The iPhone Wiki:Community portal/2013

	This is an Archive Page This page is meant for archiving purposes only, do not modify the contents of this page! To see the list of archive pages, go to the main page for this archive. If you have a reply for one of these discussion topics, move it back to the main discussion page and edit it there.
	Other Archives • 2010 • 2011 • 2012 • 2013 • 2014 • 2015 • 2016 • 2017 •

What beta number was 5A308?

I get the reasoning. Apple released one for enterprise use, then one for standard developer use. However, are we sure it was 2.0 beta 6? Why would Apple drop the suffix letter from the build on the same version? In addition, Wikipedia's "iOS SDK" reports that it was 2.0 beta 7 that received the two builds, not beta 6. Wrapping it all together:

5A292g - 2.0 beta 6
5A308  - 2.0 beta ? (Now in the 300s and suffix letter dropped)
5A331  - 2.0 beta 7

The Wikipedia article reports that 5A292g was released May 28. Ok, that's correct here. Wikipedia also reports that (the supposed two) beta 7 firmware was released June 9. Ok, the wiki is also correct for 5A331. However, we report that 5A308 was released on May 29. Now, either we are wrong, or Wikipedia is wrong. Either way, someone is wrong about the beta number and release date of 5A308. Anyone know of anything that can solve this?
The very first version of "Firmware Keys" already lists 5A308 as beta 6. In addition, the revision is dated July 27, so there is no timestamp to help solve this. --5urd (talk) 18:05, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I've tried Google, and of the sites I've looked at, they report as 5A308 being "iPhone SDK beta 6", not "iPhone OS beta 6". Here are some excerpts from a MacRumors thread (emphasis mine):

I'm really confused about the 3G rumors relating to iPhone 2.0 Beta 6. (5A308).

Here is the title of one from World of Apple (dated May 29) (emphasis mine):

Apple Releases iPhone SDK Beta 6, iPhone OS 2.0 Build 5A308

This points in the direction of us being right, but can anyone help confirm this? --5urd (talk) 18:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

This has been found since. --iAdam1n (talk) 17:56, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Key page idea

I was wondering if it would be a good idea to make another category for key pages which do not have a complete key listing which has a bootrom exploit? That way, if people know how to get the keys, it would be easy to know which need to be added to. To me, the age does not matter as some people keep beta IPSW's stored no matter the age. Let me know what you all think. --iAdam1n (talk) 17:18, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we should create a category for that, because ultimately that list will be empty. Maybe we could list them here (or somewhere else) and then just remove the references as we complete the pages? That way we avoid editing lots of pages without adding anything to them. --http (talk) 22:58, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Maybe Incomplete Key Pages? I could add the links to the pages on there if we agree and then like you said, remove when complete. --iAdam1n (talk) 23:10, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I would prefer to add it to an existing page, as it will get deleted when complete. If you want to keep that page forever (like to list the A5+ devices) then yes, create that new page you mentioned. If it's only for the incomplete pages, adding the list to one of the comment pages is enough. --http (talk) 21:20, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

It is only for pre A5 although it will never be complete. 5urd has an idea but he is away atm so cannot do it which is to make it go to another category if it sees "TODO". --iAdam1n (talk) 21:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

One additional idea: I think redsn0w and/or sn0wbreeze has a list of all keys included in it. You could use that to complete any missing information here or point out any differences. --http (talk) 23:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I checked redsn0w but it does not have all the keys just a few. sn0wbreeze will likely be the same as it only needs a few files patched. --iAdam1n (talk) 23:23, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I went through sn0wbreeze completely about a week ago, and every key it contains has been added here. --5urd (talk) 02:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

5urd made an edit that made it automatically move to another category if it sees TODO. --iAdam1n (talk) 20:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Firmware page

I know I just created the iPad mini and iPad (4th generation) entries on the Firmware page, but I was thinking… Instead of keeping the firmware tables unique to each model, could we keep the firmware tables divided by generation instead? (i.e. Instead of editing three pages for the iPad mini to add a new firmware, there would be just one page that holds the three firmware tables.) It'd certainly help keep the amount of changes made with each new firmware to a minimum. --Dialexio 19:50, 30 October 2012 (MDT)

That would certainly reduce the amount of edits. They were separated as the source was getting ridiculously long. I'm for it. --5urd 20:00, 30 October 2012 (MDT)

As long as no information gets lost, feel free to change it. But I wonder how you want to put all this into a horizontal design. I think it won't fit or you'd have to remove infos. Can you explain further? --http 00:31, 31 October 2012 (MDT)

