 00:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Firmware version history

I don't think that the idea of merging the IPhone OS Version History article with this one was very good. This article is now very very long, it was better before when it was in a separated article IMHO. Hervegirod (talk) 02:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I also confirm that! Mojtaba Cazi (talk) 14:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree as well. A change of that size should have been discussed first. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 15:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Also agree. We should remember that Wikipedia is not paper and not clutter up the main article with version history which could be kept in a separate article. —dima/talk/ 21:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I think so, merging these pages increased the article length and in a reverse direction of the mentality behind hyperlinking the related subject to keep the main subject concise while lets the reader to choose the details he may be needed. In the other hand this idea is widely used by other author in wikipedia so I don't know why someone may think diversely and change the well-known article without any discussions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's not repeat the same mistakes ourselves ;-) Is there consensus to "revert" to the previous situation with a separate iPhone OS version history article ? In that case, I'm OK to make the change myself. Hervegirod (talk) 12:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Five had said there should not have been a merge (including the IP). Nobody, not even the one who did the merge) has come along to defend it. There is no evidence of any discussion before the merge happened to demonstrate any type of consensus for that action. I'd say this can be considered a case of someone being a bit too WP:BOLD. Five to none over several days seems to be pretty good evidence for consensus. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 15:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
You're right !! It's done now !! Hervegirod (talk) 16:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)



I've got plenty of it, but I'm unwilling to add it because of my subjective viewpoint, which would create a seriously stupid edit war. Anybody interested can have a look at the lack of multitasking despite being based on UNIX. RAKtheUndead 14:20, 06 February 2009 (GMT)

SDK history

"This update was free for iPhone users; however, there was a nominal charge for iPod Touch owners due to the accounting rules used to track sales of the devices"

This is not accurate. SOX does not require Apple to charge anything for the update.. and if it *was* the reason.. why would Apple charge $9.99 when $0.01 (or, more pragmatically - $0.99) would be sufficient so as not to require a restatement of earnings. (talk) 02:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


iPhone OS does not provide an accurate description. How about Touch X? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It is called iPhone OS in the article because that is what Apple, and all mainstream media, calls the OS. Wikipedia does not create names, we use what the industry is using. If you don't agree with the name you should suggest the change directly to Apple. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 18:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Reverted 3.0 image

I reverted the image back to the 2.x version for several reasons. Unlike the 2.x image, the 3.0 image's non-free rationalization is missing. The editor who uploaded the image also claims that he found the image on Google, rather than pointing out the exact location/URL he found the image. And, in the licensing section, he chose the wrong license; he actually claims that the copyright owner is giving permission to use it. Groink-bowling.svg groink 09:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

40 million sold

Apple stated a WWDC '09 in June that they had sold 40 million iPhone OS devices. Anybody know where in the article this info would be useful? --MasterOfTheXP (talk) 00:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it can be put in after "As of 14 July 2009 (2009 -07-14)[ref], there are over 65,000 applications officially available for the iPhone" or maybe editing that line to say something like As of 14 July 2009, there are over 65,000 applications officially available for the 40 million iPhone OS devices. Also, I believe that this page should be semi-protected just as the iPhone page is thoughts?Kjp993 (talk) 04:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


i know there are a lot of complaints from the non iphone fanboy crowd. maybe we should list criticisms just like the pages of the other mobile operating systems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree, I do believe that this would be a positive contribution. Kjp993 (talk) 00:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


With Apple now allowing developers to share discussions and information from the code, I believe that GPLv3 code can be distributed on the App Store. The lone source for the claim of GPLv3 incompatibility states that if Apple did allow App Store apps to have their source code posted, that it would be complaint. Well, Apple now does that, they modified their NDA to lift that.

I think it's time to update that second, clarifying that iPhone OS can't contain GPLv3 code, but apps can be shared on the App Store, so long as the source code is shared in public. Toycars (talk) 13:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there a source for that? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Digital Rights Criticism section

As discussed initially on the iPad talk page I'm adding a new section to this article on Digital rights criticism. If this is in the wrong place can this be discussed there? Thanks -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

As that discussion has been archived I guess it'll have to be discussed here if needed or a new section will have to be created on the iPad talk page. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

iPhone SDK release dates assumes America / Northern Hemisphere

The release date of iPhone SDK 4.0 in the SDK History is listed as Summer 2010, in the Southern Hemisphere we receive the iPhone OS Updates at the same time as the Northern Hemisphere so the season reference has little meaning.

Richardwooding (talk) 08:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but the problem is it was announced as such by Apple. We could change it to "Mid 2010", but that would change the announcement and could be an interpretation that wasn't intended. GoldRenet (talk) 10:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Given only about 10% of the worlds population lives in the southern hemisphere and Apple is an American company it seems pretty clear what "summer 2010" means, so I think it should stay as it is. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Article Name

What's the WP policy on article names? Currently the article is still on IPhone_OS, while IOS_(operating_system) redirects here. I would think we'd want this article under a new name with IPhone_OS redirecting to it. ViRGE (talk) 18:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

It was moved, then I reversed the move because there was no explanation or source for the move. If you provide a source, I will gladly move it back. ~NerdyScienceDude () 18:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Apple has renamed "iPhone OS" to "iOS". Will this suffice as a source? ViRGE (talk) 18:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Apple also have it on there website. (Cannot get more official than a company website.) --Thomas G 19:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Requested Move 1: Article move to iOS

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to iOS (Apple). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

IPhone OSIOS (operating system)Ryankiefer (talk) 18:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC) ALT: IPhone OSIOS (Apple)

Support, mildly prefer iOS (Apple) per AppleInsider and I'm sure more notable sources will come along shortly. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Support. IOS (as an operating system) is already used primarily by Cisco, but also by Nintendo. iOS (operating system) should be a disambiguation page, and iOS (Apple) the primary page for this article. ViRGE (talk) 18:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Given that Cisco IOS is a router operating system I don't think its as generally well known as iPhone OS outside network administrators. Therefore I've redirecting iOS (operating system) to this page.
I'm easy about which name we go for, iOS (Apple) is shorter and still descriptive so my preference would be for that - though iOS (operating system) should redirect to that page. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Per WP:DLINKS (and the section above that) why is a disambiguation page at iOS (operating system) needed? This article is fairly clearly the primary topic and a hatnote should suffice. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Why not Apple iOS and Cisco iOS? — ceejayoz talk 20:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong support - a reliable source exsists, in the form of Apple now refering to it as iOS. -- sk8er5000 yeah? 20:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - Since it's being used on iPad now, it should be referred to as a universal OS like Apple is now doing. ConnorJack (talk) 20:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Why the hell would we not rename the article? They renamed the product. Alex Muller 21:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support move to iOS (Apple) because, Cisco IOS is also an operating system. Reliable source, sk8er5000? Check any tech site or - iOS 4 page. --Andrew-LGP -| Talk to me |- 22:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • In reply to the comment made on my talk page, I prefer "iOS (Apple)" or "iOS (Apple operating system)" - "iOS (operating system)" is ambigious - Cisco's iOS also is a operating system, as well as Apple's. "iOS (Apple)" would proberly be the best as it's more to the point. And @Andrew-LGP: I actually linked that a RS exsisted, linking to the iOS page as proof. -- sk8er5000 yeah? 00:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support iOS (Apple) Name has been officially changed. "(Apple)" avoids ambiguity with Cisco's OS. --Cybercobra (talk) 01:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support iOS (Apple). Short, up to date and clearly related to Apple Inc. LovesMacs (talk) 02:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose "IOS" is an operating system made by Cisco. Neutral on the alt. (talk) 04:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support, of course. iOS is its name.--Nickthegeek (talk) 04:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support move to iOS (Apple) as there's also the Cisco iOS. Plus, the fact that iPhone OS is now called iOS is documented all over the web. GoldRenet (talk) 08:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support move to iOS (Apple) as it avoids confusion with Cisco. David Bailey (talk) 10:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support, obviously. This is the new name and Cisco has already sold it to Apple. fetch·comms 15:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support move to iOS (Apple) Airplaneman 18:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Is it OK to go ahead and move this to iOS (Apple) now per WP:SNOW? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I think so, but won't an Administrator have to do it since iOS (Apple) is now a redirect page? -TheTechFan (talk) 19:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually I had already tagged the pages as csd g6, to make way for a move.--Terrillja talk 19:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Done as requested --B (talk) 21:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

This is wrong!

There is no iOS 3.1.3, so you can't rename the article, because, it hasn't changed the name, only the name for iPhone OS 4.0(now iOS 4) , so .. undo please the renaming... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atiko4 (talkcontribs) 22:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but Apple has re-named the OS to iOS, and Steve Jobs announced it in the keynote that makes it apply so previous version of the OS are now considered iOS as well. So there is no point in renaming the article to iPhone OS. Bentoman (talk) 07:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

While the OS has only been renamed from ver 4 onwards, collectively, they should all be referred to as iOS, just like how apple refers to all iPod touches, iPads and iPhones as iOS devices. - oahiyeel talk 16:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
No no no to the revisionist history. Versions prior to 4 are iPhone OS. Whoever did the search and replace on the article did a marvelous job of confusing things. Existing devices can be collectively referred to as "iOS devices" because they will run iOS 4 when it comes out. However, this has no effect on the correct and proper name of the prior versions of the operating system.--Nricardo (talk) 02:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Addendum. See: -- old os = old name; new os = new name. --Nricardo (talk) 03:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I think you're right. Changing the name to iOS for each version prior to iOS 4 is a form of changing history. I would not change the article name though, because it would be too much of a hassle, but according to me versions prior to iOS 4 should be named iPhone OS. In the end iOS 1, 2 or 3 have never existed, they have been existing as iPhone OS. From 2007 up until now, iOS never existed, so we can't pretend as if we all talked about iOS back then. GoldRenet (talk) 12:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

If Microsoft calls from now Windows 7 , as WONKA 7 , you can't rename the articles to WONKA 98, WONKA ME, WONKA XP... Also, you can't rename the article Windows, and say something like "WONKA (previously called Windows) is an OS from Microsoft...".. .there must be 2 articles... one for iPhone OS, and one for iOS... Another example... Flash, now its Adobe Flash.... before it was Macromedia Flash... so you cant say there is a Adobe Flash 5, because in that time the owner was Macromedia... so if you change the name to iOs, you are changing the history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atiko4 (talkcontribs) 21:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree. I have also changed my mind about having 2 articles, I'm now all for it. Each article can refer to the other. GoldRenet (talk) 08:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Except that we're not changing the name, Apple changed the name. Regardless of what previous releases were called officially from June 7, 2010 onwards iPhone OS is now iOS. Since the future release is officially called iOS any previous naming is nulled. It's really quite simple. A name change is a name change, it doesn't change history. Product name changes happen all the time. What makes iPhone OS's name change any different? --Andrew-LGP -| Talk to me |- 13:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I concur. Before 2008, iOS had no name at all! Does this mean that there should be a third article for "The no-name OS that iPhones ran before 2008"? Or that we should never have referred to the original iPhone as running iPhone OS? NO! There is no confusion or "change of history" in the re-branding. Anyone who reads the History section will understand. Now let's end this silly discussion... -TheTechFan (talk) 14:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Ok, you convinced me. I'm actually convinced by both pro and contra arguments, but I don't care anymore or my head will explode ;) GoldRenet (talk) 15:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

"default OS" in article summary

The wording in the article summary contains the word "default". Out of context, this seems like a weasel word. Are there other OS choices for the devices that run iOS. I don't think so... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

