Talk:List of iPhone models/Archive 1

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

Info on Charging Connector?

I'm surprised that as detailed as all this information is, it seems to be lacking the type of charging connector for each device. Apple has made sometimes drastic, as with the "Lightning" connector, and sometimes subtle(around the 3GS iPhone era) changes to the charging adapter. It would be good information to know what charging and cable connectors are associated with each device, as well as power delivery specs. — MattWatt (talk) 15:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

What is the number of iOS devices?

Looks like no Wikipedia article gives the number of iOS Installed Base. This looks like the most appropriate place. --46.73.55.241 (talk) 05:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Rename to include iPad?

Should this list get moved to something like List of iPhone OS devices and have the iPad added? PaleAqua (talk) 02:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. -NerdyScienceDude :) (✉ click to talk • my edits) 02:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I was bold and renamed. I'm going to look for fair use statements now and fix them up. PaleAqua (talk) 02:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Iphone 4g

Should the Iphone 4g be mentioned here? http://gizmodo.com/5520164/this-is-apples-next-iphone

I will add everything that is know so far to it, but I don't know if this should be added already. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.101.25.118 (talk) 10:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

There has been a full teardown of the iPhone 4G. (see http://gizmodo.com/5520876/the-next-iphone-dissected) I think it should be added. --68.179.152.213 (talk) 08:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

There's no "iphone 4g". It's the "iPhone 4". And it has 3G, not 4G. --98.210.210.193 (talk) 08:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Trouble formatting table with {{yes}} and {{no}} templates

The features chart gets difficult to read once the user scrolls below the headings. I'm trying to create a slightly larger border between the different products, but they won't work with {{yes}} or {{no}} templates. Info about the {{yes}} template and its use can be found here. See the table and what I am trying to do with it in my sandbox. Chris3145 (talk) 18:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Issue resolved Chris3145 (talk) 00:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Respectfully, the tables are still awful to use given their height and the fact that the only scrollbar is at the bottom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.223.136.5 (talk) 14:53, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion - highest OS version

I surmise it would be useful if the tables had a row for "highest-supported operating system version" to go along with the "initial operating system" row. If anyone has this information, I would encourage them to add it. --66.18.233.247 (talk) 08:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

...Anyone???? --66.18.233.247 (talk) 04:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Seems to be implied in the current OS table on Apple_iOS_version history.Phatom87 (talk • contribs) 01:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Just added to information here. Phatom87 (talk • contribs) 01:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

iPod Touch 4th Gen correction

While it has the same resolution as the iPhone 4's display, it is not the same IPS display. It's a TN display (like past iPhones and iPod Touches) with a much lower brightness and contrast ratio. This should be fixed to reflect this.

Proof: http://www.engadget.com/2010/09/07/ipod-touch-review-2010/

Kenny goo (talk) 22:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

iPhone OS?

AFAIK its no longer known or was never called iPhoneOS. Its iOS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.247.3.70 (talk) 05:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

2007-2008 - "OSX", 2008-2010 - iPhone OS, 2010-present - iOS

So it had only been called iOS for about half a year when you posted that! --86.157.84.49 (talk) 17:36, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey, wait

iOS 4.3.1 still supports the iPod touch 3rd gen.
And you write iPod touch as iPod touch and not iPod Touch --94.215.150.25 (talk) 21:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

iPhone OS vs. iOS

Since iOS versions 1.0-3.1.3 were actually iPhone OS (it not being called iOS until WWDC 2010 with iOS 4.0) should the tables and references be changed to reflect their prior names? Kylalak (talk) 23:17, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Out of place features

I see in the feature comparison tables that the 3-axis gyroscope is listed as a form of connectivity, equated to Bluetooth, WiFi, USB, and cellular radios. This seems like a fairly ridiculous classification to me. To me, it would make more sense to be classified in a similar manner as other I/O transducers measuring physical properties, such as touchscreen, accelerometer, compass, built-in microphone, buttons, etc. 24.222.2.222 (talk) 14:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The same applies to GPS which is spread among Connectivity and Camera section. I don't thing geotagging is a camera feature (since the word geotagging means nothing but adding a geographic reference to something, not only pictures). I propose a new section called Localization containing GPS and compass where available. (David 4d (talk) 20:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC))

US carriers but no other countries

Why is there a row in the iPhone table listing US carriers but not carriers in any other countries? This gives undue weight to the US consumer's perspective. Either this row should be removed or it should include carriers in all of the iPhone's largest markets (e.g. UK, France, Germany, Canada etc). Given that maintaining a list of carriers is onerous, I propose that the row be deleted. This article is intended for an international audience, and not specifically for US consumers. NFH (talk) 18:07, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Display size iPhone and iTouch

On 24 April 2012 an IP user removed a paragraph and a table from the display section which suggested there’s some unit conversion confusion going on. It might be considered original research, but if it was correct anyway, the other tables need slight changes. Here is what the table looked like.

