Talk:iOS 11

Conversation with Darius on his removal on the iOS 11 issues writeup

I and Guy have edited and approved the writeup on "problems" associated with iOS 11. Please do not remove it without first discussing on the talk board. Please provide justifications for the removal, since these issues were widely discussed in the media with plenty of citations. If you do work for Apple, then there is a conflict of interests here. Wikipedia is for the public, and hence the inclusion of the issues. Fellow007 (talk) 16:27, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

@Fellow007: Please see the articles for the previous versions of iOS, we don’t mention every single issue faced, only significantly major ones (we have three right now). And we don’t use Apple Support as a source. Darius robin (talk) 16:29, 31 October 2017 (UTC) @Darius: Those issues written were major that were reported in major news media that deserve mention in Wikipedia. These are public news media. Why are you censoring it? Do you work for Apple? If so, there is a conflict of interests here and you shouldn't be editong. Wikipedia is for the public. Fellow007 (talk) 16:34, 31 October 2017 (UTC) @Fellow007: Most of them are unsourced, and the ones that are sourced are already mentioned in the article. And FYI, I do not work for Apple. Stop assuming things. Darius robin (talk) 16:36, 31 October 2017 (UTC) @Darius: I saw you also removed the section on "iOS versions" wikipedia page. You removed the whole writeup and not keeping any citations. Your actions are much like censorship and not revealing public facts and new media. I would like other editors to chip in for discussion. Meantime, may I suggest you retract from you undo? I will put forward to Wiki admin for discussion and approval Fellow007 (talk) 16:42, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

To claim that I "approved" the edits is to overstate the case. I edited it to clean some things up; I wanted to do some further work to keep it from, to use Darius' phrase, "double-mentioning" the battery issue, which was already covered in the section. However, that doesn't mean I'll defend to the death that text's presence in this article or any other iOS-related article. Problems reported in the media belong here and, in fact, were here before the new stuff was added; before accusing Darius of censorship, please note that he removed precisely zero of the items that were there already.

If there are options mentioned in the media (rather than in a random complaint on a support page; discussions on support pages might not necessarily be considered reliable sources) that are not already mentioned here, add them as separate sub-sections of the "Problems" section. Guy Harris (talk) 18:07, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Inclusion of iOS 11 software issues

Given the recent wide press and media coverage on the problems of iOS v11, I would like to suggest the inclusion of a subsection on this topic and references to various articles reporting on the problems. Since this page is on iOS 11, I think this is the right place for this subsection. Fellow007 (talk) 21:40, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

You mean a subsection called iOS 11#Problems? :-) Guy Harris (talk) 21:58, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Not upcoming?

I added a notice in the lead that this was an upcoming release. I got reverted arguing that the betas are already out. I always thought software was considered unreleased up to the point where it makes it to public (non-beta) release. --uKER (talk) 02:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi @UKER: Normally I'd agree with you, but I think in this particular lead, adding "upcoming" to the introduction sentence might be unnecessary. The first lead paragraph gives information on the announcement, developer beta release, public beta release and scheduled consumer stable version release. Only the public stable version is upcoming, and therefore I think adding "upcoming" to the introduction might give the wrong impression about its current development status. But I do understand your point as well... LocalNet (talk) 07:28, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Agree with LocalNet, the word "upcoming" would be a bit unnecessary. Hayman30 (talk) 14:10, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

3D Touch

So I read a lot about 3D-Touch related to this release, which is helpful, but then at the end of the article there is mention that 3D-Touch has been dropped from this iOS version... Isn't tnis is a bit confusing? Or am I missing something? Dr.khatmando (talk) 02:47, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Hold on, I think it just means that triggering multitasking using 3D Touch has been removed... Dr.khatmando (talk) 02:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

@Dr.khatmando: You missed a lot, go through the article again carefully. To quote the article: "The ability to trigger multitasking using 3D Touch was removed." That means you can't switch apps using 3D Touch, but the 3D Touch itself is not removed from other areas of the system. I don't see a confusion there. Hayman30 (talk) 03:03, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

@Hayman30: thank you! I'm in the throws of buying a new device and am trying to take everything in on the fly. Thanks again,

Final 11.1 Beta

@KamranMackey: YOU are pretty sure, but do you have a confirmation from Apple? WP:SPECULATION. That’s it. Darius robin (talk) 07:05, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