There are no officially supported alternatives. You can only put another OS on an iOS device by hacking it. GoldRenet (talk) 12:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Having googled these alternatives, my opinion is that there are not yet "notable", especially as they don't replicate the full functionality of the phone (can't make calls with the android port as of June 2010). They can certainly be mentioned in the wiki articles for the hardware devices themselves, but this is an article about Apple's OS. The word "default" should be removed from the summary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Android is supported on iPhone 2G, 3G and iPod touch 1G. It is still a bit buggy, but it works. 11will40 (talk) 18:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Do even 0.1% of iOS users (i.e. 100k people) run it? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't know. How could anybody get a total number of Android users anyway? I don't see how the word "default" could be read as a weasel word because iOS is the only operating system that comes pre-installed on iPhones, iPods and iPads. LovesMacs (talk) 00:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Including the word "default" in the summary implies that there are viable alternatives. This is plainly not true at this time. That is why it is a weasel. Also any sentence requiring a bracketed disclaimer doesn't belong in the summary. I'll say it again, the implication that there are alternative OSes belongs elsewhere, probably the page for the hardware device itself. This page is about Apple's OS specifically, not "OSes that you might choose to run on Apple mobile hardware". Default - meaning "the choice you get if you do nothing else", is a well known meaning to computer people, but in the majority case it has the meaning associated with "default on payment". —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

It gets worse... Now the summary contains "flagship OS". Where did that come from, what does that really mean? Does Apple have other OSes for their mobile devices that they don't advertise as heavily as iOS? "Developed primarily for the iphone". Needs a cite. Stop making stuff up and putting marketing fluff in the summary!

iOS 4 Screenshot

Could we get a screenshot of the new iOS 4 on this page? Anyone with an iPhone developer account can take one. I could, but my phone is too old (3G) and a lot of the new features don't work on it so it wouldn't be a very accurate screenshot. Pianoman320 (talk) 19:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Luke2511 (talk) 20:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Given that they are under an NDA, that's not going to happen. the best thing to do is to use the Apple released iPhone 4 images and add a FUR.--Terrillja talk 00:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

iPad iOS 4.0 upgrade cost

Regarding the cost of upgrading iPad to iOS 4.0, Appleinsider reports that Apple's license agreement mentions free upgrade to iPad OS 4.0. ( Should this be included? Rotanagol (talk) 18:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Merging Game Center to iOS article

Consensus is clear. Removing merge tags. Gary King (talk) 16:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Oppose. This doesn't make sense to me, as it seems to have enough significant coverage to warrant its own article. It's also something that appears to be expandable to a larger article upon full release of this service. Brian Reading (talk) 05:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Brianreading. Pardthemonster (talk) 21:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. I agree with Brianreading. GoldRenet (talk) 07:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose, though as usual it should be at least briefly touched on here with a link to the fuller article. Ryankiefer (talk) 18:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. I also agree with Brianreading, keep them seperate. Doomphil (talk) 16:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose After a bit of thought, I concur with the apparently prevailing view to oppose such a merge. Game Center is a specific application and network which merely runs on the iOS platform. It isn't precisely germane to a discussion of iOS. A corollary is arguably Xbox Live. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 21:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose It warrants it's own article in my opinion.Luke2511 (talk) 14:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Perfectly notable, no need to merge. mono 23:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

iOS storage

On my 8GB iPod, the iOS 4 uses (do the math: 8-6.89=1.11) 1.11 GB of my iPod, while it claims to use only 500 MB? WTH. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The OS, plus temporary internet files, plus cookies, plus files stored by apps, plus preferences, etc is more than 500mb. The OS is 500mb.--Terrillja talk 17:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Requested move 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

IOS (Apple)Apple iOS — Naming consistency, the full name is Apple iOS (lowercase I). Mancini (talk) 00:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Support Sure, why not; Avoids less natural parenthesized disambiguator. --Cybercobra (talk) 09:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Only if Mac OS X follows suit and becomes Apple Mac OS X. Likewise Windows 7 becomes Microsoft Windows 7 etc. David Bailey (talk) 14:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Er, those aren't ambiguous, so there's no reason to rename them. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Apple iOS. Hmm.... Yea, why not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support though to be honest I think there is a case for moving it to iOS as it looks to be considerably more notable than the other things there. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment More notable than Cisco's IOS ? That has been around for over ten years and the initials were instantly recognizable to any IT person. -- KelleyCook (talk) 20:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment I'm an "IT person" and I've not heard of Cisco IOS as its a different area - and for anyone outside the industry iOS is only going to be used to refer to this. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment I'm noting that nowhere on my AIX books, does it say IBM AIX. Its always referred to AIX 5L version 5.x or AIX 6 version 6.x. So in my mind that page appears to be misnamed also. -- KelleyCook (talk) 20:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Quoting myself from above: "The difference IMO is that Microsoft (e.g.) always "tag" its OS with the corporation name... you'll rarely see MS talking of Windows instead of Microsoft Windows in a press release or such. Apple instead never talk about Apple iOS, but simply iOS 4, hence I feel that iOS (Apple) is the right choice" --WikiKiwi (talk) 19:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per WikiKiwi -- the product's name isn't technically or in common parlance "Apple iOS," so why are we renaming the article as such? The product is "iOS." The parenthetical may seem "less natural" but it is also more accurate. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 15:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose move to Apple iOS, Support move to iOS Given that the version history is iOS version history and such, move the disambiguation page and move this page to its place. --Terrillja talk 15:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Contrary to the nominator's assertion, a search of Apple's site shows that the company never refers to their mobile operating system as "Apple iOS". -- KelleyCook (talk) 20:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support for consistency with Apple iOS version history. ~NerdyScienceDude () 20:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment I'd support changing the name of Apple iOS version history as well. iOS is literally not called "Apple iOS," so I continue to be flummoxed as to why we would call it that in an article. "Microsoft Windows" is the name of a product. "Apple iOS" is an invention that I assume is derived from other companies using that type of naming convention (like Microsoft). I'd also support Mahjongg's thinking below -- calling the article iOS and linking off that article to a disambiguation. Apple's iOS is plainly more notable than alternative usages. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Support seems much more logical than the current alternative, even better just use iOS, as Apple is clearly the main user of that name, almost nobody is even aware of other uses even when working in IT. I strongly disagree with user KellyCook here, even when an embedded system has an OS with a name, unless its a generic OS (like QNX) almost nobody is even aware it has a name, Cisco's OS is very obscure IMHO . Mahjongg (talk) 21:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Netural - There has been precedent set with Microsoft Windows - the product's name is simply refered to as "Windows", but our article is at "Microsoft Windows". Ditto here. iOS is what we call it, Apple make it, so per that precedent, "Apple iOS" should be the name. However, there seems to be no reliable source to state that it is officially Apple iOS. So I'm going to vote neutral here, simply based on policy-related/MoS-related arguments. -- sk8er5000 yeah? 20:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
    Well with "Windows" you have some other reasonable uses, like those clear things that go in the wall. With iOS, there really aren't many other uses that have much publicity. The article view stats agree, the iOS page only had about 100 hits a day until Apple changed the name, then it got thousands of hits. See here.--Terrillja talk 21:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
  • More importantly, Microsoft refers to the product line as "Microsoft Windows," whereas Apple does not refer to their product line as "Apple iOS." This has nothing to do with a "Wikipedia precedent" -- it has to do with the actual name of the product. Perceived Wikipedia precedents don't trump reality. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 13:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose move to Apple iOS, Support move to iOS. Apple never talks about "Apple iOS", always about iOS. Also, I think the page should be moved to iOS, as it is (or is becoming) the most notable. The same for the version history of course. GoldRenet (talk) 10:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Going by List of operating systems I don't see a clear precedent for prefacing the OS name with the company name. Yes, Microsoft Windows. But go to and look in the window title bar: Microsoft Windows is in the title, so it's part of Microsoft's official marketing (while specific Windows versions are just Windows 7, Windows XP, etc.). Other operating systems, Solaris, OS/2, System 7, IRIX, Newton OS, OpenStep do not have the company name, while others do. I suspect the article name is chosen based on familiarity and possibility of confusion with other things. iOS (Apple operating system) is probably the clearest name for this article, if a bit wordy. I'd also be ok with renaming to iOS and linking to the dab page. Since "Apple iOS" does not seem to be an officially used name there is some possibility of misleading readers if we use that. Fletcher (talk) 12:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose any move. It's fine where it is, the move to this name was only agreed in June! The suggestion by the nominator is seemingly not in use, so it is not a good title. The idea that this use of IOS is the primary use is a fiction; plenty of books refer to the Cisco IOS, and Google News has prominent hits for all sorts of other uses. Fences&Windows 14:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Create Beta Versions Section

I Think there should be a beta version section with links to the SDK and pics of the new release

--Fosterec (talk) 02:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Unless the "beta" is making headlines, such as the iPhone 4 prototype being left at a bar, the information does not belong on Wikipedia. Coverage of pre-final products would only be in the interest of a very select few people, and doesn't serve any encyclopedic purpose. Groink (talk) 08:49, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

ipod nano

Should it be included as part of iOS. Steve not directly said durring the keynote that it runs iOS, but as of now i can't find any sources. Keep you eye out fo that. (talk) 05:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Requested move 3

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. harej 08:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

IOS (Apple)iOS — I think this is the iOS in the most notable 'iOS' and thus it should be the main article and the disambiguation page should be moved to 'iOS (disambiguation)'. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose Due to the limitations of MediaWiki, the acronym IOS would also lead here, and given the number of IOS-es, I am much less certain of Apple iOS's primacy over all those. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
    • 'Comment it's not a MediaWiki limitation, it's a Wikipedia limitation. On Wiktionary, different case first letters are allowed to be different pages. (talk) 03:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Support Reversing self per Eraserhead1's page hit research below. --Cybercobra (talk) 21:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose There is a very famous IOS from Cisco (talk) 03:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment this multimove is not formulated properly, and the dab page was not informed. (talk) 03:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
My apologies. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- The Cisco IOS is at least no less important. --Pgallert (talk) 10:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Support—Although Cisco's IOS is no less important, I support the move because this is the primary topic. Airplaneman 11:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment Google Books would seem to disagree with your statement. (talk) 14:25, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Of course. There would be more content on it because Cisco's iOS has been out longer. Airplaneman 23:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
        • Then it is not the primary topic. WP:RECENTISM (talk) 03:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
          • Its not resentism if the new term lasts, and it will. Cisco's OS will be long forgotten when Apples iOS will still be used. Mahjongg (talk) 13:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
            • WP:CRYSTALballing the future is not a reason to move something. (talk) 06:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
              • I'm not crystal balling either, thank you. just commenting on an unfair recentism tag. I think the current situation already warrants that apples iOS is the main topic. Mahjongg (talk) 20:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- iOS is not clearly the most notable use of IOS. Apple has been using iOS for two months. It is too early to WP:PT this. Cisco has been using IOS for years. Give it more time and leave things as they are for now with no primary topic. --Kvng (talk) 13:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
    It's clearly not the most popular use of IOS. The cisco product has had a pretty steady 800 or so hits a day for quite a while, while the apple product has consistently been over 3K hits a day for the last month without any clear downward trend that would lend to the argument of recentism.--Terrillja talk 03:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- Due to common and long established use of Cisco IOS. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 14:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Support -- Lets not kid ourself, yes there is something like Sisco OS, but its only know to experts. On contrast half the planet knows what an iPod iPhone or iPad is, and many of them know now, or will know soon, what iOS is. Even now there already are many more people who know what Apples iOS is than Sico's, soon the disproportion will be laughable. That makes apple iOS the primary topic, any which way you look at it. Mahjongg (talk) 22:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment I doubt that. It's the Operating System, not the iPhone. Apple is not Microsoft, dumping operating systems all over the globe. Apple will probably never release licensed IOS phones made by others, so unlike Droid, it will not be advertised on TV, it will only be the iPhone that gets coverage, not the OS that runs on the iPhone. (talk) 03:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Ah, you think that, but I just bought a magazine (one of many similar on the market) about the iPad, and it contained a large section explaining all the new stuff that would be in iOS 4. No doubt all iPad, iPod and iPhone users will learn about iOS, just as buyers of a new PC will learn that its powered by something called "Windows" (or sometimes Mac OS X). You are kidding yourself again thinking that won't be the case. Mahjongg (talk) 13:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
I would think that WP:CRYSTAL applies to both of these comments. --Kvng (talk) 16:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Sorry I'm discussing the current situation, I see discussions on apples iOS left right and center now, never heard of Cisco's iOS and I'm in IT. Mahjongg (talk) 20:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
      • That's weird, since just about any IT tech school offers Cisco certification courses. (talk) 05:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
        • Perhaps its because I became a hardware engineer around the year 1980, never needed to go to an "IT tech school" they did not exist then, (in their current form) neither did Cisco exist then. on top of that i am not an American, so what do I have to do with American schooling. Anyway the whole point is how many people do you think went to an IT tech school, compared to how many iPod / iPad / iPhone users there are who at least have heard about iOS and want to lean more on Wikipedia. clearly apples iOS is much more sought after than Cisco's. Mahjongg (talk) 21:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
          • As IOS has been around for over 15 years from Cisco, being called IOS, and Apple's "ios" has been renamed several times during its existence, the track record for "knowing" Apple's is not that good, as it gets renamed every so often. Further, with actual schools teaching Cisco's version, actual scholarly research about it, and a boatload of books on it, the primacy of Apple's is not assured except through recentism of recent news reports. (talk) 05:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Support The traffic stats say the whole story. Cisco IOS has 13K hits in July, IOS (Apple) has nearly 75K. Long term, new name, whatever, the stats don't lie, and people clearly are looking more for the Apple OS than the Cisco one.--Terrillja talk 03:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't think you get reliable information by comparing stats from the month Apple made a big splash introducing iOS to stats many years into Cisco's use of IOS. --Kvng (talk) 16:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Actually, it was announced in June, but the many pagemoves have made the traffic stats a mess. July (the month after it was announced) has been quite stable though in terms of pageviews.--Terrillja talk 16:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose The main IOS is clearly Apple's iOS, but it's not overwhelming. It needs to be "much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined – to be the subject being sought". I'm not convinced this is the case. ~a (usertalkcontribs) 04:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Which other IOS's are likely to be referred to by that name? ios (c++) has only 332 hits in July - its the other obvious one. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment, I went and worked out the full traffic stats for the articles linked from IOS:
  • 333 IOS_(firmware)
  • 276 Internet OS
  • 1617 Ios (island)
  • 232 IOS Press
  • 435 Independent on Sunday
  • 427 Ireland on Sunday
  • 74 Illinois Ornithological Society
  • 269 International Online Soccer
  • 203 International Open Series
  • 357 International_operator_services
  • 522 Interorbital_Systems
  • 542 Interorganizational System
  • 416 Investors_Overseas_Service

