Talk:iPhone 5s

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleIPhone 5s has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 28, 2013Peer reviewReviewed
October 6, 2013Featured article candidateNot promoted
October 20, 2013Featured article candidateNot promoted
August 26, 2015Good article nomineeNot listed
October 1, 2015Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on October 19, 2015.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the iPhone 5S was the first iPhone to be available in the color of gold?
Current status: Good article

Secure Enclave[edit]

Does anyone know if the "secure enclave" where the fingerprint data gets saved is the same thing as a TPM device? By TPM I mean this thing.Bryan (talk) 14:25, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move to "iPhone 5s"?[edit]

Apple's website lists today's new devices as the iPhone 5s and iPhone 5c except in pre-rendered hero-text where the letter can be boxed, and even then, the letter could be considered a "large s" rather than a "capital S". Any reason not to move the page to reflect this? (Same with the 5c/5C) --11rcombs (talk) 19:49, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Apple's website uses the lowercase form and I don't see a compelling reason to do otherwise. CaseyPenk (talk) 20:13, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, yes there is: WP:UCN. 5S, [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]; 5s, [6]; mix of both, [7]. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 21:39, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Likes of Sky and BBC in the UK also use 5S.[8][9] Previous articles for the 3G, 3GS and 4S all use capital letter.Blethering Scot 21:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lowercase @ The Verge, The Guardian, IGN, ZDNet. CaseyPenk (talk) 21:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you aren't cherrypicking. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 22:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3G and 3GS aren't analogous because Apple referred to both of those using all-caps. The only analogous phone is 4s, which many sources refer to with the lowercase 's.' CaseyPenk (talk) 22:18, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone, please refrain from changing the name back and forth until a consensus is reached. The edit history today would be crowded enough without any edit wars. - Josh (talk | contribs) 22:06, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Let's hold off on reverting until we reach consensus. CaseyPenk (talk) 22:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I assert a combination of WP:COMMONNAME and MOS:TM. Even though Apple randomly changed it to lowercase, people will still call it the 5S per the precedent of the 4S. Its a judgement call, but for legibility and consistency between articles, I'd go with capitals. ViperSnake151  Talk  22:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also note that the official logo uses an uppercase S. I'm definitely leaning toward 5S. - Josh (talk | contribs) 22:18, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Which part of WP:TM? Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 22:19, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, even the "4S", as you call it, was officially named the 4s. Just look at the official Apple store page for the 5s. Nowhere is it called the "5S", and even in the URL a lowercase s is used. The logo does not necessarily use a capital "s", just one in a larger font size. Aradalf (talk) 01:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apple never called the 4S the 4s before today. Just look at Apple press releases. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 03:49, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Needs to be iPhone 5S. The iPhone 5s is plural of iPhone 5. JOJ Hutton 03:57, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation from Lifehacker[edit]

A Lifehacker article has explained the lowercase/uppercase situation. The author explains why early reports were confused about the capitalization scheme:

Every time Apple refers to the iPhone 5c or 5s in text form on its site, the letters are lower case. So there’s no issue there. However, there are two reasons many people are confused, and why so many early and speculative reports used capital letters instead.

The author concludes:

[...] I would suggest the new models can only be referred to with lower case. That’s how they’ve been named, right from the start. Accuracy matters.

It seems likely that many websites will be correcting their references to the 5s, or at least sticking with the lowercase references for future articles, now that they know which name Apple uses. But even now, the lowercase name is common. The first page of Google results for "iphone 5s" (Google is case-insensitive) returns 7/10 lowercase results (4 of those from Apple) and 3/10 uppercase results. The other pages indicate that usage is very much mixed. CaseyPenk (talk) 19:45, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your speculating entirely there are you psychic It seems likely that many websites will be correcting their references. If we started looking at the quality i.e. reliability not blogs which should be automatically ruled out for reliability purposes the story is very even. An RM should be requested and a line taking in regard to all previous models and their naming as its not one for this phone and another for the prior.Blethering Scot 20:10, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did you notice what I said - "But even now"? It's already clear that the lowercase name is widespread, so there's no speculation required on my part. I was including the speculation because I find it to be true based on how many sources appear to have switched to the lowercase form in just the past few hours; but my finding that the new lowercase name is common holds true regardless.
  • This case is not analogous to previous cases, so a blanket rule would not apply. This and the 5c are the only models that are consistently lowercase. Apple retroactively changed 4S to 4s, but they didn't do so thoroughly and the capitalized name is already widespread. With these new 5x phones the paradigm has shifted from uppercase to lowercase. CaseyPenk (talk) 20:14, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable Sources[edit]

Ive looked through the reliable sources not tech or blogs in the UK and Independent,The Telegraph, The Scotsman, SKY, BBC, Guardian, Daily Record, The Sun, Daily Mirror, The Metro, Evening Standard, Daily Mail, Daily Express, Financial Times, The Times, Daily Star, Herald, Ev Telegraph. In short thats all the reliable sources I've tried so far.