Published versus calculated values for pixel density in pixels per inch (“ppi”)
Display Apple from
3.5 in		 from
9 cm
Classic 163 164.8 162.8
Retina 326 329.7 325.6

That means, Apple contradicts itself: either the display diagonal is not “3.5 in” or it doesn’t have “326 dpi”. Has someone actually measured the thing, consulted technical documentation (not intended for the general public) or asked Apple about this? Note that the conversions Apple’s product website uses can hardly be considered normative.

It would not be unusual that a metric measurement (9 cm) was converted to a round English measurement (3½ in), which is broadly used in a nominal not technical way, and then converted back with overly high precision (88.9 mm or 8.9 cm). — Christoph Päper 10:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

iOS model string no longer included

Why was the model string removed from wikipedia articles?

i.e.

iPhone = iPhone1,1

iPhone 3G = iPhone 1,2

iPhone 3GS = iPhone 2,1

iPhone 4 = iPhone 3,1

Verizon iPhone4 = iPhone 3,3

this was a very valuable resource for developers and educated observers. Rashanir (talk) 23:49, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

since it sounds (to me at least) like a valuable piece of information, mind putting it back? (at least until someone comes complaining / explaining) Divinity76 (talk) 00:52, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Earphones and images

The 4th generation iPod touch does not come with remote-equipped earphones, and an image of the 1st generation iPod touch is used for the 1st, 2nd and 3rd generation iPod touches; this should also be corrected. --86.157.84.49 (talk) 17:50, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

needs original release prices

i was looking to compare the original release prices between the various ipad generations. the closest i came was a dead link at reference #86 (the only mention of "price" on the page)

70.190.14.184 (talk) 13:06, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Second and Third gen Icons?

Why are the second and third gen icons just crappy pictures, when the other images are obviously straight icons? I can extract the icons easy peasy, I'm just not sure of the legality, I'd think it'd be fair use, but idk. what do you guys think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bumblebritches57 (talk • contribs) 07:32, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

They were all made with photoshop or equivalent program.Cky2250 (talk) 12:52, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
That's not at all what I was asking, but whatever. 68.61.11.214 (talk) 12:24, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Length of iPhone list is far 'too long'...

As more iOS device are announced and discontinued, I realize that the list of iPhone device is too long. This problem will happen to the iPad list, iPod Touch list and eventually the iPad mini list. We should begin the split the iPhone section into two now as some devices might be unable to see the recent information about iPhone... Thelegoers (talk) 23:31, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree, let's split it keeping discontinued iOS devices in a separate list, somewhere else on the page. 68.61.11.214 (talk) 12:26, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Agreed, the list will just get bigger, time for a split.MB1972 (talk) 18:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Also agree. I think it might be helpful also, if there were intermittent "Model" "1st Gen" "3G" "3GS" .... gray bars every so often as you scroll down the list, since this is not like Excel where you can do a "freeze panes" and see the row and column labels. I am sure that I *could* do this myself, but I'd rather have a sandbox to play in to avoid cocking it up. Either that, or I'm just lazy! Still, as an AAPL investor, I find this page both informative and inspiring. Demodave (talk) 18:25, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

iPhone 5 Is Still Be Sold at AT&T and Best Buy

I put iPhone 5 as current. AT&T and Best Buy still sell the iPhone 5 for free with a 2-year contract. 71.202.151.209 (talk) 04:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

prodesign

The article began

This is a list and comparison of devices prodesigned and marketed by Apple Inc.

Changing "prodesigned" to "designed".

"Prodesign" means... WTF does it mean? There are plenty of companies called Prodesign or ProDesign or Pro Design, but the only definition I can find is in Urban Dictionary:

prodesign
Product design
Infowealth is obtainable of good prodesign.

Urban Dictionary as a whole is not a reliable source, and this definition in particular is for a noun, not a verb, and apparently not even written by a native speaker of English.