@Darius robin: No, but why does that matter? Apple has left the 3D touch app switcher ability in for 3 betas since 11.1 Beta 2. That's a pretty big sign that they AREN'T going to remove it. So I think I'm allowed to write that it was re-added in Beta 2. That's all there is to it. You can't keep reverting everybody's edits just because it doesn't flow well with you dude, that's called edit warring. Anyways, back to the question, I do think beta 5 is the final beta, and that's because I've been using the iOS betas for a while now, and I've studied how Apple releases their betas. It's usually a 4-5 beta cycle with minor updates (11.x, not 11.x.x) and a smaller beta cycle with smaller updates (11.x.x), and a larger cycle with major iOS updates. (Example being iOS 11 had 10 betas before it was released to the public, and iOS 10 had 8 or so) - Kamran Mackey (talk to me · my contributions) 07:10, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

@KamranMackey: I know that’s edit warring, but some people don’t understand that betas are not official releases. Wait till it releases officially, like next week or something. Be patient. (By the way iOS 11 has 10 betas). Darius robin (talk) 07:16, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

@Darius robin: Lots of people understand what beta means. Sure, some people don't, but a lot of people do. And why should I wait until next week to re-write something I already wrote? There's no reason why I should. I've edited Wikipedia a lot. I think that me writing that it was re-added in beta 2 is perfectly fine. And actually, since released by Apple, they are official releases, just not completely 100% stable, and on a different channel from "stable". They are still official releases however. - Kamran Mackey (talk to me · my contributions) 07:21, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

@KamranMackey: Betas are not official releases, they are meant for testing. Sometimes, Apple adds features in early betas, and then removed them in some later ones. You don’t have proof that beta 5 is the GM. And that’s why you are not allowed to add it until the final version. WP:SPECULATION. Darius robin (talk) 07:25, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

@Darius robin: When there is no letter at the end of a version number string in iOS beta versions (Example: Beta 3 had the version string 15B5086a, while Beta 5 has the version string 15B93), that's an indication that it's the GM. I've done my studying, so you're incorrect. - Kamran Mackey (talk to me · my contributions) 07:27, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

@KamranMackey: Wikipedia is not based on independent study or rumors. You need to source everything. For things like this, you need an official source (from Apple), not from any third-party site. You never know, Apple may suddenly release another beta. Why can’t you just wait for a few more days (less than a week), till the stable release comes out. WP:ORIGINAL applies. Darius robin (talk) 07:33, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

@Darius robin: What I said isn't based on independent study or rumors. It's based on facts. Beta 10 of iOS 11 was the Golden Master AND the final release, with the exception of the GM & final release having the "a" omitted from the Beta 10 version string (15A5372a/15A5372). I think I know what I'm talking about. Beta 5 of iOS 11.1 is the Golden Master. - Kamran Mackey (talk to me · my contributions) 07:41, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

@KamranMackey: If there are some last minute bugs that need fixing, Apple may release another beta. You can't be sure without an official source. Darius robin (talk) 07:44, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

@Darius robin: There's a calculator bug, but that's minor and Apple isn't going to release an updated GM for that tiny bug. - Kamran Mackey (talk to me · my contributions) 07:45, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Hayman30 Guy Harris. Can you guys please provide your opinion on whether it is appropriate to keep this before the official release? Darius robin (talk) 07:49, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

@KamranMackey: Check this and this. Darius robin (talk) 07:57, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

As the saying goes, it ain't over 'till it's over.

Maybe "Beta 10 of iOS 11 was the Golden Master AND the final release, with the exception of the GM & final release having the "a" omitted from the Beta 10 version string (15A5372a/15A5372)", but we need a citation on that, not a "I think I know what I'm talking about." claim. Apple doesn't say anything obvious about that on developer.apple.com; if you have a citation, let's see it. (And it's been a while since I retired from Apple 6 years ago, but, from my days as a Core OS software engineer, I don't remember offhand any case where they dropped the letter at the end of the build number, rather than bumping the build number; as I remember, that letter is for minor tweaks to a build that don't involve a complete build of all the projects, and going from 15A5372a to 15A5372 would mean that the GM was missing those tweaks.)

So I'd personally wait for 11.1 to come out before we talk about what is, or isn't, in it, anywhere other than the 11.1 beta section of iOS version history. Guy Harris (talk) 08:18, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

• @Guy Harris: iOS 11.1 has been officially released (it is now available on non-beta devices), so it can be added now and this discussion can end. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 18:25, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
  • See these articles and that show that iOS 11.1 has been released. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 18:28, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

References

"Why StatCounter"?

LocalNet, On statistics, it seems better than just trusting Apple's WP:PRIMARY info that no one can know if is true or unbiased? It needs not be StatCounter (only). I'm striclty ok with you dropping the *statistics* info, at least for now. It seemed to me they contradicted Apple's but it was just my mistake. I just added it back (corrected) for confirmation, and it even shows more adoption (while it uses a different way to get info, i.e. [web] usage vs. installed base).