(adding up to 5703 between them)

  • 15393 Isles of Sicily

and then the further entry:

  • 14148 Flight simulator (linked from Instructor operating station)

Now even if we assume that all hits to Isles of Sicily and Flight Simulator as coming from IOS (which - especially in the latter case - is fairly silly) there are still less than 50000 other hits of IOS related articles compared to 74k hits for this one. If we ignore the flight simulator hits (as there wasn't even a redirect for Instructor operating station until today), then there are 35k hits for other IOS articles, which is less than half of the iOS (Apple) article's hits. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment - Considering that IOS is an existing disambiguation page, any effort to move this article over to that page should have discussion pointers (as proper move header templates) on at least the disambigutation page itself if not all of the articles linked from that disambiguation page. Otherwise you are drawing the discussion from only a subset of those who would be impacted. There are well over a dozen articles pointed to from IOS so this is not just a concern between Apple and Cisco. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 20:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. There is already a link to the discussion from Talk:IOS. I'll add a link from the other pages as well. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Please also take a look at templates such as Template:Requested move which normally go on the top of the page (not the talk page) to alert visitors of any ongoing discussion. These may not be best for the tangental articles but should be in place for atleast iOS (Apple) and IOS. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 20:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose as IOS can stand for many things and i don't see why the Apple software is more important than the others. Leave this page as it is. Armbrust Talk Contribs 20:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Case not made as to the need for change. What's so wrong with keeping it as it is? Richard New Forest (talk) 20:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
I guess the case is that iOS is a shorter name which still describes the product. Additionally its easier to find with that name as users might not realise to search for iOS (Apple). Per WP:TITLE shorter names that are more descriptive are better. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Its also worth noting that the IOS page itself has gone from having around 100 hits a day before the launch of Apple's iOS to having around 500 hits a day in the last month. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, I think those are the best arguments yet, but I still don't think they're overwhelming. For example, not quite sure how the proposed name is "a shorter name that is more descriptive": more like a shorter one that is, um, more ambiguous...
The numbers above (and the change in hit-rate) do show that the Apple OS is commoner, but also that there are other quite common uses. Users of these would suffer a certain amount of confusion – is that worth what seems a really quite minor improvement for this meaning? And anyway, are those hit rates going to be maintained once the Apple OS meaning is a few months old? Richard New Forest (talk) 22:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose, I don't feel that this article meets the requirements for WP:PT. I think that several of the other meanings are just as likely targets as this one. --GW 22:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Well by incoming Wiki links Cisco IOS has about 75. Apple's has just over 500. The Isles of Scilly have 1500, but I don't think they are primary known as IOS. On a Google search IOS Apple gives 16 million hits, IOS Cisco gets 3 million hits and IOS Cornwall gets about 300k. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Neutral - While I personally think that Apple iOS may reasonably be the PT (especially after seeing the page hit stats), I also agree it's a tad early to do this kind of move... --WikiKiwi (askme) 02:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - iOS has become well known in terms of Apple's OS. Page view statistics have also shown that Apple's iOS is the most popular use of the term and many people are being redirected to the island of Ios as IOS currently redirects to that page. The use of (Apple) is also non-standard in wikipedia as this is the only page to use such a term.KiasuKiasiMan (talk) 14:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Regarding your second point, a better name for the article would actually be Apple iOS. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 14:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
See requested move 2 above. That was rejected. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Name clarification

Keep in mind that the operating system is only named "iOS" from version 4 onwards. There is no such thing as "iOS 3". (This is similar to Apple renaming "System" to "Mac OS" around version 7.5 - there is no such thing as "Mac OS 6".) In the article, please be careful to refer to the operating system as "iPhone OS" for versions before 4. - Brian Kendig (talk) 18:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Everything should refer to the operating system as "iPhone OS" still, and then each mention should be checked individually if they need to be updated or not. In articles that mention "iOS", they should at probably at least say "iOS (formerly iPhone OS)" at the first mention. Gary King (talk) 19:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Note that there is mention of iOS 3, 2 etc. in the section entitled hacking and jailbreaking. Someone should revert that to iPhone OS.Bill Heller (talk) 02:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I've move-protected the page for a day so it doesn't go anywhere until discussion here progresses a bit. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

My opinion, but I think Apple is going to refer to any iPhone OS as iOS from here on out, including 3.2, 2.0, and 1.0 release of the "iOS". I think it might be wise to rename the article as iOS as whole. Bentoman (talk) 21:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Every device running the iPhone OS (iPad, iPod, iPhone, iToiletbrush, etc) were referred to as 'iOS devices' in today's keynote. That means the operating system has been retroactively renamed and every version of iPhone OS will be referred to as iOS from now on. It doesn't get any more clear than that. Whoever moved the article back to its old name, please pull down your pants and bite the rope before we spank you. --Joffeloff (talk) 01:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

[5] [6]
"Now there's another major milestone we're about to hit. This month we will sell our 100 millionth iOS device. iPads, iPhones, iPod touch.."
CLEAR ENOUGH? I'm not gonna bother moving it back because I can foresee whoever moved it in the first place is the kind of pedantic retard to engage in an editing war without looking at the talk page, so whoever did that can read this and then perhaps concede their position. --Joffeloff (talk) 02:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

When Apple changed their name from Apple Computer Inc to Apple Inc, they did not sell their older products as the x, made by Apple Computer Inc until they came out with a new version. They changed the name retroactively, just as they have clearly done here. If this was a completely new OS, then it would be differentiated, but it isn't, rather it's just a rebranding.--Terrillja talk 05:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Eh, no. Everyone here is wrong. No employee at Apple has referred to versions 3 and below as "iOS 3". It has only ever been referred to as iPhone OS 3 etc. Doing a simple find-and-replace is nothing to replace true editing. You've just proved you are both lazy and Apple fanboys. I think being a fanboy validates as having a "close connection" to the subject, don't you? WP:NPOV (talk) 16:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you, but it would be good to see a source to back that up so we can be definitive. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello Mr. Anonymous IP - no, you're wrong, I do not own a single Apple product. I watched Engadget's live update of the keynote and the slideshow distinctly referred to the older devices as 'iOS devices'. You really think they would do that as a mistake for Jobs' WWDC keynote? --Joffeloff (talk) 18:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Names of previous versions should remain being referred as iPhone OS 1.1, iPhone OS 3.0 etc. The OS has been renamed from version 4 onwards, i.e. iOS 4. Windows 2000 was the next version after Windows NT 4.0. When the OS dropped the "NT" moniker, should Windows NT 4.0 then retroactively become Windows 4.0? Until the day Apple updates all its support pages on from iPhone OS 3 etc. to iOS 3, we should not be renaming on behalf of Apple. - oahiyeel talk 16:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't think this is like Windows. Microsoft has renamed new Windows versions repeatedly, but not retroactively. In Apple's case, it seems more like they did not think through the naming of the OS, and now they are correcting in light of it being used by other products besides the iPhone. Joffeloff's link suggests that Apple intends it to apply retroactively: "Now there's another major miilestone we're about to hit. This month we will sell our 100 millionth iOS device. iPads, iPhones, iPod touch... there is definitely a market for your applications." These devices having been running iPhone OS 3 or earlier, but he thinks of them as iOS devices. Of course it's not about what Jobs thinks, but what term will be likely be most recognizable to our readers. I think the rebranding means iPhone OS is on the way out, although I guess it doesn't hurt to wait and see how people continue to write about the OS. Fletcher (talk) 01:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
You can't just rename stuff retroactively, unless it was an error in the article. Maybe Apple does it (also not very clear), but this is an encyclopaedia. You can't just retroactively change history. In 2008 for example the iOS didn't exist, it was iPhone OS. That's what happened in history. Or should we just pretend we talked about iOS 2 back then. I never saw Jobs announcing iOS 2 in 2008, I saw him announcing iPhone OS 2. GoldRenet (talk) 08:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I now refer to my statement below :) GoldRenet (talk) 15:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
This is a no brainer. It iOS only applies to versions 4 (and later). Nowhere on Apples support site did they rename the previous versions. Hurry and go to and you will see on the right hand side "Get the iPhone OS 3.1 Software update". Check out the 150+ articles or see the complete lack of information (except referring to Cisco IOS) at -- KelleyCook (talk) 19:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • "We're going to rename it...iOS, and this is the 4th version." --Steve Jobs, WWDC 2010 keynote
This is crystal clear. Just because they didn't have time to go through their entire website and modify every single occurence of 'iPhone OS', doesn't mean the name hasn't changed. There is no loss of history, because the History section of the article covers all this. --TheTechFan (talk) 00:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't "Apple iOS" be a better name for this article than "iOS (Apple)?" As examples of how other operating system articles are named, I cite "Cisco IOS" not "IOS (Cisco)," "Microsoft Windows" not "Windows (Microsoft)," and "Google Chrome OS" not "Chrome OS (Google)." I do not see why "Apple" should be in parenthesis after the product name when it is perfectly normal to refer to products with the company name first. -- (talk) 23:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The difference IMO is that Microsoft (e.g.) always "tag" its OS with the corporation name... you'll rarely see MS talking of Windows instead of Microsoft Windows in a press release or such. Apple instead never talk about Apple iOS, but simply iOS 4, hence I feel that iOS (Apple) is the right choice ;) --WikiKiwi (talk) 21:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually, *none* of Microsoft's current marketing material calls it "Microsoft Windows." All the TV commercials call it only "Windows 7." Same with "Windows Server." -- (talk) 01:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Nevermind. I see now there was a proposed move on this very subject, that I missed out on. -- (talk) 01:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Of note assuming the readership of this article stays as high as it has there will be another move request in a few months. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I prefer "iOS (Apple)" and as second choice "Apple iOS" (note the lower-case 'i'.) Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Correction needed

under the section AirPrint it says iPod touch 2nd Gen. and onward. It is only supported 3rd Gen. and onward TheZacMurphy (talk) 16:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

iOS disambiguation

Why was the disambiguation edit by user StewieK reverted? Is there a reason not to put the template? --WikiKiwi (askme) 11:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh don't mind, I guess I realized myself why :) --WikiKiwi (askme) 12:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, reading the edit summary helps; WP:NAMB. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks ;) --WikiKiwi (askme) 02:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry if this is off topic, but in the interest of consistency, the disambiguation phrase for iOS is (Apple), for Android it is (Operating System) and for webOS they've decided to add the manufacturer name: HP webOS. If someone has the time and knowledge can they try to bring some consistency to the mobile operating system disambiguation descriptions. Thx -- (talk) 00:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

If you're curious, there's plenty to read: on this article's talk pages are five discussions of this article's title, and the policies WP:TITLE, WP:PRECISION, and WP:TITLECHANGES. --Pnm (talk) 01:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

AirPlay an app?