I think you might be misunderstanding a bit; I'm planning on, as one example, copying all of the iPad 2 firmware tables into one embedded page, instead of having four different pages that require editing. Everything's still going to look the same. :P --Dialexio 01:21, 31 October 2012 (MDT)

Yes, I misunderstood you. I thought you wanted to regroup the lists by iOS version. Yes, just grouping more devices together seems like a simple change and seems to be useful. --http 04:06, 31 October 2012 (MDT)

Maybe we could do it like Beta Firmware where all current devices are on the page while deprecated devices are separated off. --5urd 18:45, 31 October 2012 (MDT)

This would make the code very long, horrible and hard to detect. Maybe someone can make a template like "Latest Public Release" on device pages? --iAdam1n (talk) 18:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

What? I made Beta Firmware like that so that instead of editing 15 pages per beta, you would only need to edit one. --5urd (talk) 20:46, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I was thinking you meant all devices on one page. Would you like me to attempt to do it? Obviously I will preview it first to make sure its ok. I feel that this would be a good idea. --iAdam1n (talk) 19:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

That's fine, but I would move the "deprecated" devices off of it to their own like Beta Firmware is to reduce clutter a bit. --5urd (talk) 19:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok sure. Or what about making a new page for them like Unsupported Devices ? This would make more sense I would think. I could also do this on Beta Firmware too. --iAdam1n (talk) 19:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I have made a depreciated devices template for each device type and have added them to that. Sorry for lots of edits but this was required to make the wiki in shape. Enjoy. --iAdam1n (talk) 20:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

This now also applies to Beta Firmware. I did this because it uses less templates, looks neater and is easier to add devices to if/when needed. --iAdam1n (talk) 22:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

iPad mini

Me and Alex were chatting on Twitter and the topic of what to do with the iPad mini and two solutions came up:

• New section on iPad
• New page: iPad mini

The problem I see with the new page is there are three different models and when we have multiple models for a device, we make the page with that name a disambiguation page. Maybe we could have iPad mini have a note at the top to a disambiguation page (iPad mini (disambiguation) or iPad mini (first generation))? I don't want iPad mini 1G as we don't list the key pages with the 1G in the title (Wildcat 7B500 (iPad)). Any thoughts? --5urd 09:51, 25 October 2012 (MDT)

So let's see what we have right now for all the other categories:

• iPhone -> m68ap for 1st gen, n82ap for 2nd gen, n88ap 3rd gen, iPhone 4 with different models n90ap, n90bap, n92ap, etc.
• iPod touch -> n45ap for 1st gen, n72ap for 2nd gen, etc.
• iPad -> k48ap for 1st gen (both Wi-Fi and 3G), iPad 2 for 2nd gen with k93ap, k94ap, k95ap, k93aap, etc.
• Apple TV -> k66ap for 2nd gen
• iPad mini -> ? for 1st gen with kap123 etc. for the different models

So previously we didn't have the problem, because:

• 1st gen iPhone was only available in one model, m68ap
• same for iPod touch, only one model, n45ap
• for iPad, both models (Wi-Fi and 3G) had the same model number, later devices have different numbers.
• for Apple TV, the first iOS version was 2nd gen, so the name without a version number can be used for the device category

For me it's clear that iPad mini is for the category of device and must be a separate page. As long as we have only one model, we can add all infos to there and don't create another page between the category and the individual models.

So the question comes up what to use later when there are more generations, what to use as disambiguation page between the category page iPad mini and the individual models, something that describes the first generation. We can't use iPad mini, because that's for the category. Why not use iPad mini 1 or iPad mini 1G? I mean the only problem is that it doesn't match the key pages. So either we start the key pages to include the generation as well, or we simply ignore this difference. I mean why is this a problem if this single page to describe the specifics of the first generation iPad mini has a generation number in the page title? Everybody knows that leaving this 1G away gets you to the device category page iPad mini. So I don't see a problem here. And as long as there is no 2nd generation, we don't even need such a page. Ok, so I suggest:

• create iPad mini for the device category
• while no 2nd generation exists, put all links onto that same page iPad mini
• when 2nd gen iPad mini comes out, create a page iPad mini 1 and iPad mini 2 (or with the "G" if you wish)
• the key pages can be with our without the "1G", I don't care

--http 14:46, 25 October 2012 (MDT)