Im not American so i dont know most of the agencies over there but looking at the mainstream American sources again reliable main stream media not tech or blogs. NY TImes, CNN, New York Daily, Chigago Tribune, USA Today, Fox News, Time, ABC.Blethering Scot 20:38, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • CNN, USA Today (*especially*), Fox News, and ABC often stray into casual news and pop culture gossip; they are most certainly not tech experts. The Time link appears to be a blog entry. I believe NY Daily News is a tabloid - sensational and not very accurate. I give credence to NYT and Chicago Tribune because of their editorial standards and broader perspective (thinking beyond just trivial headlines), but tech blogs are equally if not more reliable when reporting on tech. CaseyPenk (talk) 20:42, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your hilarious with your commentary, casual or non causual which is your opinion not fact they are reliable sources. Tech blogs are not an indication of notability nor are blogs a reliable source. All reliable source media in the UK use capital and looking around it seems most countries are the same. Being a tech expert is not needed in this case what is needed is reliable sources. These are reliable sources whether tabloid or broadsheet. Blogs are not reliable at all.Blethering Scot 20:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "nor are blogs a reliable source" Where does WP:RS state that? CaseyPenk (talk) 20:56, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article needs to return to the capital 5S[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move. -- tariqabjotu 02:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IPhone 5s → IPhone 5S – Its clear looking at reliable sources and by reliable i mean non tech blogs that these reliable sources use the capital. rather than lower case. See all of the following Independent,The Telegraph, The Scotsman, SKY, BBC, Guardian, Daily Record, The Sun, Daily Mirror, The Metro, Evening Standard, Daily Mail, Daily Express, Financial Times, The Times, Daily Star, Herald, Ev Telegraph NY TImes, CNN, New York Daily, Chigago Tribune, USA Today, Fox News, Time, ABC. In addition the precedent set with previous versions of the iphone all use the capital as well. See IPhone 3G IPhone 3GS, IPhone 4S. We need to look at reliable sources not simply tech blogs which are never considered reliable or notable. Blethering Scot 20:57, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strongly oppose. The previous iPhones had different naming schemes; this and the 5c are the first iPhones with lowercase model numbers. Also, tech blogs are most certainly reliable in this case. CaseyPenk (talk) 21:01, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thats not exactly true is it.Blethering Scot 21:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just to prove the point regarding the precedent. Apple call the iPhone 4S the 4s on their official site.[10].Blethering Scot 21:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apple just started referring to it as the lowercase 4s yesterday, to match with the 5s/5c. Prior to yesterday, it was the 4S. CaseyPenk (talk) 21:28, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously! There is clear precedent here that has to be taken into consideration in addition to the considerable source evidence. You've made your point considerably rightly or wrongly and its time to leave it and see what others think. Thats the point of an RM and given you moved the article against consensus it should have been moved back point blank as controversial and taken to an RM. The burden of proof as said below is therefore on you and the case is unconvincing but time to leave it like i am and leave to all the uninvolved editors who this RM will attract. Blethering Scot 21:52, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article was moved yesterday with little discussion. There seems to be at least a general agreement that the title should be 5S not 5s. In addition, this would be consistent with both articles iPhone 3GS and iPhone 4S. Furthermore both this article and the iPhone 5c article were started as both iPhone 5S and iPhone 5C, so the burden of proof should fall on the editor or editors who wish to argue for lowercase per WP:RETAIN. JOJ Hutton 19:51, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"There is clear precedent here"
Yes it does precedent has to be taken into consideration along side the high level of reliable sourced in evidence here. Your are picking and choosing and as i said this RM should and will run people will make there opinions stop replying to every single persons point made. The closing admin does not need to here all the crap thirty odd times. Once is enough. You are seriously boring me now so as i said the last time good night and good luck with proving that your controversial move from the original title was correct.Blethering Scot 22:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have a good night too. CaseyPenk (talk) 22:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The jury is out on the proper title - see this article (I also mentioned it above) regarding the capitalization. CaseyPenk (talk) 19:53, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The burden lies on the editor who wishes to make the name change from its original. The original was capitalized. It should go back to that. And then if you still wish to have it lowercase, then you should request an RM. JOJ Hutton 19:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I retract my opposition. Keep it at iPhone 5s. MOS:TM advises us to "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official", as long as this is a style already in widespread use, rather than inventing a new one." By staying with 5S, we are inventing a new style, as many sites are (as noted) switching to 5s. Additionally, "5s" is a model number, not a word. How a model code is formatted does not matter, since its not a word (and need not follow "standard [...] capitalization rules"). And I know you're getting tired of the Nintendo examples, but we gladly allow Nintendo DSi. Same situation. (thenagain, a certain company made a lowercase "i" synonymous with "internet") ViperSnake151  Talk  20:22, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • *Picks jaw up from the floor* This was the last thing I ever expected. Thank you for pointing out the MOSTM page - that provides some good guidance. I would say there is no "standard" way to format a model number like this; English conventions don't specify which way to go. Thank you for your willingness to consider the other side; it's a good example for the rest of us, myself included. CaseyPenk (talk) 20:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Personally the way i read MOS:TM i would go the opposite way.Blethering Scot 21:00, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So do I – I think they say quite specifically the opposite, as per other comments made referring to them. I suggest you re-read them ViperSnake151, as you are seemingly misunderstanding what they actually mean. Jimthing (talk) 06:35, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support: My reading of MOS:TM indicates that it's mostly silent on this issue. The only thing I can see is this line: "Using all caps is preferred if the letters are pronounced individually, even if they don't stand for anything.". The decapitalisation of "4S" indicates it's a style choice more than anything. I would wait a while to see how RSes capitalise it. Sceptre (talk) 22:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Although common usage will probably gradually gravitate toward one side or the other (or toward whatever CNET goes with), current usage is still skewed strongly toward 5S: [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]. WP:UCN says "We do not know what terms will be used in the future, but only what is and has been in use, and is therefore familiar to our readers." I personally would support moving the iPhone 4S to "4s" or any other article incl. iPad mini if third-party sources would call it that (when pigs fly...). Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 00:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Erm, sorry, but that's never going to happen. As discussed ad nauseam(!)... iPad Mini and iPod Touch use 'non-branded' naming, thus are correctly following proper English language noun naming convention of all caps for first letter, with an added sentence in their lead about how Apple stylise them, which concisely clarifies the situation. Jimthing (talk) 03:31, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus can change. CaseyPenk (talk) 04:21, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing to do with this discussion, whatsoever. Jimthing (talk) 06:32, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The MOS as Wikipedia's house style it is subject to change and very flexible per IAR (e.g. Tech N9ne, DEFCON, WiMAX). Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 04:25, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support it's how the phone is more commonly referred to. Hot Stop talk-contribs 01:30, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly support. iPhone 5S for sure, for many decent thought-out non-onesided external link-bait reasons!: (1) naming fits-in with previous models on WP, whilst still a judgement call (as this is only a convenience factor, and not WP policy for naming), but for legibility and consistency between articles, capital would thus be better, (2) the plural of iPhone 5 is often iPhone 5s, (3) as per countless previous discussions I've been involved in with regards to Apple product naming; we do NOT have to use the Apple 'branding' stylised version(!) (e.g. we use iPod Touch not iPod touch – not exactly the same but for similar reasons – in that case it's following proper English first-letter cap'd grammar for nouns), in this case MOS:TM says "Using all caps is preferred if the letters are pronounced individually, even if they don't stand for anything", (4) using links for guidance is usually entirely misleading (both over time and region found!), even if you insist on using this, "5S" seems to have the slight edge over lowercase naming.
    So overall, using uppercase has many redeeming virtues (especially following MOS:TM!) over lowercase. Jimthing (talk) 02:57, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would appreciate if you didn't refer to my links as indecent, onesided, or baiting. Please assume good faith on the part of other contributors. Thank you. CaseyPenk (talk) 04:21, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I said LINKS IN GENERAL mislead the evidential truth! Nothing to do with your sodding links in particular, which are as bad as others at attempting to prove your point. So stop getting on your high-horse with everyone and anyone that happens to disagree with you, by quoting irrelevant WP TOS at will and adding notices wrongly on their talk pages, making yourself look very stupid in the process. Jimthing (talk) 05:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, I see we have a difference of opinion. I interpret it as a personal attack when a user calls another user a "fucking idiot." Perhaps you see it differently? CaseyPenk (talk) 05:24, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You accused me of warring on my talk page without checking the FACTS concerned (similar to what you're doing here really isn't it, so you obviously make a habit of doing so repeatedly!) – so unsurprisingly, yes you were making a complete and utter idiot of yourself, by misappropriating the adding of notices to users pages without correct justification for doing so. Stop attempting to show-off, showing other experienced users links to WP policy pages they already know about that have absolutely no baring on what they did or said, and stop issuing notices to other users before having the correct justification for doing so. Thank you. Jimthing (talk) 06:24, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Was going to support, but it's clear that Apple is using the lowercase. Jdc1197 - (talk · userpage · contributions), 18:50, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately that's not what the rules on WP say, so is not correct analysis of the issues concerned. See previous comments from many users now... concerning using correct full capitalisation under WP rules, to reiterate MOS:TM says "Using all caps is preferred if the letters are pronounced individually, even if they don't stand for anything", as well as the major issue of iPhone 5 plural being exactly the same "iPhone 5s" which is going to cause a great deal of confusion when writing prose in a huge number of articles about the iPhone and related topics, and then another issue of WP not using "branding" versions of names wherever possible when we can easily follow correct English noun capitalisation (e.g.'s we use iPod Touch NOT the branded "iPod touch", iPad (3rd generation) & iPad (4th generation) NOT the branded "The new iPad" for both models, etc.]. Instead we have historically been able to deal with this issue efficiently by simply using a sentence in the LEAD to explain any branding, e.g. "often stylised as iPod touch", so there is clear precedence for how to handle this using caps across WP for very good reasons. We have to think LONGTERM about the site, not short-term branding decisions that are likely to cause many clarity problems in future across the site. Thanks. Jimthing (talk) 21:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as per WP:RS, etc. Red Slash 02:48, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Can we PLEASE decide this later and not now. Remember Apple originally marketed the 3GS as 3G "S" they changed it after reviews pronounced as 3GS.Justinhu12 (talk) 10:00, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment"' - Just wait! We should see what way the media leans towards (ie 5s or 5S)
  • Support the return of the articles original name to the iPhone 5S. And I oppose the fact that this article was previously moved without discussion, then the redirect was immediately edited with some bogus edit, which prevented the article from simply being moved back. So now we have to go through this RM which we shouldn't have had to do in the first place. MOS:TM clearly states that letters that are pronounced individually should be capitalized. JOJ Hutton 21:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Per MOS:TM.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:14, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I asked for some clarification on how 5s/5S applies within MOS:TM; Croctotheface said that in relation to my assertion that the capitalization rule is more about acronyms or otherwise capitalized words (and not about strings which aren't really words), "either one fits pretty comfortably within standard English". ViperSnake151  Talk  22:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since I got tagged, I may as well comment for myself! I think that either one will work fine as far as MOSTM is concerned, so the decision probably comes down to whatever preferences people have. I'd probably go with "5S", for consistency with similarly named iPhone models, because a capital S more strongly suggests the letter S, and because "5s" kind of reads like "fives." I can envision arguments for "5s" that are reasonable, though I don't find them as compelling. If it turns out that I'm wrong, and over time sources indicate that standard English usage calls for "5S" and not "5s," then I'd make a much stronger recommendation. Croctotheface (talk) 11:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • support it's not pronounced "i-phone fives" itss pronounced "i-phone five es". as in 5 and S. although officially with miniscule, its far too intrusive for them to use miniscule S. and the same for wikipedia. and the same goes for iPhone 5c, as sources do use capital C.Lucia Black (talk) 18:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

