Talk:Main Page

Baseband Chip Page Titles

For the baseband chip page titles, I think we should stick with the model number despite the marketing name. Pages:

• PMB8876 marketed "S-Gold 2"
• PMB8878 marketed "X-Gold 608"
• XMM 6180 marketed "X-Gold 618"
• MDM6600 (unknown marketing name)
• MDM6610 (unknown marketing name)
• MDM9x00 (unknown marketing name)

--5urd 21:35, 8 May 2012 (MDT)

I'm leaning more towards the marketing names, since I think people are more familiar with them and they've been in use for a long time. We've always referred to the iPhone 2G's baseband as the "S-Gold 2" and the iPhone 3G/3GS's baseband as the "X-Gold 608." (By the way, it sounds like Qualcomm "markets" their chips by model number. [1]) --Dialexio 00:11, 9 May 2012 (MDT)

I created most of these newer pages and always used the model number (without space). So I agree with that in general. Changing old ones is a totally different story though, where we need more consent. I would be for it (and create a redirect on the marketing names). --http 01:52, 9 May 2012 (MDT)

Baseband downgrade possibility: Attempt for 04.11.08/04.12.01 to 04.10.01

0x1 There is no downgrade possibility; according to the most basis of fact in how baseband works as explained by dear MuscleNerd and there is signature checks as well as bootloader's chain of trust that I'm not going to repeat them again, but for this topic I start from iTunes error 1,-1,11

0x2 iTunes error 1,-1,11 : We will get this error whenever we want to do something with BB which is not allowed by apple. you can read about these error in detail from here[2]. Going deeper, this error raise by baseband's bootloader whenever you attempt to downgrade BB (in this case), this happens inside the NOR so this is why we can not exploit it easily from the outside. Another reason for this error (and in here the most important one that I wanted to discuss) is that apple no longer signing that firmware.

0x3 The situation that there is no BB installed on iPhone! : I could restore my iPhone4 in the case of there will be no BB at all. I called it reset my BB. There will be no Wifi, no BT. At the first time (a few months since I've started to work on) I thought it is dead (as apple confirmed this also). But I could restore it only to stock firmware with the latest one. So for who stays in 04.11.08 it may lead to do upgrade to 04.12.01 permanently with the latest iOS, now is 5.1.1 and before for me was 5.0.1, so be sure what you are doing and then go to reset the BB. So back to the game, if there was no BB then there is no bootloeader inside the NOR to stuck BB update process but I do not know that in this case what happened to "sectable" also known as "locktable" which is the master accountable to unlock the carrier, any way I think so only firmware signature checking by apple will be remain in "restore verify process" by iTunes. because as mentioned earlier, "currentBB"(BB to be updated) is allowed to be update by "comingBB" (BB to be updating to) only if : 1. "currentBB" < "comingBB" (= are you the most recent/lastest BB?) 2. "comingBB" is now signing by apple (=if so, does apple sign you? Are you eligible?) Huum... What happens if "currentBB"="null/zero/no matter"? Could we eliminate option (1) from the security check above in this case? So what next?

0x4 Track back to the issue lead us inside the bbfw file (ICE3_04.11.08_BOOT_02.13.Release) which contains four .fls files inside, and the most important one is psi_flash.fls who is in charge of security checks before handover the routines to stack.fls which is responsible for updating the baseband. This file does like NOR bootloader but fortunately it's outside the device so it is accessible but not such easy format to be understand by programmers. They are raw ROM based images for XMM6180 chip, ARM based and programmed in Thread-X, but the compiler is unknown; I will write about some disassembly notes using ida pro 6.1; by the way I leave my iPhone with no BB trying to find out and break the trust chains in the above files in order to bypass the bootloader security checks which may let us to downgrade to 04.10.01 which is currently unlocked by Gevey. Keep in mind that if this solution works..., it will need the SHSH for downgrading the iOS firmware to do reset the BB. I heard that iPhoneDevTeam are going to release the new version of Redsn0w which there will be no need to restore by iTunes but I do not know if the baseband approaches supposed to be addressed or it will work like iFaith that is basically bypass (preserve) BB, any way if I found this article useful I will note about disassembly and possibility approach as well as BB reset to share with any followers. --Kambiz 07:49, 13 May 2012 (MDT)K.N

Bluetooth Chip on iPhone 5

Is there any confirmation of the Bluetooth chip used in the iPhone 5? If there is, can we edit this page and add it? --|5urd 10:04, 8 October 2012 (MDT)

Chipworks analyzed the iPhone 5's Murata Wi-Fi module and determined it uses the BCM4334. I'll add it to the Main Page now. --Dialexio 20:35, 8 October 2012 (MDT)

Everything Else

Can we list the devices, instead of writing "Everything Else"? -- http 16:15, 16 October 2012 (MDT)