I went ahead and moved the stuff to iPad mini with a possible link to iPad mini 1G. I kept the G because everything else has it. I also put a note up on iPad for the link. The key pages should be determined on how they are with other devices:

• One model type (like iPad 1G)
  • (iPad mini)
• Multiple (all else)
  • (iPad mini Wi-Fi)
  • (iPad mini GSM)
  • (iPad mini Global)

I don't think we should put the 1G on the key pages as we don't use (iPhone 2G), (iPod touch 1G), or (iPad 1G). --5urd 21:38, 25 October 2012 (MDT)

I will make them all iPad mini. When/if we get a 2G iPad mini, add iPad mini 2G. --iAdam1n (talk) 15:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Editing help

I noticed on the edit page there is a link to Help:Editing. This is actually an empty page. Should we remove this from the page or add some info to it? I am not sure what to add to it even so I haven't touched it. I was wondering what you all think. --iAdam1n (talk) 20:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

To remove it requires knowing the page it is set on (in the Mediawiki: NS). If you can find that, I'll be fine with changing it. --5urd (talk) 00:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

It's at MediaWiki:Edithelppage. (Special:AllMessages is helpful.) --thekirbylover 11:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. I changed it to link to Wikipedia's page. --5urd (talk) 00:50, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

evad3rs page

I made this page but 5urd deleted this. I was wondering why? Also what are everybody's thoughts on this? --iAdam1n (talk) 11:43, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

We had this discussion in the past already on some similar pages. But I think when several of these respected hackers bring this term up several times, then we can also have a page for it. But iAdam1n (talk), don't just create the page again, wait for this discussion to finish. --http (talk) 11:59, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I had already made it before seeing this. In future I will just wait. I did put a note to 5urd saying that he left no reason for deletion. --iAdam1n (talk) 12:02, 26 January 2013 (UTC) There is also a twitter account and it has been mentioned that its them by pod2g.

I also think when a page is deleted the user should give a reason for it. Otherwise no one knows why. --iAdam1n (talk) 12:11, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

It is correct that deletions should be discussed first. 5urd, can you give a reason why you acted so fast, with no discussion at all? --http (talk) 12:21, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

My apologies. I deleted it as we had an edit war about 2 1/2 years ago on unpopular dev "teams" which resulted in the 3 year block of the main page. There were numerous pages made and a flood of edits to the main page. A simple mention my pod2g does not validate a "team"'s "worthiness" unless it was stated that he is working with them. On a side note, just because you see a "team" that claims to have a jailbreak for 6.0 does not mean they are legitimate. I now looked the team up and it is legitimate, so again, my apologies. --5urd (talk) 01:08, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

THIS IS THE NEW MIRROR

Isn't migration fun? --geohot (talk) 22:35, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

So much --Haifisch (talk) 23:21, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The migration is complete and the old site has been taken offline. Costs me about $50 per month to run, but for now am still avoiding donations or ads. The old one was unacceptably slow, this site gets about 100,000 page loads per day and it was time to move to server that could handle it. It's using a Squid proxy and barely loaded now, so it is capable of handling much more traffic. And it's much more of a pleasure to visit. I'm hoping the increase in speed will encourage more content creation, and if there's anything else I can do to encourage that, let me know, I'm happy to do it. --geohot (talk) 20:09, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the migration geohot. This helps a lot. See the comments on your talk page since when we have this problem, I think since February or so.

I'd also like to have an emergency contact where we could reach you (just for wiki related issues, maybe only for admins, so that you don't get bothered with nonsense) - you have our emails to contact us for this if you think it's a good idea.

If the hosting fee gets a problem, just let us know. Just open a targeted donation and you'll have the money for the next ten years hosting or so. I'm happy to sponsor a month per year or so. --http (talk) 22:16, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Im willing to contribute to the costs, if needed. --Haifisch (talk) 01:10, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Ditto --5urd (talk) 22:30, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

It would be nice to see an option for donations, even if not for current running cost for future upgrades or running cost. (Possibly to support related research projects) Just wondering if theres any problem with that?