iPhone image color?[edit]

Should we keep the color of the iPhone in the image Gold or should someone get the black version? Justinhu12 (talk) 04:24, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I believe the image is a mockup, so the user who created it could conceivably mock up a differently-colored version. You might want to ask Zach Vega. CaseyPenk (talk) 04:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have them both created, but this is simply a case of WP:JDLI applied to files. Zach Vega (talk to me) 11:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, good job Zach, very nicely done! I think the white/gold is probably best of those two for good reasons: firstly, it's obviously the first model to use this colour scheme (the other two are very similar to the previous gen iPhone 5, aren't they), and secondly, you can see the plain button detail with the Touch ID ring on the white version much better (certainly compared to the black colour), which is the 'tentpole' new function added to the iPhone 5S. Good stuff. Jimthing (talk) 21:20, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support whichever model is most recognizable i.e. whichever color sells the most. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 21:44, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well that's gonna be clear then: I suspect white/gold it is, lol! Jimthing (talk) 22:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK Justinhu12 (talk) 03:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fingerprint scanner - privacy/security issues[edit]

The article should consider in more depth the possible privacy/security issues with the fingerprint scanner.

Does the NSA (and GCHQ) already have the ‘key’ to your iPhone?

If you have visited the USA in about the last 10 years, on clearing immigration you will have to have given the US a (digital) copy of your fingerprints.

So, if your fingerprints are to be the new ‘key’ to the iPhone (and other future gadgets to follow), who exactly has a copy of that ‘key’?

If the NSA already has the ‘key’ to your iPhone, it is not a great leap to imagine that software could be made so that that ‘key’ could be used remotely to access your data.

It has already been shown that these Governmental agencies have an unquenchable thirst to spy on their own citizens (let alone people outside of their country).

Likewise, if you obtained a UK biometric passport (or an UK ID card) then GCHQ will have a digital copy of your fingerprints. Also, in the UK, if you were arrested (but were never convicted of an offense), then the police have the right to take and keep your fingerprints.

If finger print technology becomes the gold standard means of authenticating your identity (e.g. to access email, banking as well as phone data), then your fingerprints could become the ultimate ‘skeleton key’ for all your data.

Again, the question remains, who already has that data and who could get a hold of it?

Unlike passwords, a fingerprint cannot be ‘reset’

What happens if your fingerprint data becomes compromised?

In traditional security systems, when a password has been cracked, it is a small matter to reset your password (or passwords). However, you can never ‘reset’ a fingerprint. If compromised, your finger prints will remain a permanent open backdoor to your personal security.

It seems that some people are happy for the UK Government (and successive Governments) to have such data, and to be spied on by them. However, what happens if someone else gets a copy of your fingerprints?

High-tech criminal fraud is already big business worldwide and criminal gangs are particularly adept at hacking, and so might actively seek to get your finger print data. With the advent of iPhone5S and iTunes allowing purchases using fingerprint data (and further business models no doubt set to follow) criminal gangs will be incentivized like never before to get your fingerprint data.

In the future, there may be more value in stealing your phone for its fingerprint data than stealing the phone itself. As for the phone re-sale market, you will have to be pretty sure that your fingerprint data is gone, or you may lose considerably more than you made selling your phone.

If your fingerprint data became compromised, perhaps you could try to block the use of your fingerprints as a means of authentication, but you would need to notify every person, business, and governmental organ that your fingerprints have been compromised. Good luck with that!

In the future, if fingerprints become the standard means of authenticating your identity, then you should take great care who you give that data to now, if stolen your life could become very difficult in the future.

iSpy an iPhone?

122.150.200.116 (talk) 11:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very compelling case directed at horrible topics such as government surveillance and theft. It would serve much better in the article itself, with citations, of course. Do you want us to add some of this information?Zach Vega (talk to me) 22:54, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I'll look up some references! 122.150.200.116 (talk) 12:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also: Senator Al Franken, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology and the Law, has written to Apple boss Tim Cook explaining his security concerns: [22] 122.150.200.116 (talk) 11:12, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

5th generation; not 7th[edit]

If this is 7th generation, then what makes the iPhone 5C? 6.5th generation? In that case I think that this phone is 5.5th generation and the iPhone 5 is the 5th generation phone. Giggett (talk) 18:55, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've seen, Wikipedia is the only one trying to count "generations" of iPhones. I believe this generation system is original research and should be removed from each article that includes it. - Josh (talk | contribs) 20:29, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure this is the 7th iPhone:
Phone Number / Generation
iPhone (2007) 1
iPhone 3G (2008) 2
iPhone 3GS (2009) 3
iPhone 4 (2010) 4
iPhone 4S (2011) 5
iPhone 5 (2012) 6
iPhone 5C (2013) 6
iPhone 5S (2013) 7
The iPhone 5C is completely separate from this release cycle, as it is a different series. Zach Vega (talk to me) 22:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really understand how the naming and whats considered part of the same series. Why is iPhone 5C not part of the general series???Lucia Black (talk) 00:49, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The iPhone 5C is a lower-end phone and does not succeed the iPhone 5, while the iPhone 5S does. Zach Vega (talk to me) 01:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You would think of the 5C as a variant of the iPhone 5, same series just different variant.Cky2250 (talk) 19:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. The 5S is the 7th gen, while the 5C would be classed as 6th gen being just an almost identical internally variant of the original 5. Jimthing (talk) 06:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, the 5S is 7th gen, the 5 and 5C both use the A6, each generarion they just change the AX SoC. --TheGoldenBox (talk) 11:59, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stock Shortages[edit]