Yeah, that's a good idea. (Especially since the older devices have been removed!) --Dialexio 17:57, 16 October 2012 (MDT)

---

It looks like it's changed back to "Everything Else" again. :-( --http (talk) 22:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, didn't notice there was a discussion. Well, my reasoning was: Why do we need to list the devices? People read left to right, so if they see that their device isn't on the column to the left of it, they can assume (correctly) that it's in that column. Besides, it just becomes a pain to list all the devices and have to update them when there is a firmware update. --5urd (talk) 23:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

We still should have devices listed. --adaminsull (talk) 23:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Problem is that the iPhone 3G and other devices are not there. And even for newer devices, if you're looking for your device X, how can you be sure it's in the "Everything Else" column? But I agree that there are many devices now. Maybe we should find a way to group them better or something. Or make a note like (*) and list these "Else" devices below or something like that. --http (talk) 00:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

We could say "iPad 2 and newer / iPad mini 1G / iPhone 4S and newer / iPod touch 5G" instead of "Everything Else," like this. --Dialexio (talk) 04:07, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Device	iPhone 3GS	iPhone 4 (GSM Models) iPod touch 4G	Apple TV 2G	Apple TV 3G (Both Models)	iPad 2 and newer iPad mini 1G iPhone 4S and newer iPod touch 5G

This is better although I like stating all devices. --adaminsull (talk) 11:09, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

iPad 4 and iPad mini

Can we add the new iPads to the list? The A6X is 8955 as per the heat sink cover on it. --5urd 09:43, 25 October 2012 (MDT)

If you mean the badge Apple depicts the A6X as, the depiction actually still says "APL5498" (which translates to the S5L8945/A5X… yeah, Apple got lazy with this badge as well). The A6X probably will be S5L8955, but I haven't seen any sort of confirmation yet. --Dialexio 09:56, 25 October 2012 (MDT)

Yeah the badge. Derp. Anyways, the A6X badge is APL5598 which translates to S5L8955/A6X. Maybe it actually is 5598 (little endian?) but that is unlikely. --5urd 10:17, 25 October 2012 (MDT)

The description of that image clearly states that it's an enhanced version of the A5X image on Wikipedia (i.e. it's edited). --Dialexio 10:57, 25 October 2012 (MDT)

Oh derp. From the keynote, it appears to be APL5498 which is 8945 (A5X). But I am sure it will be S5L8955. The S5L8942 was a revised A5, not A5X. It appears Apple just opened their Photoshop document and changed the A5X to A6X. Guess we'll find out for sure from a Geekbench or the teardown. We can at least for sure add the iPad mini to the page. --5urd 11:36, 25 October 2012 (MDT)

Mirror sign

I would like to request that the mirror message is removed as its not needed. --Adaminsull (talk) 20:54, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree --Jaggions (talk) 08:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Jailbreak table

I saw it says iPad 4s this should be iPad 4's as it looks like a lazy way of iPad 4S. --adaminsull (talk) 16:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

That would be improper grammar. I hate when people say "iPhone 3Gs" and mean the 3GS as well, but that's just how English is. Besides, at this time, an "iPad 4S" hasn't been released, so there's nothing to confuse it with. --Dialexio (talk) 18:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I know that but it'd be better to be showing as iPad 4's --adaminsull (talk) 18:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Proper grammar for the iPad 4S would be iPad 4Ses. --5urd (talk) 21:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

iPad mini vs. iPad mini 1G

I see that here it says iPad mini 1G. Please correct this to iPad mini. I have updated the other pages to this due to we do not say iPad 1G. --adaminsull (talk) 15:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

No. We decided on that already. I know we currently don't say "iPad mini 1G", but this is to differentiate this from further versions. In the same manner like we say iPod touch, we mean all versions of iPod touches (overview page), but if we mean the first generation we have to use iPod touch 1G, although nobody said it then. We discussed that already. So please, if you want to make such far reaching changes, please ask first if everybody agrees to this change. Thanks. In case 5urd forgot to revert any of your changes, please revert back to original one. There were so many changes going on in the last 30 hours that I couldn't follow all details. --http (talk) 23:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

6.1.3 jailbreak

6.1.3 is jailbreakable on old-bootroom 3GS's with sn0wbreeze 2.9.14 and tethered jailbreakable on other A4 devices. beej (talk) 22:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

"both variants"

I'm thinking about removing "both variants" from the iPhone 5 and iPod touch 5G. Both iPhone 5 models are practically identical in terms of hardware, and as a result their software is almost identical. Similar things can be said about the iPod touch 5G, too. I kinda feel like it should remain for the Apple TV 3G (not entirely sure why, maybe the SoC difference?), but it could possibly be removed from there as well. --Dialexio (talk) 06:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)