AFAICT, this is at best a jargon₁ term of very restricted use, and at worst somebody's coinage that isn't in use at all. --Thnidu (talk) 02:04, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Template for each category

I suggest that we make a template for each category (iphones, ipads, etc.). Because everytime a new iOS model comes out you have to edit multiple templates across Wikipedia (like if a new iPhone comes out: this one, iPhone, etc..) Anyone agree? or disagree? --Rayukk (talk) 08:49, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Apple Watch Compatibility

Apple Watch can only be paired with an iPhone 6/iPhone 6 Plus running iOS 8.2 or later. 148.73.106.121 (talk) 21:26, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, BS. Because that directly contradicts what the demonstrator at the Apple Watch Store told me a couple of days ago, and it's an important detail. --Calton | Talk 02:45, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Edits by 111.95.141.111

@111.95.141.111: Over the last couple of days you've repeatedly reinserted erroneous information. I've attempted to alert you to this via notes in the edit history and notes on your talk page. However, you apparently haven't seen them. I am going to revert your latest series of changes, but in an effort to establish a dialogue with you I'm going to list here some of your recent changes and why they are inconsistent with our existing sources. If you have an alternate reliable source from which you are obtaining your information, I would greatly appreciate it if you would reply here and give us some details about where you are obtaining your information. That being said, here are some of your most recent edits:

Please respond, no one will object to incorporating your information if you can provide a reliable source. Similarly, if you're convinced this article has gotten something wrong or have suggestions on how the article can be improved, please respond here and let us know. —RP88 (talk) 00:41, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@111.95.142.83: I assume you're the same person as above, since on 10 September 2015‎ and 13 September 2015 you edited the page to once again claim that a 32 GB iPhone 6 and a 32 GB iPhone 6 Plus exists. The iPhone 6 and 6 Plus were only ever available in 16, 64, and 128 GB sizes and are now only available in 16 & 64 GB sizes. You also marked the iPod Touch 6th generation as having Touch ID, but it is not listed in Apple's specs and does not appear in iFixit's teardown. If you disagree, please respond. —RP88 (talk) 11:21, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of iOS devices. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Article should have semi-protection

The iPhone, iPad, iPod and iOS version history articles are already protected. This article should follow soon.
On a side note, I suggested to move the iPad model comparison stuff to this article similar to what was done in the iPhone article. 84.173.206.33 (talk) 01:41, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:08, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Listing iPad model names

All devices in this article are listed by their article titles, which are by default named "[Device] ([no.] generation)" when they do not have an alternate official title such as the iPod touch models and the original iPad models pre-iPad Air. As such the iPad (2nd generation) should be listed as such, not by its marketing name "iPad 2"; if this format was used for all devices, then all iPhone 'S' models would have to be listed with a lowercase 's', and the 3rd and 4th gen iPads would need to be listed as "The new iPad" and "iPad with Retina display" respectively. I made this change to the article twice, but it was reverted both times by an IP user, so I am seeking the response of the community here to prevent an edit war. – Nick Mitchell 98 talk 05:40, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

You are assuming that Wikipedia article titles are always correct, but they are not... E.g., the IPhone 6S article uses a capital 'S' - which is wrong. And the iPad (2nd generation) article title is definitely wrong too (was introduced as "iPad 2" and this has never changed since then: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201471). Similarly, we could easily create an iPad Air (2nd generation) article. Who cares if the device is actually marketed as iPad Air 2??
Btw, Apple is changing some model designations from time to time. E.g., "The new iPad" => "iPad (3rd generation)"
MAYBE Wikipedia article titles should change as well in such cases... 84.173.218.12 (talk) 13:31, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

You are wrong in this instance in reference to iPad Air 2 not being the official name, it is obvious that what the Apple markets their product as in a specific language is it's official name in that language, in this specific case, iPad Air (2nd generation) is marketed as the iPad Air 2 in English and has been since inception. This is not a hard to draw conclusion Jasonanaggie (talk) 04:22, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

The iPad 2 article title has been changed. 84.173.207.52 (talk) 13:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
<< @Anthony Appleyard: [...] There has never been any consensus to move this article away from "iPad 2". SSTflyer 07:58, 9 April 2016 (UTC) >>

iOS/tvOS/watchOS versions

Please list stable software releases only. 84.173.221.176 (talk) 09:49, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Improve accessibility / legibility

Could someone repeat the header rows at the bottom (and maybe the middle) of each of the comparison tables and add tooltips to the colour squares that give the colour names? That would make it quite a bit easier to read the tables. Thanks! — OwenBlacker (Talk) 16:03, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on List of iOS devices. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:56, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on List of iOS devices. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:54, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Removal of older devices

There is at least one editor that feels that older devices should be removed from this list. Since this is not the List of currently supported iOS devices, I feel that is not at all in order and have restored the info. I would like to get others input and gain consensus before this is unilaterally removed from the article. Toddst1 (talk) 23:42, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Please don't remove information just because it's old, it's still interesting and occasionally useful. 79.176.116.104 (talk) 23:40, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Broken things to fix