AirPlay is listed under Included applications. However, it's not an app; it's a feature some apps use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:39, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I've removed it and AirPrint from the list of included applications. ~NerdyScienceDude 17:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The name, again

I was about to request moving this article to Apple iOS. While I noticed that specific proposal was already discussed, there was not a consensus to leave the title alone. I'm not sure why no one cited WP:PRECISION, which is policy:

If there is a natural mode of disambiguation in standard English, as with Cato the Elder and Cato the Younger, use that instead.

It goes on to summarize the matter succinctly:

Often there is no alternative to parenthetical disambiguation, and it does have the advantage that the non-parenthesized part of the title may most clearly convey what the subject is called in English. On the other hand, such disambiguations may be longer or less natural than an alternate but unambiguous form, when there is one.

It seems like policy would trump the "it's not what Apple calls it" argument. --Pnm (talk) 00:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

But this way isn't any longer, except the parentheses themselves. The policy does not carte blanche support any particular system, and asks editors to decide on a case-by-case basis. Therefore, specific argument trumps policy (only because policy yields). HereToHelp (talk to me) 00:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
When I have time I'll create a move request to iOS. That seems to make the most sense IMO. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
IOS can also refer to Cisco IOS, which is also a prominent topic. (Because of technical limitations, iOS = IOS.) --Pnm (talk) 16:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, but this article outweighs the Cisco one significantly in hits and importance. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Requested Move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. The discussion has already been relisted, and I had closed and reopened it earlier in the week; though there is a majority in favour of the move on the grounds of being primary topic, even ignoring the anonymous contributors a number of users have left reasonable objections to this and I cannot see how consensus has been established. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:32, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

IOS (Apple)iOS

Its been 6 months since the last move request in this direction and since then iOS (Apple) has become even more popular. I think this is worth doing as its increasingly clear that iOS (Apple) is the single primary topic for the name iOS/IOS. Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC there are several criteria for establishing the primary topic and this article satisfies the majority of them by a wide margin. From the previous discussion all of the other articles aside from Cisco IOS seem to be much less significant than either this or Cisco IOS so I'm not going to cover that ground again.

So lets compare to Cisco IOS. On article traffic stats in December iOS (Apple) had 150000 hits vs only 24000 for Cisco IOS. On Google hits iOS Apple gives 13.8 million hits vs 2 million hits for Cisco IOS. On linked articles iOS Apple has 820 incoming non-redirect links vs only 74 for Cisco IOS. Google News gives only 94 hits for Cisco IOS vs 4331 hits for iOS Apple. Only on Google Scholar does Cisco IOS take a lead with 15700 hits vs only 9400 hits for iOS Apple (including a rather large number of hits for Apple Juice :p). Additionally the hits for the iOS page have increased from 2350 in December 2009 to 17700 this December showing that that page is much more widely used since the release of Apple's iOS in June 2010.

Overall it seems pretty clear that this is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for iOS/IOS.

Of note I will be sticking a notification of this move request on the iOS disambiguation page and Cisco IOS shortly. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

 Relisted Relisted. Dpmuk (talk) 11:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose Cisco is the subject of technical college courses, technical and research studies on networks, and most books about IOS. Therefore Apple's is not the primary topic. Apple iOS would be fine by me though. As well, there's the C++ ios library to consider, which is also very common. (talk) 22:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
    • The ios C++ library got 675 hits in December. Its nowhere near as notable as either Cisco IOS or Apple's iOS. Fair point about the books. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
      • The C++ library is a component of programming courses in high school, college and university, so is highly prominent, with many books featuring it as a chapter or even as the sole topic covered by the book. It has been the subject of technical studies. (talk) 22:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
        • Not to anywhere near the degree of Cisco's IOS, let alone Apple's iOS. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Apple's iOS is now commonly known in the consumer market. Cisco's IOS is virtually unknown (by name) in the consumer market, and even arguably obscure within the tech field, except for those few who work with it directly one way or the other (including those who buy and read books about Cisco IOS). Therefore, people searching for ios are much more likely to be looking for Apple's... per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
    • IOS is not "arguably obscure." Cisco has about 60% of router market which is an awful lot of devices, and engineers. This isn't a consumer encyclopedia. Not being a household name doesn't make something obscure. --Pnm (talk) 00:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Compared to something that is a household name, yes, not being a household name makes it relatively obscure. Apple's iOS gets about 5 times as many page hits per month[7] as does Cisco's IOS[8], and about 10 times as many ghits:
  • About 21,000,000 results for Apple ios[9]
  • About 2,130,000 results for Cisco IOS[10]
That clearly shows that Apple's usage meets the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC criteria: "much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined – to be the subject being sought when a reader enters that ambiguous term in the Search box". This is about as clear a case of primary topic as we ever get. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
You forgot that there are 71.90 million Nintendo Wii systems on the market. Take a guess at what operating system the Wii runs - IOS. Groink (talk) 21:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Its not how many implements of a certain "IOS" there are in this world, but how many Wikipedia users want to search Wikipedia for that specific "IOS" that should determine which "IOS" should be the primary topic. Mahjongg (talk) 00:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Apple's iOS has increased considerably in prominence this year, but moving the page to the bare name would be akin to WP:RECENTISM. Cisco's has been an established industry term for years and has a comparable amount of literature and interest accumulated over time. The 2010 page views shouldn't be taken out of context. --HiltonLange (talk) 02:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
    • WP:RECENTISM refers to over reliance on breaking news events, and no longer applies here. Apple's iOS is long past breaking news! --Born2cycle (talk) 06:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
And its hit count has increased through the year quite significantly since last August when the last move request was made. It hardly seems plausible that it will become less important than Cisco IOS in the reasonably foreseeable future. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
For a deja-vous déjà-vu experience, check out the early archives of the iPhone article. Same arguments about Apple's iPhone not being the primary topic because of Cisco's iPhone. Sigh. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support; we are a generalist encyclopedia, not a specialist one. Cisco's IOS is known only to specialists; Apple's iOS may not quite be a household term, but it's close. Powers T 15:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Seeing the number of hits, Apple iOS is clearly the primary topic. It is also well established, not some obscure recent product. Maybe a bit childish of me, but it is a "déjà-vu", not a "deja vous". GoldRenet 16:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Thank you! (corrected). --Born2cycle (talk) 16:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment in the requested move for the St.Louis Blues, WP:RECENTISM is cited saying that the commonn use for the last 40 years is too recent to be considered not covered under recentism. This request says that 6 months is more than enough to be beyond recentism... That's a very large difference. If 40 years is not enough to be unencumbered by recentism, then 6 months is definitely too soon to declare Apple primary. (talk) 13:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
    • 40 years for anything is ridiculous. But tech stuff is going to be shorter as tech moves fast. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
    • The Recentism argument is going down in flames at the St. Louis Blues move proposal discussion, and it should here as well. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Claiming Cisco's IOS is primary topic is a lost cause, Apples iOS keeps getting wider publication each month. Cisco's IOS stays just as unknown to the general public as it ever was. Mahjongg (talk) 15:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Apple actually licences the iOS name from Cisco[1], the name is still Cisco's property and Wikipedia should keep that in mind. At most, searching iOS should result in a page asking people if they meant Apple's iOS or the Cisco IOS and not defaulting to one or the other. Remember people, the goal is to give as much correct information as possible, not to prioritize the most popular subject. Saying Apple's iOS should be default just because it's more commonly known by end-users is very shortsighted and means you give in to fanboy bias rather than upholding correctness. (talk) 12:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Comment First, your advice (specifically, your idea for an equal dab) violates WP:D. Second, who owns the "IOS" trademark is irrelevant; Wikipedia does not need to "keep it in mind" at all (who owns a trademark is not a criteria for disambiguation). Third, the role of disambiguation is not "to give as much correct information as possible"; on the contrary, the role of disambiguation is to give the very minimum amount of information that can clearly distinguish one use of an ambiguous term from another. (Disambiguation is not a way of giving extra auxiliary information about a topic.) Fourth, the role of primary dabs is indeed to "prioritize the most popular subject" (so you don't waste people's time on obscure, unlikely meanings of a term). Fifth, saying iOS should be default because it's more commonly known by end-users is not fanboying, it's Wikipedia policy for primary dabs. Miracle Pen (talk) 13:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
      • On WP:D this user has a point, while the rules strictly state that there should only be one primary topic if Apple iOS didn't exist then Cisco IOS would be the primary topic, and thus to make it easy to navigate both terms are currently treated as the primary topic on IOS. Even if this article is moved I'd like to continue that practice at IOS (disambiguation) unless it would be confusing. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong support. I can't believe people are still arguing about this. Miracle Pen (talk) 13:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. Why does an Apple product get to take on the IOS namespace? I'm a Cisco engineer, and am quite sure Cisco IOS has been around a lot longer than the iPhone. A Cisco router, switch or other device is more important than the iPhone - you non-techies just don't see them, as they're behind the scenes running over 90-percent of the Internet world-wide. I'm not saying that Cisco IOS should take the namespace - I'm saying NOTHING should be taking the namespace except for the existing disam page. Everything should stay as-is. Groink (talk) 21:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
    • I'm a techie (software, firmware) and agree with you about the importance of Cisco products in our world. However, I musk ask... are you aware of the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC guideline, what it says, and the reasoning behind it? I'm asking because your comment indicates that you're not. In short, the concept of primary topic has almost nothing to do with the very subjective issue of "importance", and almost everything to do with "likelihood to be sought" by our readers. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
      • +1 on the importance of Cisco products in our world. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
        • I simply don't think Apple IOS owns the "primary topic" for the IOS namespace as you're claiming. Look back at the argument for "iTouch" when describing the iPod Touch (another argument Eraserhead1 is in favor of) - we've said before in that argument that Google searches is not to be used in a Wikipedia argument when justifying any argument when pitting one idea against another. Per WP:GOOGLE, search engines is NOT a viable method of proving any kind of a point on Wikipedia. "Search engines are sophisticated research tools, but often have bias and results that need to be interpreted. It can be worked around, but you need to know what you're doing." In order to claim WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for Apple IOS to take over the namespace, you need non-Google citations to claim this idea. The only argument I've seen so far is that Apple's IOS is discussed more than any other IOS. I need more. Groink (talk) 22:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
          • If you go and read my initial post for this you'll see I've gone through almost all of the criteria mentioned on WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and Apple's iOS meets the majority of them. These include article hit counts and the number of Wikipedia links which Apple's iOS vastly outweights Cisco's. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
            • You're not getting my initial point. I'm saying that no one article should take the namespace. Not Apple IOS, not Cisco IOS, not Wii IOS - none of them. Using the Wikipedia article traffic stats tool, IOS (Apple) drew in 147,608 hits in December 2010. IOS drew 17,746 hits. One would argue that IOS (Apple) drew more hits than any other article in the IOS disam article. And then, I come out and apply the same idea about "iTouch". ITouch drew 5,649 hits, while IPod Touch drew 393,726 hits. You were claiming in the iPod Touch article that many people would be searching "itouch", when in fact "ipod touch" had more hits. My whole argument regarding the Wikipedia tool is that, like Google and all the other search engines, the number of hits is a by-product of something other than popularity among human beings. My theory is that the majority of Apple IOS' hits are generated by search engine bots. This will be my last post about this, so I'll end it with this note: there are still thousands upon thousands of disam articles on Wikipedia, of which the majority of them take up namespaces other than "XXXX (disamb)" or the like. I don't see a problem with, for example, entering "MB" and come across a disam page with "megabyte", "Milton Bradley" and many other listings. One extra click is not that bad of a deal to me. As a matter of fact, I'm willing to bet that the majority of those Apple IOS hits were direct hits from a search engine, rather than from the IOS disam page. Signing off! Groink (talk) 23:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
              • While I did argue on the the iPod Touch article that some brief mention should be made of iTouch I never tried to initiate a move request from iPod Touch to iTouch, as its clearly not the iPod Touches primary name. With regards to MB, it isn't clear that Megabyte is the primary topic, at least Motherboard and MacBook both are sometimes referred to with the name 'MB' and they have the same number of Wikipedia page views.
              • Finally if "One extra click is not that bad of a deal to me." if this is the case then I don't see why you are arguing here at all, as that will be the case for Cisco's IOS if this move request goes ahead - and in fact as Cisco's IOS is clearly the WP:SECONDARYTOPIC I'll try and add a direct link to it from the IOS page. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
              • (edit conflict)Groink, are you seriously arguing that most people entering "ios" in the search box are not looking for Apple iOS? As I said earlier, even most techies have never heard of Cisco's IOS (or any other use of "ios"), and so are highly unlikely to be searching for it. On the other hand, Apple's iOS is close to becoming a household word. You can dismiss page view counts stats if you want, but the fact remains that even if many of them are from bot crawlers, there must be significant correlation between what bot crawlers are programmed to look up and what real live humans choose to look up. And when you're talking about a difference of almost two orders a full order in magnitude, that leaves a lot of room for error. I suggest you tap into your inner geek , put aside your Cisco-coloured glasses, and try to look at this a little more objectively. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
                • Math nitpick. An order of magnitude is 10x, so its nearly 1 order of magnitude not 2 ;). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
                  • What the f was I thinking? 10 is two orders of magnitude??? Yikes. Thanks for that catch! My question (and point) stands. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support: This is what most people are looking for. –CWenger (talk) 01:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