Are the major stock shortages for launch worth mentioning.[23][24]Blethering Scot 19:17, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it isn't for a marketing ploy, as in they purposely made a shortage to make everyone want to buy it day one, I would say it would be worth it for historic reasons.Cky2250 (talk) 19:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, defo worth mentioning, as there have been hardly any available, and so this has been reported upon in the press widely accordingly. My incidental example...
1.) I was ~60th out of around 350-400 people queuing in the UK outside a medium-sized Apple Store, and they had sold out of ALL the gold and silver models and the 32 and 64GB blacks too, by around the 50th person queuing in front of me, thus leaving only ONE of the nine variants of 5S models left! I and most of the others behind me had to walk away with nothing as we either couldn't get anything near the size/colour we wanted or wouldn't get ANYTHING, as they'd all gone (I hung around and literally saw 90% leave after I had with nothing!) — many shocked and highly annoyed we had been kept there queuing unnecessarily for two hours by staff who knew the low stock levels yet did nothing to advise queuers of the situation, when they came out two hours earlier to check the line outside (clearly we were being used as an Apple marketing toy, what with zero online pre-orders, to make the launch publicity look good!). This story was repeated across stores in the first launch countries.
2.) Given the stocks were ultra-low, with queues around the block, Apple also continued to allow a "two-units per person" for physical store pickups on launch day. So some got two units, with others near behind getting none?!
3.) Just as extra kick in the head for those in line; following being told of no stocks in store, customers in line also then missed-out on getting a good delivery date on attempting to quickly order online instead: by then the online shipping had changed to "October" from the initial "7-10 days"!?
4.) To cap-off all this mishandling of stock failures, Apple continue to fail in having a backup stock availability email system in place at their physical stores either, so those customers in line who missed-out on launch day (and afterwards, of course), could sign-up to be emailed by their local Apple Store when they have one available for them on a strictly first-come first-served basis, for them to pick-up within 24-48 hours, as they did last year. So anyone wanting one from a physical store, is expected to GUESS when stock might be there, and then be really lucky to also happen to be there when the stock happens to be?! (i.e. pure luck, and entirely unfair.)
5.) Also, US customers have an exclusively US-only online reservation system, for in-store pickup—an option not made available to customers outside the US for our own physical Apple Stores—making Apple look completely unfair abroad. (yes, being a US company/their home market/largest [non-Chinese] market: US customers should get stocks first. But why not have a fair queuing reservation system for the rest of us outside the US??)
Overall, a stupid and appallingly bad way to treat customers. Low stock is low stock; customers can live with that. But whoever thought-up this entirely unfair (especially outside the US!) distribution system should be fired! Jimthing (talk) 03:20, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should not be capital S in the title[edit]

I know there has been a discussion above about this which put in capital S, but the Apple site use a small s. We should copy what is out there not make up things. See for instance [25] where it is clearly iPhone 5s. Dmcq (talk) 07:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BTW here's a funny article complaining about it. Dmcq (talk) 07:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, we had a lengthy debate about this. But because the letters are pronounced individually, they have to be capitalized. Apple's use of a lower-case s is stylization, and we're not supposed to do that in titles. ViperSnake151  Talk  14:53, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that and I saw nothing justifying what you say either in that stylization must not be copied or that a capital S must be put in if it is pronounced. Dmcq (talk) 16:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The manual of style on trademarks clearly states that letters that are pronounced individually should be capitalized. Zach Vega (talk to me) 17:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the "Using all caps is preferred if the letters are pronounced individually, even if they don't stand for anything. For instance, use SAT for the (U.S.) standardized test or KFC for the fast food restaurant"? I notice they didn't include the next sentence "Using all lowercase letters may likewise be acceptable if it is done universally by sources, such as with xkcd". So what are the reliable sources for the name? For instance does Asteroid named after Randall "XKCD" Munroe mean that since it is not universal it should now be all caps? Or should we accept Apple's own usage and those publications who have actually commented on this? Dmcq (talk) 18:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All as previously discussed. Discussion is over. The end. Jimthing (talk) 21:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The previous discussion started with saying that the majority of reliable sources used capital S. A quick check with Google will show that situation has been completely reversed, small s is now by far more prevalent. Dmcq (talk) 22:08, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'd say this issue is very much still open. As mentioned 's' is more prevalent now in the media. I understand the logic behind the arguments above but in actuality I think we're two sides in an argument that both hold an irrational preference toward one or another. The fact that a majority verdict achievable has been called does not mean that the subject shouldn't at some stage be revisited, especially as I can see the media driving convention as it has with iOS – which by the aforementioned logic should be rendered IOS. 90.152.3.242 (talk) 12:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I'm actually still open to this. Press coverage has steered conclusively toward Apple's marketing team's spelling and last week I bought an iPhone "4s" from someone. This battle is won, we're just the last holdouts. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 09:38, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"The last holdouts" as you call them are still correct, as WP guidelines make it clear the S should remain capitalised under English-language rules for doing so, regardless of any other website in the world using a smaller S or not just to emulate Apple's branding/marketing campaign. Jimthing (talk) 06:04, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lead paragraph[edit]

Why does the lead have so much iOS information? Here it is:

The device is supplied with iOS 7, the seventh version of Apple's iOS mobile operating system, which is based on the concept of direct manipulation, using multi-touch gestures. Interface control elements consist of sliders, switches, and buttons. Interaction with the OS includes gestures such as swipe, tap, pinch, and reverse pinch, all of which have specific definitions in the context of the iOS operating system and its multi-touch interface. New features in iOS 7 include Control Center, AirDrop, iTunes Radio, and a new flat design directed by Jonathan Ive.