The "Feature comparison of iPod Touch, iPad, iPad Mini, and iPad Pro" table is a mess - a lot of information starting from the iPad 2017 column isn't aligned correctly (what looks like it belongs to iPad 2017's, is actually for iPad Mini 1st) 79.176.116.104 (talk) 23:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

"Latest release OS" - iOS 11 supported for iphone 5s-7 - is this "official" yet?

here it says that iOS 11 will support iPhone 5s though 7 (more or less). Is it "official" which models will support 11 when it is formally released? Jimw338 (talk) 18:04, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

@Jimw338 - iPhone 5s and newer all support the formal or public release. Itsquietuptown (Talk • Contributions) 08:35, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

device benchmarks

Per a discussion on Apple mobile application processors it was suggested that the device benchmarks be moved here (presumably to a new section) as this article seems a more appropriate location. I thought I would check in here before making the change. Dbsseven (talk) 15:11, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Separating iPad Air models from iPad lineup

@175.156.143.24, 183.90.37.164, and 183.90.36.87: Several attempts have been made to separate the iPad Air models from the iPad lineup, both at this page and at Template:IPad models and Template:Apple Inc. hardware. These changes have been reverted by both me and another editor, Darius robin. In line with WP:BRD, I wanted to give my rationale for my revert and encourage this editor (I assume it is one anonymous editor) to explain their reasoning. The "iPad Air" naming scheme was a marketing term that Apple introduced into their iPad lineup to emphasize that they had decreased the weight of the iPad. I don't think it is fair to characterize the Air models that appear in the middle of the annual progression (from iPad, iPad 2 iPad (3rd gen), iPad (4th gen), iPad Air, iPad Air 2, and then iPad (2017)) as a separate lineup of iPad models. Apple themselves do not appear to have taken this position either (you can see this by reviewing the history of www.apple.com/ipad/ with archive.org). If you're convinced I'm wrong or otherwise have suggestions on how these articles can be improved, please respond here. —RP88 (talk) 16:02, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

This isn't surprising given the ultra-confusing naming schemes employed by Apple. But I would like to support giving the following rationale:
  • The "Air 1" was undoubtedly a successor to "iPad 4", I don't think there is much debate about that really, Apple wanted to flaunt the weight losses of the newer models. Sources agree with this, and they were very similar if somewhat lighter.
  • Whether the "2017" was a successor to the "Air 2" is a tougher nut to crack. Apple occasionally refer to it as "fifth generation", but more often than not fail to add a qualifier; secondary sources (which are preferred anyway) generally see it as Air 2 successor. The old Apple divisions of "standard" and "Pro" should also be considered, and with the "Pro" models well defined it's far easier to see the 2017 as an Air 2 successor in the standard line. Also, seeing the 2017 as a successor to the 4th gen seems deeply flawed, considering the considerable hardware and software changes (e.g. going from an A6X to an A9 processor). So combining preferred secondary sources, the general lack of primary sources, as well as cold hard logic, sees the "2017" model as an Air 2 successor.
Put together I support the non-Pro "standard" line being: 1st, 2, 3rd, 4th, Air, Air 2, 2017. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 17:48, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
@RP88 and Mrjulesd: Agreed.

@RP88, as far as I know, you cannot ping IPs. Darius robin (talk) 18:46, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I know. I used that just for the formatting convince of indicating I was directing my note to that anonymous editor. IP addresses are notified if you post to their user talk page, which is why at the same time I also put a pointer to this conversation at User talk:183.90.36.87 (along with a note encouraging them to create an account). —RP88 (talk) 18:59, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
You can also say that the iPad pro is a marketing term or the MacBook air or anything that apple calls their products. Call a spade a spade, if it's an iPad air, it's an iPad air, if it's an iPad 5th gen it's an iPad 5th gen. 183.90.37.145 (talk) 03:55, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
@183.90.37.145: You need to see it technically. The iPad Pro is being produced simultaneously with the 2017 iPad. Same applies to the MacBook Air. The iPad Air’s situation was completely different. They discontinued the 4th generation iPad and started producing the Air, making it somewhat of a successor. Get it?
@RP88 and Mrjulesd: This IP is proving to be a headache. Before we get to a conclusion, he is repeatedly adding his version to the 3 articles. I suggest reporting him. Darius robin (talk) 04:34, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
183.90.37.145, I understand your point and others on WP made similar arguments in earlier discussions on Apple iDevice related pages about six months ago, and what we have now is the result of those discussions. Please don't just keep making your change, instead discuss your change and wait for other editors to make their opinions known. If the consensus among editors to the affected pages is that you are correct, I don't think anyone will object to you making the change at that point. I understand that if you feel strongly in the correctness of your position that you might find it frustrating to be reverted and then have to wait for the input of other editors, but in cases where there is a disagreement between editors it is best to discuss changes, achieve agreement about what change to make, and then make that change. —RP88 (talk) 08:53, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
@183.90.37.145: The problem with that is that it goes against secondary sources. All secondary sources saw the Air 1 as a a successor to the iPad 4th gen (especially as the iPad non-mini mainline was otherwise discontinued). Likewise for the 2017: all secondary sources compared it to the Air 2, to compare it to the 4th gen would have been pretty silly as they were completely different hardware-wise, and well as a manufacturing gap of about five years. The usage of "5th gen" by Apple is exceedingly rare, as it is generally referred to as simply "iPad"; secondary sources mostly call it the "2017", and all compare it to the "Air 2". --Jules (Mrjulesd) 13:10, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment although I've commented, I'm going to sum up the present situation. These three IP addresses are very likely the same user (they all geolocate to mobile broadband in the same area). Therefore on editor count alone it is 3:1 in favor of the status quo. And until they address the secondary source arguments against them (which are the preferred sources per WP:SECONDARY) their arguments carry very little weight. If this continues an RfC may be needed, but we can hold off for now I think. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 16:50, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
@Mrjulesd: Guess they gave up adding their version. Darius robin (talk) 04:17, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