Several people have mentioned that WP:RECENTISM might apply here. I just want to point out some key phrases from that article. I'm not cherry-picking; these are all from the intro and I'm not leaving out anything that implies a different meaning. I'm highlighting elements that don't apply here.

  • "Articles [this is about naming] overburdened with documenting controversy as it happens."
  • Articles [this is about naming] created on flimsy, transient merits.
  • The muddling or diffusion of the timeless facets of a subject [this is about naming, not "facets" in the article content], previously recognized by Wikipedia consensus.

In short, WP:RECENTISM addresses only article content issues - it has no applicability to naming. But even if you tried to extract the spirit of what it says and apply it to naming, it's clearly talking about events and influences that are much, much more recent than something that's been around three or four years. For example, to argue that a cell phone OS is significantly more "transient" than a router OS is a stretch. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Nitpicks aside, I think the spirit of RECENTISM is the simple precept that just because something is newer doesn't mean it's necessarily primary. Sometimes, as with St. Louis Blues, an historical viewpoint is justified, one that looks at which topics are likely to continue to be important far into the future and which are more transient. Perhaps that's a different essay waiting to be written, but the two are related topics. Powers T 13:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
It's one thing to argue that WP responds too quickly to trends that may not have much longevity. I agree that's a good argument. Another good argument is, there is too much famine in the world (I presume you agree with that as well). My point is that arguments have to not only be good, but they have to also apply to the matter at hand to be given any weight.

That the spirit of WP:RECENTISM (for lack of a better term) should apply to a well-known modern OS embedded in cell phones but not to a modern older-but-never-nearly-as-well-known OS embedded in routers has no basis whatsoever. Not even the CEOs of the two companies that own these systems could probably tell us which OS will outlast the other - their longevity can only be reasonably assumed to be comparable. There certainly has been no argument put forward to indicate otherwise. The recentism argument, as it applies to this case, is a red herring. I suggest that desperate attempts to use it belies a rationalization of what ultimately amounts to a classic WP:JDLI argument, at least partially advocated by the understandably biased and flustered employees of Cisco. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm surprised with how often you reference WP:JDLI, you haven't macroed it so you don't risk a typo like the above. =) Powers T 03:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks... fixed. Good eye! The more people that read that essay, the more effective and productive will these discussions be - that why I link to it so much. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I would say that the 'spirit of recentism' as it were, should be considered for anything less than one year old, as this namechange is less than one year old. Being less than one year in residence, it could just change again (in General, not specifically Apple iOS). (talk) 04:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Ah, good point. I was thinking about the age of the OS, not the use of this name to refer to it. However, Apple's obvious commitment to the name (hint: that's why we all know it) indicates they are likely to stick with it. At this point, one could argue that Cisco is the one more likely to change the name of their OS. Ultimately, it's probably a wash. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merge "Primary" and "Secondary" apps?

I don't think that "Phone" can be considered a primary app, given that it is missing from both the iPod touch and the iPad. In general, I don't think that there are any inherently "primary" apps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielDPeterson (talkcontribs) 10:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Market Share

The market share of 15.4%, dated to may 2010, is no longer accurate.

Gartner, the same source as used in the article for the market share as of may 2010, updated the data in november 2010. The Press release can be found here:

According to the data as of November 2010, iOS now account for 16.7% of the Worldwide Smartphone Sales to End Users by Operating System in 3Q10. This puts iOS 4 still on the third place but now behind Symbian and Android instead of Symbian and RIM.

It is furthermore unclear if the source, Gartner, includes iPad in the Worldwide Smartphone Sales to End Users by Operating System. If they do, it would be inaccurate to use the data as a source for smartphone operating systems by units sold, iPad not beeing a smartphone unit.

Sternerst (talk) 09:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I've updated the figures with the latest data from Canalys. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editsemiprotected}} I cannot edit the article (since it is locked), but I wanted to add to the criticism section that Steve Wozniak (Apple co-founder) also spoken against the walled garden model of iOS during Campus Party Brazil 2011. << start of the video is chopped, the guy in bath clothing asked Wozniak who invented the App Store model. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Done Just added a reference. I worry about this becoming a laundry list if we just keep including everyone who has criticized the model.—C45207 | Talk 06:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request

"alongside with the iPad 2" is poor grammar. Should be "alongside the iPad 2" —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Removal of a paragraph on App Store censorship being a reason for jailbreaking

App Store censorship seems like legitimate criticism, but I removed some content from the Jailbreaking section as it seemed like undue weight, and also doesn't seem to be in the right place at all - such criticism would be reasonable on AppStore maybe, or possibly on the Jailbreaking article itself. Thoughts? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I think if we are going to make mention that some users use Jailbreaking to share illegal software, then it is also fair to mention other motivations (i.e., freedom of censorship). -- User: Lajiri
Fair point, its probably worth a sentence or so. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree, a sentence or so linking to the full paragraph at AppStore or Jailbreaking would be best. Thanks. User: Lajiri —Preceding undated comment added 22:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC).

Edit request from JWBB1508, 2 April 2011

Add to "Home Screen" section:

Since iOS version 3.0, a Spotlight Search function has been available on the home screen, allowing users to search through media, applications, emails, contacts and similar files.

JWBB1508 (talk) 22:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes check.svg DoneTom Morris (talk) 23:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Sales Numbres

Apple released sales numbers for their iOS devices in a lawsuit against Samsung: 188+ million units total. Should we include this somewhere? DanielDPeterson (talk) 07:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

iPod touch

In the apps' section it says that some apps arrived for iPod touch on iOS 1.0 although it was released on iOS 1.1. fix please. Itaiyz97 (talk) 15:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

iPod on the iPod Touch

The iPod Row on the iOS default apps, Phone was changed to Music and Videos in the iPod Touch. Safari is also available for the iPod Touch since the first generation. Please Insert it into the graph. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Positioning the screenshots

There are two iOS screenshots below the infobox, one for iPod touch and the other for iPad. Any ideas on improving the current positioning. I've tried alternating the image position so that it is infobox right, then image on left then image on right but it still doesn't look 100% effective. The iPod touch screenshot is so close to History that it looks like it should be related to the section. The iPad is in the next subsection to keep it below the iPod touch. Wikipedia picture tutorial advises not to stack images on top of each other. So how could these screenshots be possibly placed to be effective in the article??
--Esebi95 (talk) 22:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:IOS#Requested move

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:IOS#Requested move. Trevj (talk) 09:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussion now archived at IOS (disambiguation) hbdragon88 (talk) 03:45, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:IOS which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 13:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussion now archived at IOS (disambiguation) hbdragon88 (talk) 03:45, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

article title

Apple iPhone OS? really? not even Apple calls it this anymore. riffic (talk) 07:15, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

The problem with calling it just "ios" and not "apple ios" is that the term is widely used elsewhere and predates the iphone by quite a bit — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

This line is slightly incorrect "pple licensed the trademark for "iOS" from Cisco Systems (which owned IOS)" Cisco still owns the trademark and Apple License it (not own it as implied). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Major bugs

I think these bugs are major - I think they reach important as per Debian -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The references regarding the iOS 5 wifi bug lacks verifiability. They are from a discussion board not a reliable source, even than they only contain a few un-descriptive posts at best. To quote Wikipedia's Identifying reliable sources page 'Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight.' - . The Apple discussion board has no editorial oversight and therefore the references linking to those pages are questionable sources. iMarcoPB91 13:52, 5 January 2012 (AEST)