I thought the opener should focus on the device, not its software. The first sentence is fine. Frmorrison (talk) 20:26, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An editor undid my stripped down version of the lead because apparently, all iPhone articles have to re-explain everything about the device in order to meet Featured Article criteria. ViperSnake151  Talk  21:51, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I phone 5s[edit]

My phone has facebook and when i log into it says cant connect to sever ,,, anybody help me fix problem >please — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.85.53.224 (talk) 23:31, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place to ask for help, either check the support at fb.com or apple.com, thanks. 192.33.96.147 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:25, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox way too long[edit]

I understand the point of the infobox to be providing a quick summary of the phone's key features. Specifically a full listing of release dates in every country seems like overkill, and even some of the other stuff (e.g. the camera software capabilities, or the listing of every LTE band supported) seem to clutter what should be a summary - especially on m.wikipedia.org. Thoughts? Tag (talk) 07:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Number 57 11:21, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]


As mentioned by editors earlier, a large amount of reliable sources have begun to adopt Apple's convention of referring to the name of this smartphone device as "iPhone 5s" rather than "iPhone 5S". A proposed change to MOS:TM will allow such forms to be used if they are "consistently used by a clear majority of high level, independent sources". Additionally, I, upon further review, still do not think "5s" is a violation of MOS:TM even right now, because "5s" is not a word, it is a model number—hence it does not have to follow standard English-language formatting.

