The iPhone Wiki:Community portal

See also: Unsolved problems

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)

iPhone-Elite

I think we should include all this old stuff before it gets lost: code.google.com/p/iphone-elite/. I mean the wiki articles there. Most infos should be already here, but I'm sure a lot of things are missing too. --http 15:02, 26 June 2012 (MDT)

Baseband Chip Pages

This has been discused before, but why do we use the marketing name for the earliest three baseband chip pages? Because we list the processors under their internal name (not marketing) and the device pages are their internal, not marketing (n82ap instead of "iPhone 3G"; n72ap instead of "iPod touch 3G" or "iPod touch (third generation)"). We even have the key pages by code name and build number, not version! Those three pages are the only ones that are listed under their marketing name, not internal. --5urd 10:24, 25 October 2012 (MDT)

Theme

Several people are compaining about the theming/style change 1 2. I wasn't involved in this change (except the new image), but I think there was no discussion about changing the default style. Can't we switch the default style back to how it was and for those that like a fancy new theme can still have the new one? -- http 16:37, 9 March 2012 (MST)

The way to add new themes would be to have access to the server. Thats why we did this. What we can do is get geohot to copy Vector.php, Vector.deps.php, and Vector/ to iPhone.php, iPhone.deps.php, and iPhone/ and modify some variables. I can do that. Then just move Mediawiki:Vector.css to Mediawiki:iPhone.css. --5urd 17:05, 9 March 2012 (MST)

Second this. In fact, seeing as it'll have the same base html/css/js as vector, geohot can copy Vector.deps.php→iPhone.deps.php, save this to iPhone.php, put $wgDefaultSkin="iphone"; in LocalSettings.php and then move the css thekirbylover 02:01, 13 March 2012 (MDT)

As I've tweeted about since last night, I decided to give the current iOS-like theme a bit of a makeover. Here's how it looks in Chromium. The theme also works in Firefox for Windows, except the left navigation tabs aren't shifted closer to the center. I haven't gotten around to testing it in other browsers just yet, unfortunately. Thoughts on this? --Dialexio 18:32, 12 March 2012 (MDT)

Looks great, though as I mentioned on twitter, the heading should be put somewhere in the title bar area so it looks more realistic. Maybe something similar to the "other network" window under Wi-Fi settings. thekirbylover 02:01, 13 March 2012 (MDT)

That'd be nice, but I don't want the page heading to overlap the tabs. --Dialexio 13:46, 13 March 2012 (MDT)

I added my modifications to the theme. It works as desired in all (desktop) browsers except IE… I'll make an attempt at improving the theme in IE 7/+. --Dialexio 21:05, 8 April 2012 (MDT)

Looking great :) I tested in IE8 and 9, doesn't look too bad, barring the unselected tabs due to the solid background; you can use the longer filter/-ms-filter syntax like so for IE gradients thekirbylover 09:06, 15 April 2012 (MDT)

---

I created more modifications that I'd like feedback on before the possibly get implemented. Both of these are meant to further help emulate the iOS look. I was thinking of giving the sidebar and header bar fixed positioning, so they stick around regardless of where you scroll. (Screenshot) I also created some CSS that makes some headers (particularly those on the Main Page and Special pages page) look like iOS… sections? (I don't recall the correct term for it.) Here's a screenshot since I suck at describing what I'm trying to say. :P Thoughts on these changes? --Dialexio 19:39, 11 September 2012 (MDT)

They're section headers :) and they look great, but maybe some negative margins (like margin: 0 -8px) could be used to make them extend to the edge of the page area and look more iOS-y. The top bar could go well with some fixed positioning, but I don't think the sidebar should. thekirbylover 19:51, 11 September 2012 (MDT)

I didn't really want the sidebar to be fixed either. However, the title bar actually stretches across the complete width of the page, and scrolling down on long pages can reveal that.[1] Currently, that section of the title bar is hidden by applying the linen background to the logo, hence why I currently have the sidebar fixed. Any ideas on how deal with the title bar? --Dialexio 13:04, 14 September 2012 (MDT)

One small issue I noticed with making the title bar fixed is that, when you click on an anchor link, the title bar will cover up the header for the section you're looking at (and some content as well). You can always scroll a little up to see what was being blocked though. To combat this problem, I entertained the idea of making just the area where page content is displayed the part that scrolls.[2] I don't think that a lot of people (especially those with small screens) would like this change, so I'm expecting heavy criticism. I plan on using the previously-mentioned method for the fixed title bar instead of this newer method, unless everybody actually prefers the newer method. :P (Note that the scrolling area is not for the whole page, just the content area.) --Dialexio 20:13, 16 September 2012 (MDT)

---

I'm interested in changing the banner alert for when someone edits your talk page (or a page you're watching?). Here's how it currently looks, and here'shere's my proposal. The newer styling is based on iOS once again (the notification banners) and seems more pleasing to the eye, but I'm not sure if it catches the user's attention as well as the older version. (I think it does, but I'm biased. :P) Thoughts? --Dialexio (talk) 20:03, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Ummmm... Your proposal can't be found :P --5urd (talk) 20:14, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Fixed the link. Not sure how that "z" slipped into the URL. --Dialexio (talk) 21:34, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I love it! Maybe move it up a bit and stretch across the entire screen like a notification center banner? I might be able to through together some CSS (vector.js) for a fold down like the iOS banners. --5urd (talk) 21:51, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

iPhone 5

Since Apple uses the A1XXX model number to tell the difference between models[3], 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)

AppleTV3,2

AppleTV3,2 is a Revision A[4] --5urd (talk) 21:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

Template CITE

The Template:Man is broken. I don't know what it should do. Could someone fix that? --http (talk) 20:04, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Update: Select MonoBook skin. --http (talk) 20:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. I had finals today and I edited the page right before we started, so I couldn't edit the template for a few hours. What the template does it create a tooltip when you hover over the text. It only works on devices with mouses ATM. --5urd (talk) 22:44, 31 January 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)

Boot-args cleanup

We need to clean up the boot-args pages. First the technical part: What I understand is that iBoot loads the kernel. And when loading it, it can pass some parameters to select certain behavior. So this only works with an iBoot or bootrom exploit. I understand that in earlier firmware versions there was simply an iBoot variable, but that doesn't exist or work anymore, now passing theses args requires a different or patched iBoot. There are various parameters in different kernel versions. The description for these arguments is scattered over various places:

• Kernel#Boot-Args A section with the latest boot arguments list. This should be a short introduction and having a link "main article".
• Boot-args (iBoot variable) separate page for boot arguments, but mainly for the iBoot variable that doesn't exist any longer
• Boot arguments (redirect)
• Talk:Restore_Mode describing the iBoot variable problem
• Various pages referencing boot-args, like Research: Re-allowing unsigned ramdisks and boot-args with the 2.* iBoot (here we should have a link on the second title)
• My earlier comment Talk:Kernel#boot-args
• This comment here.

So what do we want to do about this mess? I suggest to move the current Kernel content to the redirect page Boot arguments (or to another new page, maybe boot-args). The current content of Boot-args (iBoot variable) and all other content should get merged into there. Then change all references to this new page and on the Kernel page write just something short with "main article there". What do you think? --http (talk) 21:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I like Boot Arguments. --5urd (talk) 02:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

One addition: Maybe we should use boot-args as the main page, because all links are written like that. --http (talk) 07:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)