add photos of the backs

this list would be much improved if photos of the backs of each device is added. — Lentower (talk) 20:46, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

AppleTV & Apple Watch

The article mentions the AppleTV and the Apple Watch, but, as I’m sure you already know, they don’t run iOS.  They run tvOS and watchOS, respectively.  If older models ran iOS, then they should by all means still be included, but at least the newer models do not and, I believe, should be removed from this article.    — rose64bit (talk • contribs) 18:55, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

@Rose64bit: The operating systems of Apple Watch and Apple TV are based on iOS.This article and also the tvOS article say so. ’’ITSQUIETUPTOWN talk • contribs 06:05, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
@Itsquietuptown: Thank you for your reply.  I am aware that watchOS and tvOS are based on iOS.  I apologize for not including this in my original post, and for the resulting appearance of being inexperienced.  I am experienced, as I am sure you and all the other contributors are on this talk page are, too.  I have great respect for this community and all of those in it.  Anyway, again, I’m well aware that watchOS and tvOS are based on iOS, just like iOS (then called iPhone OS) was based on macOS (then called OS X).  However, we wouldn’t put an iPhone on a List Of macOS Devices Wikipedia page, right?  In other words, despite being based on iOS, because they officially have a different name, shouldn’t watchOS and tvOS be considered different from iOS?  Therefore, shouldn’t devices that run watchOS and tvOS be considered different from iOS devices?  Again, I apologize for being vague in my previous post, and I hope this one makes sense.    — rose64bit (talk) 16:30, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Apple Watch editions should be removed

I think that the editions (eg Edition or Nike+) should be removed because they have little differences with the base models, only the case, band and screen are different. This isn't a comparison of apple watches; its a comparison of iOS devices. We should also remove the band. If we shouldn't remove the editions, to solve the case/screen problem instead of separate columns we could do something like this:

Case Edition: Ceramic
Sport: Anodized aluminum

ITSQUIETUPTOWN talk • contribs 06:25, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

iphone 6s, 6s plus, 7, and 7 plus all support galileo

The only phone without galileo support that is still supported is the iphone SE.

https://www.apple.com/iphone-6s/specs/ https://www.apple.com/iphone-7/specs/

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.40.120.178 (talk • contribs) 22:44, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

iPads missing (?) need

Please, some iPads are missing on the feature comparison table, somebody please add them, because of (sorry, I must use this word) block evasion caused reverting, and DO NOT REVERT PLEASE. 2600:387:9:5:0:0:0:A5 (talk) 21:37, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

If somebody adds them to the feature comparison table, don't do so in a way that breaks the table, which this change did. Guy Harris (talk) 22:57, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Ok, I understand, but do it in a way that doesn’t break the table, please — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.42.54.61 (talk • contribs) 13:55, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Do we need "Archaic", "Obsolete", "Vintage" differentiation in this article?

This article differentiates devices that are:

  • "Archaic (Apple products that were discontinued at least 8 years ago, no longer receive hardware support from Apple or service providers and don't support the latest iOS software release.)"
  • "Obsolete (Devices that were discontinued more than 7 years ago.)"
  • "Vintage (Devices that were discontinued between 5 and 7 years ago.)"
  • "Discontinued and unsupported (Devices that were discontinued less than 5 years ago and do not support the latest iOS release.)"