If this move is approved, it will be interpreted as consensus for iPhone 4s and iPhone 5c as well. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see discussion below regarding other moves. Andrewa (talk) 03:25, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
strike double !vote. RedSlash innocently forgot his prior comment and provides a fuller rationale below. Xoloz (talk) 20:28, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hahaha! Wow. Yes, this RM has been open a long time. Hey, at least I !voted the same way each time! Shout-out and a big thank-you to Xoloz for catching my mistake. Red Slash 07:55, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It's six months since the last RM and things have changed significantly. Andrewa (talk) 03:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "things have changed significantly" ...erm, nope. The guidelines are exactly the same, and they're what WP editors follow. Jimthing (talk) 15:39, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, twice over: This is premature and seems to be WP:FORUMSHOPping. If there's a proposed change to MOS:TM, let that proposal come to consensus, and then see what that consensus suggests we do here. Also, absolutely nothing at all at WP:ASTONISH has anything to do with this case. There's nothing "astonishing" about minor typographical quibbles in a model number in a device name. Apple's use is frankly weird, and I'd bet good money that most people if asked would not know taht Apple want s you to use lower case there.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I have relisted this, and also converted it to a multi-move proposal. Armbrust The Homunculus 15:47, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose moving 4S as the phone was originally released with that name and is still primarily referred to as such. Neutral on moving the others. Some evidence to support the claim the lowercased titles are now generally preferred by reliable sources is needed. Calidum Talk To Me 16:26, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone is still following this discussion, I now strongly oppose all moves requested. It's been a full two months since this request started and not a single thread of evidence has been shown to even begin to support the claims made that 5s, 5c, and 4s are now more commonly used in reliable sources than their uppercased counterparts. In addition, the 4S has been added, removed, and re-added (I may have missed a step in there) during this discussion, which makes me question if everyone who !voted was aware the 4S is now being included. This really needs to be shutdown so we can have a nice, orderly discussion in a couple months. Calidum Talk To Me 02:49, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support moves of all three per WP:COMMONNAME. Just Google it. And usage by Apple[26]. Obvious. --B2C 23:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all but 4s: Just to be aware, I actually do not endorse "4s", because "4S" was the original name, and it should adhere to that. ViperSnake151  Talk  00:25, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The premise of this proposal is just wrong. Simple assertions that one form has supplanted another, don't exactly demonstrate a common name. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 00:51, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I call WP:BLP... Biography of a Living Phone. It wants to be called 4s. Who are we to correct it? --B2C 01:06, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • BLP is exactly that: Biography of a Living PERSON. I take it this user is not taking the RM seriously to make such a fundamentally wrong comment. Jimthing (talk) 15:39, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Think different. Common name is a very good policy to have. I think I've seen you vigorously defend it yourself. It keeps companies from exerting too much control on their brands, and free from editor-bias. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 04:52, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Are these letters the abbreviation of something? If yes, it might need to be capitalised. Coreyemotela (talk) 12:43, 3 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • Support. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia that's supposed to contain articles that reflect reality. Apple is the manufacturer of products that it calls the 4s, 5c and 5s. I find it weird that we're even having this discussion Alex Muller 19:03, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The guidelines are what we follow, and they have been considered for serious reasons. "reflect(ing) reality" is not exactly an argument based on those guidelines now is it. Jimthing (talk) 15:39, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It will reflect reality to the extent that reality reflects Apple's preference. At least attempt to demonstrate the official term is more common. Otherwise we cannot even begin to have this conversation. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 09:39, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Making this about what's more common isn't the correct thing to do in this case. If 3rd party sources refer to the phones as the 5C or 5S they're simply wrong because those are not the model numbers that were assigned by the manufacturer (I acknowledge the 4s/4S is a more difficult conversation) Alex Muller 08:49, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
CNET has chosen to explicitly not use Apple's preference. I'm going to assume you would agree that CNET is a very reliable source. It is not consistent to say that the authoritative source in the industry can't even get the name right, and is still a reliable source. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 23:34, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here are 3 pages on cnet.com that use the lowercase variant: [27] [28] [29]. They're inconsistent so I don't consider them a reliable source for the naming of the product. Alex Muller 12:11, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the part of the WP guidelines we are following anyway, so is irrelevant. We are following proper English language usage rules for correct capitalisation, and not Apple's ones, which are marketing stylization choices only. Jimthing (talk) 15:39, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (All) - Due to the fact that Apple themselves have been using lowercase letters for may years. For all of the proposed moves, that is indeed how Apple format their iPhone names. Evidence: here. (And I understand that they used to title iPhone 3GS, and iPhone 4S - both with capitals, but they no longer do that. They now use a lowercase 's' for iPhone 4s) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Limbsaw (talk • contribs) 13:24, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We don't use names by the fact itself that they are official, and in all cases with Apple, we have chosen to go with names that are either more common or are supported by the manual of style (e.g. iPod Touch, iPad Mini, iPhone 3GS, 4S, 5C, 5S). Mark Schierbecker (talk) 23:34, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, the RULES are what should be followed here, not people's 'perceptions' of what they feel is right, while not following said rules. Otherwise following this logic, if it was the "i P h o n e •••5 s• • •" on Apple's marketing site, we'd then be using that in the whole article, which would quite frankly be appalling to read throughout an article (except a comment in the lead), in what is supposed to be an authoritative encyclopedia. Jimthing (talk) 15:39, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support because RS's are starting more and more to follow. Red Slash 22:52, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose STRONGLY. This RM is automatically ENTIRELY INVALIDATED! It's a proposal based on FUTURE policy that has NO traction whatsoever, and there are certainly no plans to implement it either! By suggesting assumptions of so-called "future policy", as said above already by SMcCandlish, this is entirely a form of WP:FORUMSHOP and is completely against WP policy on behaviour for such RMs. It is not an appropriate RM to be proposing in the first place on such false and misleading pretenses. Just as saying it's only a model number is also wrong; it is a NAME (the "iPhone 5S"), not just an model number, hence should follow standard English-language formatting; again entirely misleading RM intro notes by a proposer who should know better. (As an additional aside for those interested, this article http://tidbits.com/article/14099 sums-up Apple's cock-eyed "BRANDING" versions of their product names which we should most certainly NOT be adopting for an encyclopdia, and hence why we have the lead for such typographical info that does the job perfectly well already, and stops the pluralisation issues dead!) Jimthing (talk) 05:49, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all per B2C. Claims of forum shopping strike me as silly. It isn't entirely clear what "standard English capitalization" rules would require in the case of these phones, because it is unclear whether they are model numbers. As such, it is questionable whether the concerns raised regarding WP:TM even apply. As a policy, COMMONNAME obviously applies: under it, it is entirely reasonable for a consensus to conclude that the lowercase forms are most used in reliable sources; and thus, these forms are also the most appropriate encyclopedic titles. I almost closed this RM myself, as I think consensus has formed in this direction; but, I decided it was wiser to voice my opinion instead. Xoloz (talk) 20:24, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not correct, I wish people would actually bother to read the WP guidelines when making comments. Standard English capitalisation is perfectly clear what it is; there is no "conjecture" whatsoever. And as for being "per B2C" is ludicrous as WP:BLP is for living PERSONS, hence irrelevant to this RM. As has been said by more than one regular user here, this is clearly forum shopping, and trying to make a case BEFORE any (or rather, IF any, as such a change is unlikely) change to the guidelines were to be implemented. So accordingly, opening an RM beforehand is entirely invalid. We use the lead for such typographical stylisations for very good reason, as it stops filling the site with needless artificial "branding" gobbledegook in text that should be clear and authoritative to the reader, and not the whims of companies and their marketing departments weird typographical stylisation choices. Jimthing (talk) 15:05, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do note that we allow the similarly formatted Nintendo DSi without it being capitalized (even though it is affected by the "'i' stands for 'internet'" paradigm, which Apple pretty much invented). Also I took the 4S off the proposal; it was merely retconned as "4s" following the release of the 5s and 5c. It was never originally marketed as "4s", but "4S". However, 5c and 5s were never officially marketed with capital letters; they were only capitalized by sources who wished to maintain consistency with previous models. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:42, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Then it's likely wrong too according to WP guidelines: two wrongs don't make a right – we're not talking about that product anyway. And as has been said infinitum, the LEAD deals with typographical stylisations concisely and easily and stops the back-and-forth continual editing or confusion (for the iPhone 5S especially, the issue of pluralisation confusion that using such stylisation would make: "...many iPhone 5s have been sold..."). Jimthing (talk) 17:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Jimthing, it is an uncertain matter whether "5S" is an English word of any kind, or an Apple model number. You boldly assert that it is obviously the former, and that's fine. Ultimately, though, it is consensus that will determine (for Wikipedia purposes, anyway) how to regard that signifier, "5S". If consensus decides that the term is nothing more than a model number, then no standard rules of English grammar would exist for it, and resort would be made to COMMONNAME to determine the stylized form most often used in reliable sources. When I cited our colleague, User:Born2cycle, I was referring to his rationale regarding COMMONNAME, and not to the simple joke beneath his original !vote. No change to any guideline is necessary; thus, your worry of forum-shopping is misplaced. Per longstanding practice, when judging individual articles, consensus discussions may choose how to apply various policies and guidelines. It would be entirely reasonable for a consensus to conclude that WP:MOSTM is inapplicable, because no standard rules of capitalization exist for a model number like 5s. You (or I) may dislike the determination finally rendered by consensus; but, there is nothing "invalid" in allowing a consensus decision on an issue that concerns the borderline between policies, or the applicability of a policy in an unclear case. Xoloz (talk) 22:36, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • To start with WP isn't a !vote (WP:VOTE), and any "consensus" done on misconstrued concepts of guidelines is doubly incorrect – nevermind proposed (ie. probably not going to happen) guidelines. Secondly, the facts being made are also entirely wrong: "model number" of the iPhone 5S is A1533/A1453/A1457/A1528/A1530 (depending on regional version), with "model identifier" being 6,1 (GSM) or 6,2 (GSM/CDMA), so it's very premise is complete bunkum that "iPhone 5S is the model number" (oh, and it's the whole title "iPhone 5S" not just the "5S" part either, as per the current page title, and that of all iPhones). Thirdly, the proposer is attempting this RM on the concept of "a proposed change to MOS:TM" – now last time I checked, we most certainly do not make page titles under "proposed" changes, otherwise anyone could make the case for any change on some kind of "future" that is far from agreed upon, and as it stands, is in fact very much against doing so. It's got nothing to do with whether any user "dislikes the determination", or what looks nice, or anything else – it's the guidelines as they are that's the important thing, and consistency in their application. Jimthing (talk) 01:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Same as last time. Our guidelines are clear. We need to have a moratorium from having these move requests.--JOJ Hutton 02:55, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

I wouldn't take the poll above as a justification for moving iPhone 4s and iPhone 5c, on procedural grounds. It should have been raised as a multi-move if that's the intent. Assuming we do have consensus to move (we seem to), the options now are:

  • Relist with a manual heads-up on the talk pages of the other affected pages (this heads-up is what a multi-move does, automatically).
  • Just do this move and raise a fresh multi-move for the others.
  • Invoke WP:SNOW and do all three.

