Talk:Firmware

Page split

This page is pretty manageable— far more so than OTA Updates. However, I am aware that it's growing quite a bit, so I was thinking of splitting the page up by device class (e.g. Apple TV, iPad, iPad mini, etc.). (We can also further divide those pages by firmware version, but I don't think that's necessary.) In the process, I'd also like to merge in the "Deprecated" pages, since those were split off to lessen the burden of editing a page with so many devices. How does this sound? --Dialexio (talk) 22:00, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

That's fine by me. I agree we done need to and shouldn't go down to each major iOS on this page, just device type. --iAdam1n (talk) 10:40, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

iOS 10 New IPSW Style

With iOS 10 beta, Apple changed the format of IPSW's to bundle for multiple devices (you can see with this image). This means that we have two options (as far as I can see) for listing them. We can either:

• List how we currently are but copy/paste each new firmware multiple times for the devices listed in the bundled IPSW

• Add another page off each device page (something like Firmware/iPhone/10.x) and make new tables to list these firmwares and those tables would include a list of all devices for the one IPSW

I personally think we should do the latter because that way it'll be easier when editing, be easier to find the IPSW for your device, and prevent the current pages getting slower when newer firmware are added to it. What does everyone else think? --iAdam1n (talk) 23:21, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I've already discussed this on Twitter, but I'll share my thoughts on this issue here.

To be blunt, I think it's stupid to keep changing the format on what feels like an annual basis. By constantly changing things around, it creates needless confusion for users, who will expect a link on page A when it's on page B, just for it to go to page C a year later. After taking some time to think about it more rationally (this was initially proposed to me while shopping for groceries— not ideal), I'm somewhat more receptive to the idea of partitioning the tables more by version number. But whatever happens, I don't want it to change for another five years, regardless of what crazy nonsense Apple pulls off. We just need to establish and maintain a consistent format that resists whatever Apple wants to throw at us.

To further add to the confusion is Apple's decision to (finally) support multiple devices in an IPSW. Should we change how we list the links to only include it once, or include the link multiple times, once for each device? The answer's quite obvious to me: Just keep listing it the way we've been doing it— a link for iPhone 5, a link for iPhone 5C, etc. (Sub-classes can be omitted, as all iPhone 5 devices will use the same IPSW, etc.) It's familiar, and pretty straight to the point. Is inserting a link multiple times in different sections on one page too confusing? You invite even more confusion if you list one link once under a new section named "32-bit 4.0 inch iPhones." Is my phone 32-bit or 64-bit? What is that measurement referring to— my screen size, or my phone's size? ...Okay, that last one's a bit of a hyperbole. But this is all for the sake of only needing to update only one or two less tables? Geez, just copy and paste. Heck, if the tables are split up by version number, you can just turn it into a template. --Dialexio (talk) 00:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm with Dialexio. The format we have currently, and having it listed multiple times makes more sense. — Spydar007 (Talk) 11:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Removing codenames for key page links

It was recently requested by various users to add links to key pages back to the firmware pages. They were initially removed since it conflicted with how iOS 10.x and newer are now presented. In order to make this happen, I'm proposing the removal of the "Codename" column to make room for another column titled "Keys," which would contain links to key pages for the respective devices. (For reference, this is an example of how it would look.) Having both columns seems redundant and will unnecessarily consume horizontal space. Firwmare codenames are already in the link/title for firmware key pages, but may be listed together on a new page such as Firmware Codenames if anyone wishes to have a list of firmware codenames somewhere. If nobody has any objections, we'll make this change shortly. --Dialexio (talk) 19:18, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I just think it was much easier and more convenient to be able to get to the key pages from firmware pages. OothecaPickle (talk) 19:30, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

While I do not object to it, I personally would vote to keep it as it is because firmware key pages are easily linked from Firmware Keys and that is a more logical place to have them linked from (rather than having both) in my opinion. I also think that the codename column would be better on Firmware and Beta Firmware pages. --iAdam1n (talk) 20:17, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

This has now been completed. --iAdam1n (talk) 11:22, 27 August 2017 (UTC)