Talk:IOS 10

Major issues
This page seems like somebody pasted an article from a website into Wikipedia. It has all sorts of opinions and needs to be revised urgently. --Nicolás Macri (talk) 23:15, 13 June 2016 (UTC)


 * It reads like somebody pasted an article from a website into Wikipedia, because somebody pasted an article from a website into Wikipedia. I removed the text. Guy Harris (talk) 23:28, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Multiple version numbers in the infobox?
There is currently a discussion of whether Template:Infobox OS should be used with multiple version numbers - for example, to list both a "software update" and "next major release" beta, or to list betas from more than one release stream. If you believe that multiple {stable, preview} releases should never appear in that infobox, or if you believe that they should appear under some or all circumstances where there's more than one beta of the OS in question available, you might want to comment there. (I have no strong belief either way; I'm OK with the main OS page listing only the "next major release" beta, but listing betas from multiple streams if they exist, but I'd also be OK with other choices.) Guy Harris (talk) 08:11, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

"Limited support" in Supported devices
Hi! I'm curious, why do edits about adding "Limited support" to devices in the Supported devices section get removed? I would think that's good information to have. If a device supports the OS, but not all advertised features of it, isn't that valuable information? LocalNet (talk) 19:20, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

"That" / "those" extensions
Hi. If you read the entire sentence, you'll notice the focus is on his opinion of the ability to use extensions rather than the extensions themselves. "Those" doesn't fit in the context if you read the whole sentence. LocalNet (talk) 10:27, 4 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I.e., the reviewer liked the fact that extensions existed at all; he wasn't referring to any particular extensions. Guy Harris (talk) 18:37, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

B class
Hi What was the reason behind putting "No" on the B-class criteria for supporting materials? Are we missing anything notable? LocalNet (talk) 17:21, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The reason for putting "No" for supporting materials is that it has been marked as needing an image. -KAP03(Talk &bull;&#32;Contributions) 17:59, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, I didn't even see that the talk page actually states the reason. My bad. Does it need an image, though? We have an image of the operating system. Is it possible that was posted before an image was actually added? Just trying to figure out if have actually fulfilled that task. LocalNet (talk) 18:03, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * [] is the very first version of this talk page edited on 12:27, June 13, 2016 (and it has the needs image tag). A few minutes earlier [] edited on 12:18, June 13, 2016 is the last version to not have an background image (some later versions have a now deleted background image). So it is possible that the needs image tag was posted after an image was already found. I will promote this article to B-class then. -KAP03(Talk &bull;&#32;Contributions) 18:17, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yep, I think that's correct. Thank you for making the change. :) LocalNet (talk) 18:21, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

App Store Categories section
Hi Your efforts on iOS articles are greatly appreciated! But out of curiousity in regards to this edit, is it actually talking about the Messages App Store and its initial lack of a "Categories" tab rather than the general App Store? The book search URL posted did not render the actual preview for me, unfortunately, and a quick Google search only results in articles about the Messages App Store being updated with a "Categories" section after its initial launch without it. One example. Is it the same thing, or am I misunderstanding? LocalNet (talk) 15:53, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I added a new reference and the other source seem to be talking about the Categories section in the App Store app (the general one) rather than the Messages messages one. -KAP03(Talk &bull;&#32;Contributions) 16:50, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

AppleFS
on the apfs (Apple FS) is mentioned that 10.3 will migrate to this new filesystem on the iphones and that iphone 5 is not compatible, but in this ios 10 article no single mention of this is done, so who is wron here the filesystem article on wikipedia or this or bot making both outdated?? 190.96.79.218 (talk) 07:19, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi! Apple has announced that iOS 10.3 will use a new file system, the APFS. However, iOS 10.3 hasn't been released yet, because it is still in beta testing mode. When it gets released, we will add that information to this article, but we need to wait for the official iOS 10.3 release first. :) LocalNet (talk) 07:23, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Cleaning up some facts
> iOS 10 restricts a workaround that some developers used to probe or read certain hardware information pertaining to the device's battery, such as the number of battery cycles, the charging voltage, the input/output current and the real charge. Apple's I/O Kit framework is considered private by Apple and it rejected apps that used it. The workaround was still able to retrieve some of this information without using I/O Kit. On iOS 10, apps that use this workaround either crash or show wrong information.

I find this paragraph really misleading. It is listed under removed functionanality, however, it was never meant / intended to function in that way previously, so it cannot be "removed" as to speak. Also, this functionality still exists in IOKit, it just requires entitlements not provided for normal apps.

For this reason, I have removed this paragraph Nullpixel (talk) 18:09, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

No Apple support for iOS 10 - say it explicitly?
About this revert from. To explain why I added the "source".

"Third-party application support only", means implicitly that there is no support from Apple, e.g. security updates (or features) coming to the operating system. "application support only" means we, Apple, still allow people to sell apps (or give) through our app store, by you "third" parties.

I was a little surprised that iOS 10, a recent version, has no support (what I'm sourcing with the ref, not that you can actually still install new apps), and went looking to confirm it. It seems true that a "major" version upgrade is needed to get security updates, and with it you get new features in iOS 11. comp.arch (talk) 10:01, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Ahh okay, I understand you more now. You were simply looking to confirm it with a source, not disputing the information. I misunderstood. I'll re-add the reference with proper fields. Thanks for coming to the talk page to elaborate! LocalNet (talk) 14:19, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Ok with you adding back as you've done. How about "Unsupported by Apple except by upgrading to iOS 11; third parties still support with applications"? Better idea for shorter text? Info on third parties isn't strictly about supoprt for the OS, does it belong here? Yes, I never give a source for contradictory info (knowingly). And if I believe the info to be false I would probably amended, at least not just added a source for correct info. 15:03, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Technically speaking, "Third-party application support only" is much shorter than "Unsupported by Apple except by upgrading to iOS 11; third parties still support with applications". Furthermore, it's important to note that iOS 10 hasn't gone away after iOS 11 was released. There are still apps out there with support for iOS 9, I believe, so for any device stuck on iOS 10 or not yet having updated, the fact that they can still download and use third-party apps is very important, I think. And regarding your edit, I took another look and realized you didn't change the text before the ref. I actually fully misread your edit. Must've been at a busy and distracted moment for me. LocalNet (talk) 17:17, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

About the iOS 10 version history
I’ve seen a mixed response to this decision, on one hand, I can see that it can kind of clutter of the page, but on the other hand, lots of people read it, including me, and version history is kept on literally every other page except this one, personally, I want it back, what do you think of this whole situation? Let me know! ChocoForever (talk) 14:50, 29 November 2023 (UTC)