About the "implication" part that's in (or was before you dropped all info), that's useful to have from any source. The press release as good as any? But just discuss at that at iOS Talk to not split that discussion. comp.arch (talk) 11:09, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Comp.arch! Thanks for coming to the talk page. Since this discussion is closely related to the one happening in Talk:iOS, I'd like to invite you and anyone else reading this over there :) LocalNet (talk) 11:17, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Trimming the intro

I cut several sentences from the intro on the grounds that they were at least needlessly detailed for the intro, at worst fully redundant, and in all cases reprised either in the System Features or Reception sections or both. LocalNet reverted and asked me to explain. So, for example:

• The intro's second paragraph says, "Certain new features will appear only on iPad, including an always-accessible application dock and a new user interface to show multiple apps at once." This is followed just five words later by "Critics significantly praised the application dock and new multitasking interface on the iPad, with some calling it a revolution for the iPad user experience." Surely this second sentence is largely redundant — and moreover, no citation is given, here or afterward, of a critic calling it a "revolution".
• The intro's second paragraph also says, "The App Store receives a visual overhaul to focus on editorial content and daily highlights. A "Files" file manager app allows direct access to files stored locally and in cloud services...Siri can now translate between languages and use a privacy-minded "on-device learning" technique to better understand a user's interests and offer suggestions...The operating system also introduces the ability to record the screen..." This is followed in the third paragraph by: "The operating system was also praised for the App Store redesign, for updating Siri's voice, and for introducing the screen-recording utility and the Files app for file management." This sentence ought also to be cut; it adds nothing to the intro except unneeded detail about what parts of the OS received some praise.
• This third paragraph, which ostensibly details the OS's reception, also includes sentences about just one of several high-profile issues with iOS 11.0. Why discuss this bug and no others in the intro? There is no need.

So: convinced?

One more thing: LocalNet, perhaps inadvertently, reverted an edit that made several tweaks to the intro, including switching several present-tense verbs to the more accurate past tense. As no mention of that revert was mentioned in the edit summary, I'll restore them unless anyone objects. PRRfan (talk) 20:15, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi @PRRfan: Thank you for coming to the talk page! You've made several argumentations in a list, so I'll try to replicate it with my replies below:

• I personally believe "significant praise" and "revolution" are two distinctive things. The former refers to positive praise, while the second describes just how much something is changed. Furthermore, I've followed the technique used in previous iOS articles and in Wikipedia's policies that citations are not needed in the lead unless the information is controversial or difficult to find - neither of which I think requires a citation here.
• Please keep in mind that the two quotes you used here refer to different parts of the lead. The lead should reflect important parts of an operating system, but I believe it would be weird to mix praise with the actual changes. For example, "A "Files" file manager app allows direct access to files stored locally and in cloud services." describes what it does, but "was also praised for ... introducing ... the Files app for file management" means that it was reviewed positively. The former is a direct explanation of a function, while the latter describes how it was reviewed.
• iOS 11 made a change to how the Control Center worked, and it was a drastic enough change to attract the criticism of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. It's been a long-term issue that was just recently addressed by Apple. In my opinion, the other issues have been short-term, and won't have significance in 10 years, but altering how a well-established function works does. However, with the repeated autocorrect bugs, system crashes and calculator bugs, a generalized mention of those issues may also have signifiance (along the lines of "iOS 11 also had significant coverage due to multiple bugs and crashes through its release cycle".)

Please let me know if you have any questions about what I wrote. :) LocalNet (talk) 20:35, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi @LocalNet: While I'll certainly concede that an intro can benefit from a description of a product's critical reception, I think it need not be particularly detailed. What if we condense it to: "iOS 11 received mostly positive reviews, with critics particularly praising the new iPad user experience and — with certain reservations — the redesigned Control Center. Critics also noted the new augmented reality development tools, but said their impact would depend on third-party apps and how fast developers embraced them."

As for "revolution," can you point to a cited review that says this? The word appears nowhere else in the article, which is unexpected given its prominence in the intro. PRRfan (talk) 21:30, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

@PRRfan: I'd love to say yes, but I don't think it adequately describes it. For example, "with certain reservations" only raises questions about what those are, and the lead is supposed to "stand on its own as a concise overview". I do see your point that condensing the lead is possible, but I'd personally much rather condense "The operating system was also praised for the App Store redesign, for updating Siri's voice, and for introducing the screen-recording utility and the Files app for file management", which are, as I think you pointed out, an almost duplication of previous text with the word "praise" attached. How about "Praise was also directed at the App Store's redesign and the new screen recording and file-management tools". I think Siri can be left out (poor thing :P), as it's barely mentioned in the Reception section. As for "revolution", I believe I chose it as a one-word description of the quotes "turns your iPad into a completely different machine" (from Engadget) and "Multitasking on the iPad is a near-revelatory experience" (from The Verge). LocalNet (talk) 21:50, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