These are all shades of "discontinued and unsupported", and they seem arbitrary. Apple has never referred to "archaic" in its documentation, for example. Could we remove these distinctions and simply refer to them as "Vintage (have not been manufactured for more than 5 and less than 7 years ago)" and "Obsolete (discontinued more than 7 years ago)", as documented in https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201624? - Brian Kendig (talk) 18:18, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you on one but the others I think we should keep based on the link you provided. Archaic should be removed entirely since Apple doesn't use that term. Based on the link you provided I propose the following for the first three iPhones (the rest are correct).
Model Current distinction Correct distinction according to Apple
iPhone Archaic Obsolete
iPhone 3G Archaic Obsolete
iPhone 3GS Obsolete Vintage (8 GB only)
For the time being "Discontinued and unsupported" would need to stay since Apple also has five models that are discontinued but they still support them with iOS updates. Removing "Discontinued and unsupported" could lead to reader confusion if we just have "Obsolete", "Vintage", "Discontinued but still supported" and "Current". I would however recommend clarifying that a device that is "Discontinued and unsupported" can still be sent into Apple for repair in accordance to that link you provided. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 14:54, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
I largely agree. The "Archaic" classification seems arbitrary and without support from sources. I think eliminating the "Archaic" classification, while keeping the "Obsolete", "Vintage", "Discontinued and unsupported", "Discontinued but still supported", and "Current" classifications are reasonable. —RP88 (talk) 00:25, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Okay, I removed "Archaic" from the article. Thank you! - Brian Kendig (talk) 18:36, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

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

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:50, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:12, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

iPad name headers

The iPad name headers seems to be confusing. On early models that Apple does not officially specify the generation number on advertising and marketing eg. iPad 2, we use iPad (xth generation) but recent iPad models (since 2017) have been using iPad (Year of Release) on the table. On Apple's official tech specs page it is using the iPad (xth generation) format . Maybe consider using the (xth generation) format or change 3rd and 4th gen iPads to iPad (Early 2012) and iPad (Late 2012), respectively and to the iPad Pro models (such as 1st gen 12.9 iPad Pro as iPad Pro 12.9-inch (2015) if we are going the iPad (Year of Release) way on the list. Jl517 (talk) 04:18, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

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

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:23, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:52, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Split proposed

I think that iPhone 6 Plus, 6S Plus, 7 Plus, 8 Plus, XS Max, and 11 Pro Max should be split into another article called “iPhone Max.” There have been many Plus/Max devices that I believe there should be a split. If you have any questions, notifiy me on my talk page. This is MrCoolGuy159, signing off. MrCoolGuy159 (talk) 00:18, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Split

  1. MrCoolGuy159 (talk) 09:24, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Don't split

  1. Why? This is possibly the stupidest split I have ever seen! The title is "List of iOS devices". Anyway, are the iPhone 6 Plus, iPhone 6s Plus, iPhone 7 Plus, iPhone 8 Plus, iPhone XS Max, and iPhone 11 Pro Max iOS devices? If so, there is no need for a new article about these phones. -73.210.114.83 (talk) 23:47, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Navigating this page is no problem. In my opinion, there's no need to split the iPhone list into a new page.Emmaofnormandy1052 (talk) 05:12, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

ipad Air

Apple said the Ipad Airs 1, 2 and 3 are under ipad Air family instead of the original ipad Family. Because they said they are not including the ipad airs under the original ipad family.

Should a field for vulnerability to checkm8 be added?

Should we add a field for whether a device is known to be vulnerable to checkm8? This is something that could be tracked because cheeckm8 is a vulnerability contained within the boot ROM that was designed to not be overwritable and therefore cannot be patched. Jesse Viviano (talk) 02:04, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 6 December 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page to any particular title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 02:40, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

List of iOS devices → Comparison of iOS devices – This article is not a proper "stand-alone list", but rather a comparison article. Purplneon486 (talk) 13:38, 6 December 2019 (UTC) —Relisting. — Newslinger talk 15:56, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

The introduction says "This is a list and comparison of devices..." so maybe discussion the scope of this article is the best thing to do before renaming it back and forth as the content changes. – Ammarpad (talk) 07:41, 14 December 2019 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

HomePod?

HomePod is considered an "iOS device"... should a new section be created for it?... I feel HomePod is an exception to the other devices in the way it functions, nonetheless, it's still considered an "iOS device", thus could be technically listed here... Admanny (talk)

HomePod

Pleae put HomePod on the list, 'cuz it also runs on iOS--2001:8A0:E579:7F01:59EB:BE53:C98A:EBC5 (talk) 21:36, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

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

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

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:37, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

iPhone 6s / 6s Plus / SE (original) - *did* have live photo support

The chart currently shows those three models as not having support, and that support was added in the 7 family.