Geo, this is a great site, resource its great to see you working behind the scences. I know you could probably afford it and is easier to pay your self but if we can share the cost why not :) --Blue Skies (talk) 09:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

AppleTV3,2

AppleTV3,2 is a Revision A[1] --5urd (talk) 21:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Can someone please add this to Firmware Keys. I tried but cannot work out how this works. --iAdam1n (talk) 22:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Add what? --5urd (talk) 23:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

It has been done in the meantime. --iAdam1n (talk) 23:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

iPhone 5

Since Apple uses the A1XXX model number to tell the difference between models[2], I was thinking about changing the key page names accordingly. What does everybody else think? (This may also apply to the 3rd and 4th generation iPads, and the iPad mini.) --Dialexio (talk) 19:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm against it as it breaks the consistency --5urd (talk) 21:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

We should use Apple's terminology wherever possible. Where's the consistency problem? And yes, if Apple names them that way, we should rename all devices that way, not only the iPhone of course. But before starting such a project, we should be 100% sure Apple continues this usage. --http (talk) 22:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The consistency I was refering to is how Apple references the iPhone 4 variants as AT&T (GSM) and Verizon (CDMA), the iPad 2 variants as Wi-Fi, Wi-Fi+Cellular (AT&T) for GSM, and Wi-Fi+3G (Verizon) for CDMA, but the iPhone 5 is the only one I've seen where the separate models are referred to by their model number. We have kept the x##ap variation the entire lifetime of the site, so changing it would be a **MASSIVE** job to fix all the redirects. Plus, when have we followed Apple's outward marketing?

We use iPad 4 and such while Apple uses iPad (4th generation) and iPad with Retina Display. We use S5L8945 while Apple uses A5X. Apple labels the S5L8942 as just a plain A5, not A5 Rev A like we use here. The only reason we use that is becuause Apple referes to the revised Wi-Fi iPad 2 as a "Rev A" on the **Dev Center**.

What makes the dev center a choice for naming conventions? The fact that it is a **developer** center - a place where things are supposed to get a little technical. Anyways, that's my "rant". --5urd (talk) 23:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you think I was talking about replacing the p101ap, etc. pages; I was talking about the device names on key pages (e.g. "Brighton 10B141 (iPad 4 GSM)"). Since there are no keys for the newer devices, it's not going to make redirects. We're only using "iPad 4" because we couldn't find a good replacement, and "Brighton 10B141 (iPad (4th generation) Wi-Fi)" would be way too long/ludicrous. (You should know this, actually; I remember you chiming in.) But what's the problem with relying a little on the iOS Developer Center for some names? Using the A1XXX model numbers actually seems like a better distinction method to me. I was actually reluctant to use "GSM" and "Global" when I coined them for this generation of cellular iOS devices, since all cellular models are capable of GSM communications. But now that there's a way that Apple decided on to differentiate between them, why not use it? --Dialexio (talk) 03:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Source Code as defined in the Ground Rules

The ground rules state no source code from Apple is allowed, however IDA + HexRays reversed C code is not from Apple, but determined by analizing the assembly (which is technically public), and building a document that would compile to code that does the same thing. So, is it legal to post HexRays C code here? IIRC, their EULA does not prohibit it. Now, IANAL, but it appears to be legal from my understanding of US copyright. Also, look at MobileDevice Library - it's a header file of a copyritten program determined by reverse engineering... --5urd (talk) 18:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know US copyright. The assembly code is not public. But I don't see a problem with reversed code, because that is more like a describing language of what the machine code does. But if it actually matches exactly the source code, which you found somewhere, I think that would be a problem. It also depends on the amount of code you have; small portions to show something would be no problem, while the entire kernel is a different issue. --http (talk) 00:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

That makes sense. As for the kernel, OS X's versions are open sourced, so those can be included with the appropriate license notice. --5urd (talk) 01:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

More Esser Info

i0nic's slides from his CanSecWest presentation have been released. Where should we link to them from? --beej 17:38, 17 March 2012 (MDT)

Added to i0n1c. --iAdam1n (talk) 17:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Completed template

I was wondering, what about if I make a template with a completed stamp? I think this would be useful to mark talk pages as done. Let me know what you think and how I add colors to templates. --iAdam1n (talk) 14:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not particularly fond of this. I'm not going to object to this, but the way I see it, if a consensus is reached, then the topic is over and can be archived. If someone wants to reply to an archived topic, they just need to copy the topic back to the main page, delete it from the archive, and then reply to the appropriate person. --5urd (talk) 22:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok but most topics here have been done so should be archived. Theme for one, ATV3,2 for another. --iAdam1n (talk) 22:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Done. As for how long to wait before archiving after a consensus, a week or two seems reasonable enough. --5urd (talk) 22:52, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I will wait two then archive if needed. You may now archive this. --iAdam1n (talk) 23:29, 12 April 2013 (UTC)