Talk:iOS 17

Please don't change some unspecified thing

Please don’t change this 173.252.3.211 (talk) 10:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

To what does "this" refer? Guy Harris (talk) 10:25, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Ok 173.252.3.211 (talk) 10:38, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I didn’t want anyone to change the date cause Apple has announced the full public release date of iOS 17 at wwdc 2023 173.252.3.211 (talk) 14:38, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Apple confirmed at WWDC 2023 that it would be released in fall 2023

Apple confirmed at WWDC 2023 that it would be released in fall 2023. so Please don’t change the date back 173.252.3.211 (talk) 10:14, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Please don’t change this

@Prrfan please don’t change the iOS 17 page 173.252.3.211 (talk) 17:31, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

@PRRfan please don’t change the IOS 17 page 173.252.3.211 (talk) 17:32, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Why not? And why did you choose to revert my change? PRRfan (talk) 18:36, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Weird anon behavior

173.252.3.211, who has a history (see above) of odd edits and requests, has now reverted a series of well-founded changes without explanation beyond the edit summary "Fixed." Kindly explain yourself, 173.252.3.211; you may start with any one of the well-explained edits. PRRfan (talk) 19:49, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Realize this is an old thread, but if this anon keeps reverting edits, I am pretty sure it could be classified as vandalism or edit warring. Mseingth2133444 (talk) 00:37, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Prose quality

None of our iOS articles stand out as particularly great, and we're starting off the wrong foot here too. It's one thing for old articles to have unfixed issues, but please, let's avoid creating more work down the line if we can:

• MOS:OVERSECTION: the article has far too many short sections, which hide how poor the prose is. Prose should feel like an integrated summary, not discrete bits of information. Our article should mention major changes and contextualize them; right now, it's largely a worse version of Apple's detailed changelog. These excess headings encourage the addition of extremely minor changes, the same way tables do. For context, iOS 10 was recently delisted from GA for the same problems I raise here.
• MOS:DATED. "now allows" should never be in an article

I'm wondering whether we should start reverting non-cited changes, because these kinds of additions take just as much work to fix, if not more, than just writing from scratch. Windows 10 is what we should be aiming for, not imitating other low-quality iOS articles. DFlhb (talk) 14:29, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I turned this article into a summary without excessive sections, and the IP is reverting back to the old version,[1][2] which contained copyvio.[3] DFlhb (talk) 13:32, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with your version. So much better to read, it's less of a "list".

By the way, the IP reverted it back. MacOS Weed (talk) 15:35, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, I'm at 3 reverts, and the IP isn't participating in discussion. Will let others decide what to do here and which version is preferable. DFlhb (talk) 15:08, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Pinging people who either participated on the talk page or made major contributions to the article: Guy Harris, Gah4, PRRfan, Hajoon0102: which article structure do you prefer? The current one, or this rewritten one? DFlhb (talk) 06:31, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Your rewritten one. PRRfan (talk) 03:13, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

today

The article says Sept 18th, but it seems that it was out today. At least that is what it told me. Gah4 (talk) 03:37, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Maybe you opted-in to the beta program? The release date is indeed the 18th. DFlhb (talk) 06:29, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I did opt for the beta program, but today it offered one that isn't called beta. It seems to be called RC, or Release Candidate. I think that means it isn't beta, but is offered to beta users. Gah4 (talk) 09:58, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, RC is the version intended for later public release, but it's only offered to beta users so it can go through final testing. Sometimes there can be an RC2 if the first RC has major issues (it's happened before for iOS). DFlhb (talk) 10:06, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Does the latest version support sideloading apps?

There has been a lot of mention in the media about iOS 17 potentially supporting the sideloading of apps. There is no mention of this in the article. Does the latest version currently support it? Félix An (talk) 02:24, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of Mseingth2133444 (talk) 01:25, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

No it does not as of now. ItsCheck (talk) 18:08, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Should RCs be considered as a preview ?

So you probably know about the 3 step update program of apple : first there is a beta, then the RC, then the stable releases. Should the RCs be considered versions or previews ? (for the quick facts box) YWALT.JS (talk) 20:45, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

They should not be considered stable releases, as "candidate" means "we think this is good enough to be the stable release, but, if you find a last-minute problem, let us know, so we can try to fix it and do another candidate", and the only OS infobox options, as far as I know, are "stable" and "preview". An RC is a preview of an expected release, but the preview may reveal a problem. Guy Harris (talk) 20:57, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Moving the features to a new article

I propose that we move the features to a new article titled "Features new to iOS 17" or something similar. Mseingth2133444 (talk) 00:42, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