I have both an 6s and an SE original, it works. I also checked the current wikipedia page for the SE original, and it documents live photo as being available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.92.221 (talk) 00:49, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Table overscroll

There's a pretty major issue with some of the tables in this article, in that they over-scroll and somehow manage to go past the 100% width compared to normal tables. Is there any way to make sure they are constrained to the 100% page width, instead of over-scrolling? - Kamran Mackey (talk to me · my contributions) 16:35, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

"IPhone 12" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect IPhone 12. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 24#IPhone 12 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. the ultraUsurper 06:11, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

"IDevice" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect IDevice. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 24#IDevice until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. the ultraUsurper 06:16, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

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

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

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:23, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:40, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposed merge of IPhone naming into List of iOS devices#iPhone

Virtually no unique content to this article. I don't think that the topic of iPhone naming is notable in itself. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 02:33, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

  • It exists because of the recent deletion review for iPhone 9; please see that discussion for history and context.—S Marshall T/C 08:38, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Rename (move) this page to match devices mentioned on the page?

From "List of iOS and iPadOS devices" to "List of iOS, iPadOS, tvOS, and watchOS devices". Was tempted to do this myself but saw how active the page has been so I thought I would check here first. Huynhl (talk) 09:21, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

iPhone 12

What do we have to do before we can give the iPhone 12 its own article?? Georgia guy (talk) 17:37, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:As of

These "current" and "upcoming" entries need some treatment for temporal context. Wikipedia:As of would help a lot. Toddst1 (talk) 22:13, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Request edit

Scroll down to last line of last table. Move up one line to that labeled Model.

Entries for iPod touch need to be moved one column to the right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.68.134 (talk) 19:17, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

"IPhone (13th generation)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect IPhone (13th generation). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 22#IPhone (13th generation) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Aasim (talk) 01:15, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

iphone 12 mini

seems like iphone 12 mini got discontinued due to poor sales. can anyone put iphone 12 mini into the discounted but still supported category? Nothingucando (talk) 13:59, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

  • reports* that production may have stopped early does not mean apple has officially discontinued a device. Tomisded (talk) 13:15, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

ipod 6

can somebody change the ipod 6th generation latest version to 12.5.4? Nothingucando (talk) 23:53, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

nevermind I got it lol Nothingucando (talk) 17:20, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Moves

Can somebody move Discontinued devices to discontinued but still supported? and add new products too? Nothingucando (talk) 03:58, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Combine all iPhones into one table planning

Hi everyone,

I'm trying to merge all iPhone from four sections (In production, discontinued support, discontinued unsupport 64 bit and discontinued unsupport 32 bit) into one table. I am doing the table prototype in my own profile page and you all may look at here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:KLPeople/sandbox/iphone_in_a_table)

The reason I do so is because all the iPhone table criteria will be consistent, as well as let every contributors update the table content more easier and more effective, so that they need not to edit in multiple tables.

The another reason is, sometimes when some iPhones has been discontinued or unsupported, it requires lots of time to move the whole iPhone data from a table to another table as the colspan has to be redefined. If I merge all together into one table, the contributors just only need to change the iPhone status color as well as slightly change the discontinued date and unsupported date. For new iPhones, the contributors just need to add in the left side column (my order is from left to right, new to old)

So, what do you all think about it?

Noted repair stuff

Some stuff on apples support site is listed as vintage when here it is listed as obsolete. Here’s a tip from an editor, if it says 5 years since discontinued, label it as vintage, if it says 7 years, label it as obsolete. Apple usually takes time to update it after it’s been updated on this list. Like for example, IPad 4th gen is now obsolete but is still labeled as vintage on apple’s site(as of this post) and the IPad 3rd gen was labeled as obsolete but was over a year after since Apple officially called it obsolete on their site RaccoonOrder (talk) 03:53, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Accelerometers in earlier iPod touch devices

Why does the table say the early iPod touch devices didn't have accelerometers? They didn't have a gyro, but every iOS device released has had an accelerometer. It was used to rotate the screen and many games used it, it was a huge part of the marketing of the 2nd gen iPod touch for example (but the 1st gen could do it too). —ajf (talk) 08:39, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I went back and checked the original announcement for the first generation, and you can see it in action even there: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvHz2aIZozA&t=2m5s. So I've updated the page. —ajf (talk) 11:13, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Depth of detail in the tech specs

Wikipedia is WP:NOT a buying guide, and this article clearly violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE as well as WP:STANDALONE. We are only allowed to include due content here. Wikipedia policy does not allow us to simply copy Apple's tech specs page, since that is a primary source and cannot establish dueness. I think the only way we could fix this page to comply with dueness requirements, would be to change this page to match List of Mac models or something in that ballpark.