True, but I'm sure better sources could be found for this. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
What really is questionable here is how some Wikipedia users choose to delete vital information instead of adding to the knowledge by looking up more sources with a simple Google search (!). As you can see the WiFi bugs are very clear and documented by countless of users. I say the deletions on this topic should be restored with these sources as references. Sorb78 (talk) 14:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I suggest deleting the whole section. All operating systems have hundreds or thousands of such issues in their lifetimes, is this article going to document them all? Sections like this become a magnet for people with gripes about the OS (see WP:CRITS). Do you see similar sections in the Windows, OSX, or Android articles? If there are major bugs that have lasting consequences for the operating system they should be worked into the body of the article. Alternatively, move the content to iOS version history which is more suited to version-specific bugs. Dcxf (talk) 19:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleting important information or hiding the truth does not solve any problems, nor bugs. As the topic suggests this will not document all bugs, just the critical ones. Hopefully this is all of them (as soon as we can agree to restore the WiFi bug). The Windows article actually even has a separate POV fork Criticism_of_Microsoft_Windows but that's not a recommended thing to do. The critisism for OSX is clear in the Mac_OS_X_Lion#Reception article. Some critisism for Android_(operating_system) is woven in like you suggested but I would personally love to see it's issues listed more clearly. Coincidentally this article also has a dedicated "Critisism" section but for some reason it's titled "Digital rights management" IOS#Digital_rights_management. I could fix that.
I am sure that we can come up with a compromise so I won't have to defend this section until my dying days. It's obvious that it's becoming a magnet for people who are so biased that they can't even see that they are on the same side as me. Sorb78 (talk) 22:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
The examples you listed aren't lists of bugs, they're discussions of fundamental aspects of the operating system, like the software architecture, user interface, and DRM design. Implementation bugs like the ones listed in this section are comparatively trivial, and change from version to version, which is why I suggested the version history article as a better place for them. Dcxf (talk) 09:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Oh I assumed we were talking about critisism in general as you referred to "sections like this" with a reference to WP:CRITS. I might have an explanation on why other OS articles don't list critical bugs like this though - they are generally not allowed to exist outside of alpha and beta versions. And if they do slip by QA they sure are not allowed to run rampage for three months. The info in this section will allow the readers to make an informed decision on whether they will choose to upgrade from one bug filled version to another or not.
However for the sake of a compromise I could reluctantly agree to move this section to the version history article and make a reference to it under the version history heading in this article. Unless someone else backs me up :) Sorb78 (talk) 18:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
It's been done! Hopefully I can get my life back now. I really didn't plan on spending hours of my life on this :) Sorb78 (talk) 20:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The Major Bugs section does not seem to deride or ridicule the OS. Perhaps a reference to an Apple citation of the bugs might lend itself to brevity. I agree that trying to cite bugs might be counter-productive. Bugs are a known part of the developer landscape and most of us do adequate stress testing during development. :) Bestlandwiki (talk) 16:03, 7 janurary 2012 (CST)

Thanks for your input but I'm not sure what you mean. The articles referenced do include official statements from Apple. Sorb78 (talk) 17:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

any history about how this OS is developt, from Apple's NEWTON into PIXO at Sun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Home Screen

When this article describes the "home screen" in iOS, it mentions that the home screen appears whenever a user unlocks an iOS device. This is not true. When a user unlocks an iOS device, they return to whatever app was open when the device was locked. Fix? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this needs to be fixed Iggy Mwangi (talk) 16:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Regional Issue

iOS 5.1.1 was released in the spring of 2012. This update included a number of various bug fixes and a security update

This should be changed to reflect the fact that not all the people in the world live in the same small region — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:42, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

"iOS 5.0.1 was released in the winter of 2011"

This is a terrible way to describe a period of time. Do people understand that every year has TWO winters? The northern winter and the southern winter are at opposite times of the year. The way it's worded, if taken literally, would indicate that the northern hemisphere received the upadte 6 months after the southern hemisphere. For me, "winter of 2011" means June, July, August of 2011. Is that what the author intended? I think not. It needs to be fixed. "Pij" (talk) 07:04, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. Mushroom (Talk) 09:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

iOS Versions Usage Share?

The article needs a discussion of upgrade behavior by iOS users (how quickly do they upgrade, are updates pushed automatically by Apple?), and a pie chart of what versions of iOS are currently (with date) in use.

Compare the pie chart in the Android article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Use of "iMessage" as app name may be inappropriate

"iMessage" is the service (or protocol) introduced by Apple for the messaging service. The app on iOS systems (and later on Lion / Mountain Lion) is called "Messages". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolf0403 (talkcontribs) 02:39, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Reference contains incorrect link

Reference #35 has an incorrect link. The link should be: and instead it takes you to Wikipedia for the fruit apple. I cannot seem to find how I would edit this article to correct this link, so putting it out there so someone can correct. (talk) 15:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Thank you for noticing that. David1217 What I've done 16:34, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

creating pdf doesn't work properly

I tried to create a pdf, but the text wan't rendered. Presumably because of the very wide table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:41, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Help needed: info to add

{{request edit}}

There are a couple of pieces of info from The Mobile Wave that I think would add useful details to this page. I work at MicroStrategy, the company founded by the book's author and I'm here on behalf of the company. I won't make any edits in relation to the book because of my connection, but if I give the details and citation below, can someone else add them into the right part of the article?

1. To add to the end of the "History" section:

As of late 2011, iOS accounted for 60 percent of the market share for smartphones and tablet computers.[2]

2. To add to the "Jailbreaking" section (highlighted info is new):

Ever since its initial release, iOS has been subject to a variety of different hacks centered around adding functionality not allowed by Apple; this process of adding custom features is known as "jailbreaking". Although Apple has made efforts to prevent jailbreaking, and continues to assert "tight control" over its operating system, consumers have carried out jailbreaking on all iOS devices.[2]

Citation:<ref name=Saylor33>{{cite book |title=The Mobile Wave: How Mobile Intelligence Will Change Everything |last=Saylor |first=Michael |authorlink= |coauthors= |year=2012 |publisher=Vanguard Press |location= |isbn=1593157207 |page=33 |pages= |url= |accessdate=20 September 2012}}</ref>

Any help would be welcomed. I'm also open to other suggestions of where info from the book can be added, if it can provide details that are helpful and not otherwise included. Thanks, Rkrueger

About 2: the iPhone 5 hasn't had an untethered jailbreak and neither has the newest iPod Touch. (If they have, please give me a reference) 1 looks fine though. Partial Implement Vacation9 (talk) 23:26, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

That's fine about the second addition, if you know that there isn't jailbreaking of the two new devices, I don't have another reference to use there. For the first one, can you add it to the end of the "History" section for me? Thanks, Rkrueger (talk) 14:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

yellow tickY Half done I've added #1 to the end of the history section, slightly reworded (As of late 2011 → By late 2011). –– Anonymouse321 (talkcontribs) 17:21, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Why are the stable/unstable release links including an "edit" action?

Within the infobox, there are links to the latests releases (e.g. 6.0, 6.01, 5.1, etc.) The reader is led to believe that clicking on a link will give more details about the hyperlinked topic. Instead, these links take the reader directly into edit mode for a template. I suggest this will surprise the reader and this is generally considered a bad idea. This is not the expected behaviour of a link on WP except explicit "(edit)" links. I would fix this, but I don't understand how this template actually renders itself or directs to the edit action. Thoughts? --Ds13 (talk) 18:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it's a little odd, but iOS is not the only article that uses it: many articles that use Template:Infobox OS (e.g. OS X) and Template:Infobox software (e.g. Skype) use the frequently updated parameter to do this. Maybe it would be better if it were something like this:
The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) 18:50, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I didn't know it was as common as it appears to be. Surprising. Yup, moving the linked component to an explicit "[edit]" makes sense to me. --Ds13 (talk) 19:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I was wondering why Template:Latest stable software release/Android (operating system) was getting so much vandalism for such an obscure page, so that's one mystery solved. Suffice to say I'm not sure linking to the edit window like that is a good idea either. It would be much more sensible to link to iOS 6 or iOS version history instead, though I don't know how to ensure it doesn't upset other articles using {{Infobox OS}}. But then that's the problem with one-size-fits-all templates. – Steel 20:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
... or do what I've just done to the Android article, and restore the relevant parameters back into the main infobox. That way it can be formatted in a way that properly suits the individual article, and we can ignore this elaborate, annoying multiple template setup. – Steel 20:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
The setup, if I understand correctly, is to prevent unnecessary edits to the main article and (perhaps?) lessen the server load. The pages get quite a bit of "crystal ball" edits as well as vandalism, though. In my opinion, the setup does make it slightly easier to edit the version if it is updated frequently, but I'm not quite sure if it's the best thing to do. The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) 21:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Edit: I've just updated the template to the actual setup. The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) 21:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The current design is extremely unintuitive, not just a little odd, which is especially ironic considering the subject matter. On clicking 6.1, I expect to be shown the release notes for this version, it's as simple as that. I came to this observation quite independently, having visited this page several times and each time having forgotten about the edit section. I'm glad that someone else has noticed this error as well. PointDread (talk) 09:40, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I just changed the template (or asked for the template to be changed, actually) to show an [edit] link to the right rather than a link on the whole version number. The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) 17:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Placement of SHSH blob material

The article SHSH blob is a bit of an odd duck, and a couple other editors and I are trying to figure out what to do with it; it'd be great to get some more perspectives. Here's a summary of the relevant parts of Talk:SHSH blob: the article name implies that it should be about a small part of the iOS restore verification protocol, but most of the article is about exploitation of the protocol, and the protocol wouldn't be notable without the efforts to exploit it. Also, the name is an unofficial term used by developers and users of the exploits, which are associated with iOS jailbreaking, but the protocol and its exploits are not directly part of iOS jailbreaking (it's about exploiting the restore protocol, not exploiting the software on the device; you can exploit the restore protocol without altering the software on the device).

So, what should we do with this material? We could rename that article to something like "iOS restore protocol exploitation" - but is it notable enough for its own article? We could merge it into this article and iOS jailbreaking - but how to fit it into this article without unbalancing this article, and how to fit it into the jailbreaking article when it's only associated with jailbreaking and not part of jailbreaking? Other ideas? Thanks in advance! (Also note that I have an indirect COI on all this; I work for the company that makes Cydia.) Dreamyshade (talk) 00:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I came into this discussion as a third opinion. I'm not as familiar with the layout of the iOS article, but this proposal seems to be the best option. If the article is too long or other editors do not feel it should be included in this article, then a refocus of the article (and rename) seems necessary. Mkdwtalk 07:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


I think the current screenshot on the article should be replaced with one of a new iPhone 4 running iOS 4.3 without any third-party apps and with the default background. Also it would be good if below the info box, there were screenshots of an iPod Touch 4th Generation and another of an iPad 2 running iOS 4.3 (on the right hand side). I can get a screenshot of an iPod Touch but what do you, other people, think about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esebi95 (talkcontribs) 19:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done by myself --Esebi95 (talk) 21:46, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree only with a 4S running iOS 5.0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Now 4S with 5.1.1 YourGamerMom (talk) 23:00, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

iOS6/iPhone5? Nicoli nicolivich (talk) 00:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding iOS before 4.0...

iPhone OS had always been unofficially known as iOS (since 1.0). Should something about that be added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkbx (talkcontribs) 13:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

IIRC the 'iOS' name didn't come up until at least the product announcement for the iPad; I don't remember coming across it before the iOS SDK came out with 3.2.x support a few months before the iPad release. Note that iOS still reports itself as 'iPhone OS' internally, even on an iPad. --brion (talk) 22:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

market share and bias

I am moving this from the article mainspace, as it doesn't belong there. This was written by, and was not created by me or necessarily reflect my thoughts and opinions.

The wording in this paragraph needs to be re-worked. As written, the paragraph suggests the Apple at one time had a 60% share of the global smartphone market, Which slipped to a 16% share. This is not the case. The first sentence deals with smartphones plus tablets; whereas, the second sentence deals with only smartphones. It seems obvious that a writer biased toward Android wrote this paragraph.