• Going to go ahead and oppose that, that section is essentially the entire article, if you get rid of that this article is nothing. That would also break tradition with every single prior iOS article which all have similar length feature sections. I've reformatted this article to better match those and trim the number of sections. EoRdE6^(Talk) 23:08, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

  Looking at articles like "Windows 10", you can see that they put the basic "features" in the main article and moved all of the features to a new article. Was thinking of something like that. And at the end of the day, it doesn't matter if we're "breaking tradition", because this article is still a stub. Let's find a way to promote this article to at least C-class. Mseingth2133444 (talk) 03:06, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

  It is very clearly not a stub so I've reclassed it. With a few more sources and better prose I could see it being C class. Windows 10 was a family of software that was received incremental biyearly feature updates over a period of 5 years. iOS versions last one year and generally have most features launched at once, totally incomparable. EoRdE6^(Talk) 20:25, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

  That's exactly what I was going to say. ItsCheck (talk) 04:27, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

The features section goes against WP:NOTCHANGELOG and is the result of an IP editor repeatedly reverting to re-insert detailed WP:FANCRUFT against talk page consensus. The last sourced, prose, policy-compliant version of this article is this one. Any split of the section as currently written would get deleted in an AfD. And yearly iOS releases don't have enough new features to fit in a separate article, unlike modern Windows releases that happen every 3-6 years. DFlhb (talk) 13:06, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Can we reinstate the features section from that version? Mseingth2133444 (talk) 20:49, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Improving Article to C-class (February 2024)

This article has many issues, and I'm trying to improve it to at least C class. Here's my plan to improve it:

1. Rewrite features. Arguably this is the hardest step in the process (I tried it myself on Feb 1 and it failed horribly). The current list clearly goes against WP:NOTCHANGELOG and we should reformat it into paragraphs. Basically, no bullet points.
2. Find more sources. This should be easy.
3. Meet any more C-class criteria.

This should be a collaborative effort, as one person cannot do it themselves (I tried it myself, like I said earlier). I'm inviting contributors to commit to and comment on this plan. I will also be pinging major contributors (@Guy Harris, @ItsCheck, @DFlhb, @Gah4, @PRRfan, @Hajoon0102) to do the same. Mseingth2133444 (Did I mess up? Let me know here | Thank me here) 01:47, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I've restored the last partially-cited, partially-prose version of that section. I think that's better than trying to improve the existing content, since it's trivial changelog-style information, and likely too minor to mention. Stuff can be re-added with reliable sources if it's worth mentioning.

And maybe I'm jaded, but I don't see an encyclopedic value to many articles on specific OS releases, including this one. It's either non-notable (WP:AUD/WP:NCORP) or deserves the WP:NOPAGE treatment and a merge, since it'll be a changelog no matter the level of detail we write it at. The Reception section proves it: critics also praised the improvements? Duh, it has more features. They criticized the delay for the Journal app? The citations don't do that, but setting that aside: so what? Any analysis of Apple's pace of yearly releases, or claims that it's an unsustainable pace, or analysis of whether there are more delayed features than there used to be? Anything at all of encyclopedic value? (Answer: no, phone OS releases are too minor to give us much encyclopedic substance). What are people's feelings on a partial merge or redirect to iOS version history or iOS? The early versions of iOS were notable but at this point it feels like we're just going through the motions without checking the merits of creating these new articles. DFlhb (talk) 08:56, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Maybe we should improve the main page instead? If we should I'll copy the plan over there. Mseingth2133444 (Did I mess up? Let me know here | Thank me here) 16:31, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Re-class article

I think this article should be reclassed as it no longer makes sense to be Start Class to me. Mseingth2133444 (Did I mess up? Let me know here | Thank me here) 15:43, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I think B class would make sense as it is quite complete and well-sourced. Knotbin (talk) 00:40, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I rewrote the article after this comment was made, so take this as outdated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by That guy who plays games (talk • contribs) 01:54, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Supported devices style

I think support devices should highlight that the iPhone X and iPhone 8 Plus were dropped, rather than the generic references "first iPhone without Home button" and "last iPhone with 5.5 inch screen." People don't really know what the Apple A10 is; it just so happens that the dropped devices were 6 years old. The current listing will support new iPhones in the future... Shencypeter (talk) 09:08, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done User:Shencypeter Is this an edit request? If so, please explicitly state the changes in a "change X to Y" format. If you would like consensus, feel free to continue discussing, but usually for changes like this, you don't need to ask someone else to do it for you. Mseingth2133444 (talk/contribs) 02:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Needs to be discussed here as my edits have been reverted Shencypeter (talk) 23:34, 19 March 2024 (UTC)