Let's try to form some consensus on what should, and shouldn't be included, and why. I think we could go beyond List of Mac models and list a few major changes in each model (1-3 changes max), which would likely be due since they would be well-covered in third-party (non-Apple, non-tech industry specific) sources. DFlhb (talk) 09:49, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

I propose adding the most important specs, such as screen size, chip, and model number to the tables with the dates at the beginning of each section and then deleting the other tables. We could also add a "notes" column with the changes you described above. And to make the tables more concise, we can remove the "X years ago" in entries and the months supported/months supported after discontinuation columns. Eisthefifthletter (talk) 03:53, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
We can merge in the "comparison of models" section into the main section and delete the "Geekbench scores" section. Eisthefifthletter (talk) 03:55, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
  • I thought about it some more, and now believe I was wrong to some degree; I see great benefits to this depth of detail, but would simply favor moving most of these data sheets to the articles for each individual model, rather than keeping them here; I would favor keeping this level of depth of detail if moved to individual model pages. iMac G3 is a good example on how to do this well; we can just add tables to iPhone (1st generation), iPhone 3G, etc listing their specs. For iPhone 14, we'd have a table listing the 14 and 14 Plus; that article currently lists the specs in prose, but it would frankly be more readable in table form. But if we keep them here, practically no one will see them! DFlhb (talk) 16:41, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
    • "but would simply favor moving most of these data sheets to the articles for each individual model" This would eliminate the biggest asset of this article: The ability to compare different models, and to absorb/see developments/patterns using the fastest access to the brain available to humans: vision+pattern recognition. Intg (talk) 12:59, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

iPad mini (original) - Display "technology" is *not* Retina

The iPad mini 2 added retina support ->IPad Mini 2

If you look at the rows below (resolution, pixel density), you can see the difference in the specs. 2600:1700:232E:3450:4475:EE1B:93E5:9DFF (talk) 08:15, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

lipophoboleophobic is not a word

The article describes the coating of some models as "lipophoboleophobic". I don't think that word exists. Maybe a typo? 95.91.208.69 (talk) 20:35, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Article way too long omg

This article is way too long. If this title is to be accurate, then why are technical details and specifications of the devices included in this article? They are not relevant. I think what should be is the article merely lists the devices, and then we can spin off specifications and comparisons between devices and featuers into different articles. Eg. "Comparison of iPad models" or "iPad Version History" or somethign of that nature. QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 18:33, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't see a value to keeping detailed product stats. Wikipdia is WP:NOT a buying guide; if people really want to learn this stuff they can use Google, but as it is, I fail to see encyclopedic value in this article. Anything more than a basic list of products is stretching it. DFlhb (talk) 14:05, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
@DFlhb: That is where I disagree. People come to Wikipedia for detailed information; while Wikipedia is not a buying guide as you state, there is no rule saying it can't have articles dedicated to technical information about products. Hence why list articles like these exist. Heck, you can even find a list article on Wikipedia about the different Crayola crayon colors, lol. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 03:21, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
I've basically done a 180 on this in the past 5 months; I like details; the question is just how to present them. DFlhb (talk) 05:08, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Just a general comment that the specifications tables are practically impossible to properly view. Even on a 27" 1440p display, I have to scroll vertically and horizontally to a ridiculous degree to find anything specific. --Resplendent (talk) 15:24, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 27 March 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. I don't see a reason the have this go on any further. There is a clear consensus to move this, so I will WP:SNOW close this. UtherSRG (talk) 23:25, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

List of iPhone models (placeholder) → List of iPhone models – Due to the need to reduce the length of this article, this article has been edited to focus solely on iPhone models, with the comparison tables of other devices being shifted to their respective articles instead. This is part of a cleanup movement of the articles in the Apple Inc .WikiProject Theknine2 (talk) 18:54, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  • Support Guy Harris (talk) 20:16, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Please see Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Requesting_technical_moves for the future if you're requesting a move for cleanup reasons. Esolo5002 (talk) 04:17, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
    Apologies, because I had previously moved articles within this WikiProject under "uncontroversial", but encountered some issues, so I was advised to try this route instead. If it's regarded as "controversial" then I can file a request there instead. Theknine2 (talk) 06:57, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Support, good idea. DFlhb (talk) 18:28, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Support, without leaving a re-direct. Who would want to put the dis-ambiguation suffix "placeholder" in an article title?? Georgia guy (talk) 18:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Support, I don't see the point of keeping "(placeholder)" now that all other device information has been removed. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 23:33, 29 March 2023 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_iPhone_models/Archive_1&oldid=1185525930"