78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 15:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

oh, come on. Whole subset of the wikipedia articles about computing industry and technology are the totally bias toward opensrc google and all who share hate to ms or windows. Just read the ms related articles here, they are all cr4p, full-vandalized and dissapointing. In single such article it is much more faeces than in all iArticles. Ms, i see, doesn't care about this stupidity, good for them, but i, as a reader interested in encyclopedic articles, see here that even links are selected with the same intention as the stinky content. Seems like some people only do all their work because of one thing - hate of ms. If here is a bias then what is the name of that there? Bing, exchange srv, ole, windows, ... all literally all articles are heavily biased vandalized corrupted and absolutly useless. Just garbage and parody on the encyclopedia. For whom except these self-satisfying fanatics perverting wp in double-stantarded parody it will be useful? So bias? Yeah right. (talk) 00:17, 1 April 2013 (UTC) 90percentoftheworld

Joe Hewitt's purported 180°

I'm pleased to say that this gross misrepresentation, which somehow managed to survive for 1,189 days, 2,472 revisions, 33 iOS versions, and the release of 15 iDevices, has finally been corrected. Insofar as the named sources are concerned, at no point did Hewitt ever "voice support" for iOS's closed DRM or closed hardware models—he in fact spoke positively of the platform's sandboxing-by-default configuration.   — C M B J   12:14, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Reverted vandalism

I'm having some trouble re-merging the changes made since after the vandalism today. It's a software/hardware issue on my end. I will try to get to it tomorrow but if you want to pitch in between now and then, that would help me a lot. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 02:49, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

iOS version history merge

Wikipedia is not a collection of changelogs. The current article is an indiscriminate list of changes between every version of the operating system and as such does not conform to Wikipedia policy. To make it do so would make the article so short that its independent existence would be an unnecessary split in content, which would be better served in this article. Sceptre (talk) 20:21, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Deletion is always an option but this seems like a situation where a merge seems more suitable. The major releases should be covered in the main article. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
At most the information should be merged and even that is arguable. The version history section here is missing info before iOS 4 so combining the two would fill in some blanks but size would be an issue. A merge would grown that section considerably. A significant rewrite would be required to keep it concise and complete. Jd2157 (talk) 04:14, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Mergeing is a good idea, unless some major renovation can be done. It would me most suited in the main article. Madeincat (talk) 7:48, 17 October 2011 (EST)
No I disagree, one is an overview, the other more detailed. This is not exactly a WP:IINFO either, as implied. Again, please also read the valid comments of other users against this rather than just your own interpretation of the WP rules, as per the previous attempt at total deletion. --Jimthing (talk) 11:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
There were little "valid comments" at the AfD; indeed, anyone who didn't want it kept because it was useful highlighted that there were problems in listing every change (as the article does: bug fixes are given the same amount of coverage as Siri, for god's sake). An AfD result also has no bearing on a merge discussion: AfD is solely a discussion on article existence (unfortunately). Sceptre (talk) 23:23, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. The AfD highlighted that too much detail was the problem: merging will provide the means to apply WP:DUE weight to this stuff. Uniplex (talk) 11:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose changelog content like this is useful to our readers - and Apple doesn't publish it themselves - there seems no good reason to remove the content. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
See WP:USEFUL; WP requires enduring notabillity, verifiability, and due weight—all largely absent from these changelogs in their current state. Uniplex (talk) 19:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Notability is fairly obvious as lots of people are interested in iOS features - that's why I see this kinda stuff covered on tech sites every time there is an iOS release (such as this from Wired), verifiability, sure the stuff should ideally be sourced, due weight - who cares - its spun off into its own article that doesn't affect other content - WP:DUE doesn't apply to whole articles anyway it applies to covering views within articles. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
You're talking about news; lots of people are interested in news; WP however, requires that a stand-alone topic has enduring notabillity. Alternatively, a topic can have due weight within a broader topic (either as a section or as a sub-article). Currently, the iOS version history has neither of these. Uniplex (talk) 19:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
What do you want to see? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
As above, the suggested merge seems appropriate in this case. Uniplex (talk) 12:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Right, but you asked for evidence of "enduring notability" how could that be adequately shown? Additionally it would be nice to see the policy and/or guideline which makes it clear that WP:UNDUE applies to more than just a single article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Enduring notability is demonstrated by people writing about an event after the event has ceased to be current news. WP:UNDUE applies to the treatment of the topic; in this case, the version history is being treated (with summary-style) as a sub-article of iOS; this does not make it a separate topic, it's only on a separate page because of it's WP:SIZE. Uniplex (talk) 14:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough on the first point, on the second point I presume you can quote the relevant section of policy? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, having done some digging, it's not so clear; however, certainly it seems that there are cases where as you suggest, due weight does not apply across article/sub-article. My suggestion is still to merge though, since the version history itself having enduring notability seems doubtful and with merging, salvaging the encyclopedic content of the other page might actually get done: AfD survivors with comments of "needs substantial rewrite" rarely actually receive the required remedial work. Uniplex (talk) 20:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for being so reasonable. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:53, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose I do not think this page should be deleted. It is very useful and has helped me with several apple products.P0PP4B34R732 (talk) 21:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree, I came looking for version info on the iOS and the article was perfect. On the other hand, this merge discussion and the associated pages are VERY CONFUSING! I'm not even sure if I'm commenting on an ongoing discussion or something that's already been settled. (talk) 16:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose there are now version pages for all the main platforms, so why bother to remove one of them, in order to just merge it into another article page that clearly offers a differing overview of the platform as a whole. Which, following reading the so-called reasons, is completely pointless. (This proposal should now be closed accordingly.) -Jimthing (talk) 09:00, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Should not be deleted because it does cover major versions Iggy Mwangi (talk) 16:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose I would prefer a merge of the two articles myself over a deletion. If not a merge, then let them live on separately. Or perhaps it would be wiser to simply post the links to the Apple support notes for each version change, such as for 7.0.3 as an example. -- Dustin Dauncey (talk) 16:32, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

iOS Security

Article describes jailbreaking and SHSH blobs, which could (and should) be subsumed under a single heading of "Security" and reference official Apple documentation when describing the features. (talk) 18:01, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


I finally found where the info on Java is (in the IOS SDK article), but it took me a while. While this is all orderly, shouldn't searching for "java" make a hit in here, for the lay person? --Jerome Potts (talk) 02:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Given how much could be said about developing apps and other software (e.g. drivers) for iOS devices, the topic of iOS development merits its own article, IMO, especially if describing development environments, both official and unofficial, and the programming languages supported by those environments. (talk) 18:10, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Is iOS Unix-like (without jailbreaking)?

I don't own a iDevice, but know there is no terminal/shell, and probably no terminal available to access a shell on the device available in the App store? Without that capability, how can it be Unix-like? It's not certified UNIX as OS X is. Doesn't run Unix programs (or OS X programs). No terminal/shell no pipes, no "Unix". See to compare: Talk:Android#Is Android Unix-like (without rooting). comp.arch (talk) 12:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

It has no terminal emulator without jailbreaking. I think it does have Bash (Unix shell), used internally but not made available to users. There are some programs, such as launchd, that are mostly or completely the same as the OS X equivalents (there might be some #defines set differently when built for iOS) and that are part of the system, but, while the core Unix APIs allowed to third-party programs are a subset of those available in OS X, a program written solely to those APIs presumably wouldn't be allowed in the App Store (because it wouldn't be able to interact with the user).
As I indicated in Talk:Unix-like, I think a case could be made for dividing "Unix-like" OSes into those where the OS can function as a "traditional Unix" with a command line, those where the core APIs are Unix APIs that can be used in applications but there's no command line available to normal users, and those where the core APIs are Unix APIs and that don't support third-party apps at all (only the apps and daemons shipped with the system get to use those APIs). OS X, desktop/server Linux distributions, the basic *BSDs, Solaris, AIX, HP-UX, etc. are in the first category; iOS and perhaps Android with the NDK are examples of OSes in the second category; the OS on a Tivo box and the Linux/*BSD/etc. OSes on various NAS boxes, routers, etc. would be examples of OSes in the third category. (I'd call the NT-based flavors of Windows Embedded versions of Windows NT, just as Windows NT 3.1/3.5/4.0, Windows 2000, Windows XP, Windows Vista, Windows 7/8/8.1 and the server flavors thereof are, even if the ultimate customers of some of the boxes running those versions of Windows don't get to buy Office and install it on them and don't get to write their own apps for them.)
(As for OS X apps, while some of the frameworks allowed to third-party programs are the same as or a subset of their OS X equivalents, the UIKit UI framework is different from the AppKit framework in OS X, so, to that extent, it won't run third-party apps written to Apple's OS X APIs. Qt, however, supports iOS, but I don't know whether it's possible to write a Qt app where the same source could be compiled for a desktop OS and iOS and work as a reasonable app on the desktop and a reasonable and App Store-acceptable app on iOS. That's not particularly relevant to the Unix-likeness of iOS, however.) Guy Harris (talk) 18:39, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Guy Harris about iOS not being in the first category. However, at least in the Infobox, where under "OS family" where space is limited we should go by the first definition; what OS means there is a service to the user for running its user programs as intented. iOS doesn't fall under the third definition, but let's say it falls under the second, would it not have to have the full Unix APIs or at least the rest could be added and the terminal for use by other programs, and Apple would never allow that? [I doubt iOS has bash, at least not the current version, as Apple doesn't like GPLv3. And is there any point if you can not install and run other programs with it - the Unix way..?] comp.arch (talk) 21:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
What do you mean by "the first definition"? The Infobox OS template's documentation says "Family - This is the operating system family, examples include Microsoft Windows, Unix-like and Mac OS. Linux and Mac OS X are not OS families.", which says nothing about what renders an OS a member of the family. (The Windows Embedded has no such infobox, and the Windows Embedded Industry page says it's a member of the Windows Embedded family, for what that's worth.)
The main APIs I'm thinking of as not being available in iOS are the dynamic loader APIs such as dlopen() and dlsym(); I don't consider their absence to make an OS not Unix-like (by that logic, System V Release 4 would be the first Unix-like operating system from AT&T...).
(iOS might not use the current version of bash, but OS X most definitely comes with a version of bash:
   $ sw_vers                                                      
   ProductName:    Mac OS X
   ProductVersion: 10.9.2
   BuildVersion:   13C64
   $ bash --version
   GNU bash, version 3.2.51(1)-release (x86_64-apple-darwin13)
   Copyright (C) 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
so the GPLv3 is unlikely to prevent iOS from having any version of bash.)
And the point of something depends on the user. There might, for example, be aspects of the Unix process/descriptor/socket/etc. model useful to some iOS developers. Guy Harris (talk) 21:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
What I meant by "the first definition", was your definition or category and that that should be the definition for a family in the context of "OS family" in the Infobox. That is, for the reader (a user) meaning "compatible with" (and for Unix-like, adhearing to the Unix philosophy or at least allowing that). "Bash is the GNU Project's Bourne Again SHell, a complete implementation of the IEEE POSIX and Open Group shell specification". POSIX.2, isn't that required for Unix-like? If bash is indeed in iOS it has POSIX.2 but not for the users (and not usable by apps?). comp.arch (talk) 11:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
"Compatible with" in what sense? Same APIs, i.e. compatible in the API sense? Same user interface, i.e. compatible to users used to one system in the family? (If so, are Windows {OT,NT} 3.x members of the same family as Windows 9x/NT 4.0?)
It's not clear what is required for Unix-like; as the page says, "There is no standard for defining the term, and some difference of opinion is possible as to the degree to which a given operating system is "Unix-like"." POSIX.2 is required for being a trademarked Unix, as the command-line interface is part of the Single Unix Specification, but being a trademarked Unix isn't necessary to be "Unix-like". Guy Harris (talk) 17:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't intend any offense by this; I'm just speaking literally. Forgive me, because I don't know how else to say it, but I don't want the topic to confuse other onlookers. I'm responding to the original question as to whether a user experience defines an entire operating system family and specification.
The entire question is a non sequitur, based on a lack of understanding (though everyone involved seems acutely knowledgeable) or perhaps focus upon what Unix is, and the ensuing conversation is tangentially informational trivia interspersed with offtopic personal hobby chat. Unix itself is not an opinion and it's not a user experience, and by that definition, then perhaps most of the world's network servers magically would not be unix. Many unix system administrators don't even log into a host; they automatically propagate changes to thousands of customized systems (perhaps appliances) which have no user interface whatsoever. But anecodes aside, all this is possible precisely because they are unix. You don't sit down at a login console or user shell like the girl on Jurassic Park, to declare whether it's unix or unix-like. The specification group decides it, and as Guy Harris pointed out, the unix-like property is inherited. The group did so for Mac OS, upon which iOS is largely interchangeably based, making iOS unix-like even if not certified; and they did so because of Darwin, upon which they're both inherently based. There are no new categories; it's simply an embedded system. I hope this helps! Anyway, again it's off-topic here.  :) — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 17:45, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
If by "the specification group" you mean The Open Group, with the specification being the Single Unix Specification, they don't specify whether something is "Unix-like", they specify what a system must support in order to allow the use of the "Unix" trademark for it.
There's no group I know of that has a specification for "Unix-like"; in fact, The Open Group's FAQ for "Unix" explicitly says that "Unix-like" "is an abuse of the UNIX trademark, and should not be used".
As I noted, Unix-like, in the Wikipedia sense, is not specified, as the page in question says "There is no standard for defining the term, and some difference of opinion is possible as to the degree to which a given operating system is "Unix-like"." It's a vague term; when I first heard it used, back in the 1980's, it referred to systems that were somewhat like Unix in API but that didn't claim any sort of compatibility and often weren't compatible, to the extent that Unix programs would often have to be changed to work on them. These days, it mainly means "largely compatible with various Unix systems, but it hasn't been run through the test suite, so we can't legally use the Unix trademark", and it's mainly used to cover Linux distributions and the *BSDs. It's generally not used to cover, for example, Windows with Interix, as that's viewed as a "compatibility" API rather than the API you're "supposed" to use when programming a Windows system.
But, again, this is all a matter of opinion, and opinions probably differ widely on what is and isn't "Unix-like". Guy Harris (talk) 19:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

FYI: I assume Unix-like includes shell access for users (POSIX.2) or at least for for programs (and then terminal can be added). But:

iOS app to run script: "But, if your script takes 20 seconds to run, that's too long, and iOS will kill the app."