@LocalNet: I think we could argue about what constitutes "a concise overview" for a long time; I'd argue that no concise overview would include critics' praise for the screen-recording utility. Or their quibbles about one feature's "difficult usage" on a subset of affected devices. Etc. Moreover, I'd argue against using the word "revolution" when no critic has done so. But I think I'll sign off here with a gentle request that you do your best to condense the intro on your own. Cheers. PRRfan (talk) 22:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

@PRRfan: Alright. Thank you for the tips, I'll look into it some more and try to make some changes to the text according to your tips here :) LocalNet (talk) 04:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Succesion box in iOS articles

Please, write below whether you are in favor or against the removal of the succession box from all the iOS articles (from iPhone OS 1 to iOS 11). This "poll" will be active for 24 hours, so enough editors have the chance to express their opinions –Dimsar01 ^Talk ⌚→ 21:07, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support the removal:
  • We already have {{Infobox OS version}} at the tops of the articles, and they have predecessor/successor links.
  • The lede often speaks of the OS as being the successor to the previous version and mentions its successor if there is one.
  • The successor boxes are buried at the end, so people might not even see them.

I don't see any need for them. Guy Harris (talk) 21:09, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• Against the removal:
  • I, personally (that's why this poll will run for 24 hours), find them easier to navigate between the pages.
  • They might be at the bottom of the page, but they are easier to be seen than the small links at the infobox template or the ones scattered around the text.
  • Update: If we're going to remove the succession box, a better idea instead of the scattered links is to add to the infobox the links in the way they are in the Infobox song contest.

–Dimsar01 ^Talk ⌚→ 22:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I.e., have the values of the "preceded by" and "succeeded by" parameters in {{infobox OS}} show up in the below= section as, for example:

← iOS 9 · iOS · iOS 11 →

or

← iOS 9 · iOS version history · iOS 11 →

rather than as items in the main body of the infobox? If the infobox links that are already there are really hard to find, and that would make them easier to find, that might be reasonable. Guy Harris (talk) 23:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@Guy Harris: Exactly, something like your example or maybe this, by having the {{{name|}}} parameter in the middle:

← iOS 9 · iOS 10 · iOS 11 →

–Dimsar01 ^Talk ⌚→ 23:09, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• Remove per Guy Harris and the fact that navboxes also provide a link. In fact, I don't know who has come up with succession boxes. Clearly, they are the worst methods of navigation I have seen in my life. Dimsar01 has far been very active and busy with reverting but has not provided a reason in support of his actions. —Codename Lisa (talk) 21:18, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa: I have provided some reasons, with first and foremost, that it's the easiest and most easy-to-find way to navigate, instead of searching for links around the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimsar01 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@Dimsar01: The predecessor (if there is one) and successor (if there is one) are now linked in the introductory paragraph of all the iOS N articles; the only ones where they were missing were iPhone OS 1, iPhone OS 2, and iPhone OS 3, which I changed to match what all the other articles did (and only the first two of them didn't mention the predecessor or successor; iPhone OS 3 mentioned them in the standard style, it just didn't link them). So are successor boxes at the end really the easiest and most easy-to-find way, given that they're stuck at the bottom? Guy Harris (talk) 22:49, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@Guy Harris: The box is easy to find and more clear due to the reason that if you press "End" or Cmd+Dn on your keyboard, you go directly at the bottom, where you find the box with the links inside. Another solution, is the one I wrote above which involves modifying the infobox template. –Dimsar01 ^Talk ⌚→ 22:58, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@Dimsar01: The box is easy to find and more clear if you are in the habit of jumping to the bottom of articles. I wouldn't occur to me that the way to find the predecessors and successors of a given version of iOS is to jump to the bottom, even if I can jump to the bottom with one key. Guy Harris (talk) 23:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi. That's actually a good reason to remove it, not add it. We don't want it to be easy to jump between articles. Quite to the contrary, we want the reader to be able to focus on reading the current article, which he or she has searched. Wikipedia is not a video game. If he or she truely needs to read about the next version, the existing links are enough.

Another thing: Writing {{Re|Codename Lisa}} is totally useless if you don't sign your message, because in that I won't receive any echo notifications.

—Codename Lisa (talk) 06:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

• Remove and modify I agree with Dimsar01 suggestion of removing this and modifying {Template:Infobox OS}. D4R1U5 (talk) 09:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Iphone

IPhone 5s Maniyosefi (talk) 15:47, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Not appear

Maniyosefi (talk) 15:47, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

No, it does appear in iOS 11#Supported devices. Guy Harris (talk) 18:51, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

What if I download the Beta file on a iPhone 12? Can it run normally?

Actually I'm just trying to find a bug on Screen Time lol Hui WalkerX (talk) 02:25, 9 June 2021 (UTC)