Running BASH script from iPhone app?: "you probably won't find any iPhone specific documentation about it because it's not allowed on a "normal" iphone (one that is not jailbroken)"

then I wander do not these restrictions break POSIX.2 in the general sense? QED, not Unix-like? Is there a work-around with threads/async? [Andoid can also kill programs at any time (when not in foreground at least and memory low (any other reason?) and the app is supposed to handle that).] [Not sure if job control has always been in Unix and if you can put in background in iOS with &] comp.arch (talk) 21:32, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't assume what "Unix-like" includes; as I noted, opinions probably differ widely on what is and isn't "Unix-like", which is why including iOS amongst "Unix-like" systems, or not including it amongst "Unix-like" systems, are both controversial, so "doesn't support POSIX.2" might imply "not Unix-like" with your choice of what "Unix-like" means, but wouldn't imply that with all others' choices.
No, job control has not always been in Unix. It was a BSDism. The kernel features that support it are in XNU, hence in iOS, but it doesn't manifest itself as "job control" unless you're typing at a shell, in which case, for iOS, you need a jailbroken machine and Mobile Guy Harris (talk) 22:16, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Questionable statement in Jailbreaking section

"On some devices, jailbreaking also makes it possible to install alternative operating systems, such as Android and the Linux kernel." (emphasis mine)

Really? The nearest reference doesn't seem to address this. Is it okay to remove the mention of Android, or is there another source we should be citing? --SoledadKabocha (talk) 17:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, here are some references, back from 2008-2010 when iPhone hackers were attempting this: "Linux for iPhone May Open the Door to Android iPhone" (Gizmodo), "Hackers boot Linux on iPhone" (CNet), "iPhone Linux!" (Linux Journal), and "Install Android on iPhone using Bootlace" (iMore), "How to Install Android on an iPhone in Six Easy Steps" (Lifehacker), "Install Android 2.2.1 Froyo On iPhone 3G / 2G Using Bootlace in Cydia" (RedmondPie), "How To Install Android on your iOS Devices" (MacLife). All of this was very experimental - it wasn't really a functional thing to do with your iPhone, more of a proof of concept. Dreamyshade (talk) 01:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. Sorry I didn't look hard enough (as stated, I only checked a couple nearby references that were already in the article). --SoledadKabocha (talk) 02:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Not "genetic UNIX"

See revert: [11].

Unix-like has three categories, "Genetic UNIX", "Trademark or branded UNIX", "Functional UNIX".

I would think that for an OS to fall into the first category it would also have to fit the third one. Looking strictly at the first category it seems it could include almost anything if this would be the only criteria: "Some of these systems have no original AT&T code but can still trace their ancestry to AT&T designs." I'm not sure about the genetics here, what has iOS to do with AT&T? comp.arch (talk) 09:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, this bit of sample code for iOS calls a routine named fread, and that API was originally developed at the Bell Telephone Laboratories of the American Telephone and Telegraph corporation, even if the implementation in iOS was originally developed by Chris Torek.
And I wouldn't think that a system that includes code that has "a historical connection to the AT&T codebase" necessarily supports command-line sessions; if, for example, it has a Unix shell, but has no console driver, no rsh/rlogin/ssh/Telnet/etc. server, and no ability to attach a terminal to a serial port, it doesn't support command-line sessions. Guy Harris (talk) 09:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for answering this quickly. I'm not sure if you are agreeing with me or not.. :) For me, genetic UNIX would be the category that (almost) everyone would agree is UNIX (the original, or close decendant). Hard to argue with branded UNIX. An functional we could argue about. Are you saying in the first paragraph that it is a "genetic UNIX" (at least has a part of the API), and in the next that it is not a functional UNIX? That is an interesting combination that I do not view as Unix-like. This is something that is hard to summarize in the infobox. I tried to in the article. After my latest change to Template:Unix-like, that seems to stick, I suppose I can live with this wide view of categorizing iOS as (restricted) Unix-like. I would prefer something less ambigious as Unix API based.. comp.arch (talk) 09:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm saying that, if the definition of "functional UNIX" requires a command-line interface, being a "genetic UNIX" doesn't imply being a "functional UNIX". I'll leave it for a consensus to develop on whether the definition of "functional UNIX" should require a command-line interface. Guy Harris (talk) 17:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Is iOS it's own OS (family)? (Is the User Interface, part of the OS)?

See Christopher Whidden's revert: [12] (and section above).

One other thing about the revert, not only Unix-like was added, iOS was taken out. See: Template_talk:Infobox_OS#OS_family_-_Android_is_missing. For consistency with Android, I think iOS also it its own "OS family". comp.arch (talk) 10:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Not ruling out that it can be both (a hybrid), but which one best describes the "OS family", iOS or the general Unix? For OS X, both OS X and Unix apply, maybe not equally, but even less with iOS. Just curious, how much porting is involved, moving from iOS to OS X or other way around, or to (not possible) or from Unix? "Software is portable when the cost of porting it to a new platform is less than the cost of writing it from scratch." Is there any distinction to be made for OS and a platform here? comp.arch (talk) 10:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

The UI code would need significant changes to go between iOS and OS X. Here's the reference documentation for AppKit, the UI toolkit for OS X, and here's the reference documentation for UIKit, the UI toolkit for iOS. They share (modulo differences in versions, e.g. a given OS X release might have stuff not in any current iOS release if the OS X version is newer, and vice versa) the Foundation Kit, Core Foundation, some other frameworks, and most of the UNIX API, so, whilst the UI code would need changing (which might make sense, as the right UI for an app on a box with a physical keyboard, mouse/trackpad, and large screen with multiple windows might differ from the right UI for an app on a box with a touch screen, virtual keyboard, and smaller screen), much of the core code wouldn't have to change.
A command-line tool could be "ported" to iOS, but wouldn't actually be usable unless either 1) you're working in the right part of the iOS group and can use it there or 2) have a jailbroken iOS machine. Code that uses UNIX APIs in, for example, an OS X GUI application would require little, if any, work to be usable in an iOS version of that application.
I would consider iOS to be a member of the iOS family, except that a family with only one member might not be considered worthy of note. Guy Harris (talk) 17:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, for conforming what I thought. I would then say iOS, Android and OS X are all mutually incompatible operating systems (and in case of Android at least, you can call it a family, by now) and placing under the same OS Family gives the wrong idea. OS X being also Unix-like, that is, has shell programs (and supports compiling your own programs) in a practical sense, not only theoretical (while maybe done less than just using regular OS X programs), is something that seems very much absent, except theoretically if that, from iOS and maybe Android. See also: Template talk:Infobox OS#OS family - Android is missing.

Comparison to Android

IOS#Comparison to Android seems a bit one sided, tangential, long and ranty. Are we sure it belongs here? ~KvnG 14:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Category:IOS (Apple)

What about the 64-bit support in iOS?

"The applications must be written and compiled specifically for iOS and the 64-bit ARM architecture or previous 32-bit one"

This is the only information about 64-bit support found in the main article. But I do really confuse right now about the 64-bit support on iOS. Is it similar with OS X 10.5 running its kernel in 32bit and applications could be in 64bit? Janagewen (talk) 23:12, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


Does iOS support MIDI files? (talk) 22:03, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Trademark age

I was curious about the actual length of time that Cisco has owned the IOS trademark (as every source I could find just said "over a decade" or some other indefinite date) and I didn't consider that sufficient. I'm not sure if these links for for citations, but and both show the original published date to be March 14th, 1989. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ergasiophobiac (talkcontribs) 08:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

The current screenshot

Two things: 1. iOS 9 hasn't been released as a final build, and as such (however unlikely it may be), it might change. Should we just change this [back] to a picture of iOS 8.4 instead? 2. Since the iPhone 6 is the flagship device, shouldn't the screenshot be of that, instead of the 6+? That comment seems really nitpicky, but it was bothering me.

Jedieaston (talk) 01:14, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the screenshot might not be representative of the final build and the stable version (8.4.1 as of now) should be used in the infobox, although it really isn't a major issue since it's just meant to provide an overall feel of how iOS looks. In regards to the 6 vs 6 Plus device, both are marketed as flagship devices and using either for the screenshot is fine. — AYTK talk. 01:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

iPhone market share

Why has the 4th quarter of 2014 been selected?

The 4th quarter of the year is always Apple's strongest as it coincides with the launch of their new phones. Their weakest quarter is Q2 (11.6% in 2014 and 13.9% Q2 2015)

Would the marketshare over the whole year not be a better measure? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

You are right, in general. Best is too get (relative) installed base numbers, not "market share" (sales [in a quarter]), but the latter is more available information.. For continually tracked, month numbers should be good, or with say Windows 10/unusual increase in numbers, even week numbers, might be more appropriate. See: Usage share of operating systems. comp.arch (talk) 15:22, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Both the installed base and the sales within a quarter or year or other period of time could be thought of as "market share" in a sense; the latter is best thought of as the first derivative of the former. Installed base, as of a given date, indicates how the platform has done so far; sales within a given period indicate how well it's doing right now. If you have a small installed base but one that's growing more rapidly than your competitors, that's a sign that you might have a not-so-small installed base in the future - but not a guarantee, as there's the second derivative to take into account as well (what if your growth rate levels out and your installed base tops out at 15 percent?).
Using sales within a year should smooth out some of the second-derivative effects; giving both installed base share and sales share lets you see whether something currently has a big installed base share that's being sustained or growing or one that's being eaten into, or whether something currently has a small installed base share that's remaining small or that's eating into competitors' installed base share. Guy Harris (talk) 18:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC)


I think this piece in the first paragraph may be a run-on sentence: "In October 2015, it was the most commonly used mobile operating system, in a few countries, such as in Canada, the United States[8] – but no longer in the North American continent as a whole, for smartphones[9] – the United Kingdom, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Japan, and Australia,[10] 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%"

The right answer might be to just say "As of $DATE, iOS is the second most commonly used mobile operating system, behind Android", and nothing else. I'll make a separate section for that and, unless somebody makes a good argument for that level of detail, just Do It. Guy Harris (talk) 01:36, 18 December 2015 (UTC)