In view of the previous failed and much discussed RM not so long ago, the relatively few participants here so far, and the GA status of one of the other affected articles, I'd take the first option. Tempted to do so... I can't do either of the others now anyway, of course. Andrewa (talk) 03:35, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

None of the above. There is no snowball here; 2 to 1 with 3 !votes, and I bet that would flip if MOS:TM were notified of this discussion. Whether meant that way or not, this is an abuse of process that would have the WP:FAITACCOMPLI effect, even if not the actual intent, to force through precisely the kind of potentially controversial move under discussion at MOS:TM. And no, you wouldn't need a relaunch this as a multi-page nom RM, if consensus at MO:TM clearly changes to favor such a move, and this RM, after that, agrees that that change applies to this sort of case. At that point, 100% of the logic here will apply to other iPhone models with the same sort of name, so the 4S/4s would be a non-controversial move at that point.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the issue of pluralization issues, can't we append it with "phones" or "devices" either? (i.e. Apple sold 2 million iPhone 5s phones during its first two hours of sales). The same guideline also suggests against using, for instance, "Rolexes" as a plural for Rolex watches. ViperSnake151  Talk  23:32, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Capitalization questions (again)[edit]

I only recently learned that Apple and Wikipedia differed about how iPhone 5 products should be capitalized. It wasn't clear why, with only this explanation in the article: "iPhone 5S (marketed with a stylized lowercase 's' as iPhone 5s)". This seemed to me that Apple had named it "iPhone 5S" but advertised it as "iPhone 5s". Why would they do that? And no citation or footnote. Evidently I'm not the only one confused, since the question gets raised again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again. The talk pages spend a lot of time on this.

I can see that some of us are very tired of this discussion and want the talking to be over now. I'm not prepared to devote my life to this, but this doesn't seem settled.

  1. Argument: The Manual of Style says "all caps is preferred if the letters are pronounced individually," unless sources universally use lowercase.
  2. Argument: "iPhone 5s" is the plural for multiple iPhone 5 devices.
    • Shouldn't we just avoid using "iPhone 5s" for plurals anyway, since "5s" is already in widespread use as the model name? Can we avoid this, instead saying something like "iPhone 5 devices" or "iPhone 5 units?" (more ideas below)
    • Do plural forms usually work well with model numbers/identifiers? Couldn't the 's' seem like part of the model identifier, e.g., iPhone 3Gs, iPhone 4Ss? (This is the only WP article where I've seen "iPhone 5Ss," which looks awkward.) John Gruber likes the NY Times Manual of Style, which would give "iPhone 5S's," but is that allowed here at WP? Grammar Girl suggests "iPhone 5Ses" (which has some precedent), which looks I think is awkward and might look like an extension of the model name (Macintosh IIxes)? Pick your poison, I guess. Apparently, this is a problem with various brand names.
  3. Argument: "5S" and "5C" conform with Wikipedia's uniform style, which is not dictated by corporate interests like Apple.
    • How do we make this clear to the reader, and stop the flood of questions (myself included)? In the statement, "(marketed with a stylized lowercase 's' as iPhone 5s)," should the word "marketed" be replaced with "branded" or "named?" Perhaps a footnote pointing out the WP style (citing MOS:TMRULES)?
    • Since several sources have discussed this very battle over capitalization, should the article mentioned it? Lifehacker, TidBITS, Daring Fireball, iDownloadBlog, Popular Mechanics
  4. Argument: "5S" is more commonly used in sources.
    • How do we know that? We can't quantify all the numerous sources, but my impression is that "5S" is somewhat more common. Sometimes the same publisher uses both.
  5. Argument: "5S" follows the pattern set by the iPhone 4S, which was capitalized. This provides continuity and uniformity, which Apple acknowledged when it tried to rebrand to the "4s".
    • Is it vital that related models have uniform names? If Apple rebranded to "iphone 7", would WP still call it "iPhone 7?" [30]

——Rich jj (talk) 21:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents: The opposition to the move request above (I'm not familiar with previous discussions) was based primarily on point five about common use in sources. The nominator, and those supporting, never even bothered to show evidence supporting the use of 5s/5c over 5S/5C. I would suggest focusing on that if you intend to nominate it again. Also probably a good idea to keep the discussion for 4S separate. Calidum Talk To Me 00:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may be referring to point four. I agree that evidence was not provided showing the adoption of "5s". When I checked around, it seemed like CNN, BBC, Reuters and Ars Technica were uppercase, Macworld, Engadget and PC Magazine were lowercase, and CNET, ZDNet, NY Times, Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, The Register, The Guardian and Wired were mixed. I've seen multiple articles that have it both ways. I'm not convinced there is a clear winner, and some voters don't even want that to influence the decision, since WP maintains its own style guide. I'm not against nominating another move, but I probably won't do it. And I agree that the 4S is a separate issue. With the new models the 4S was dropped, and Apple has purged their 4S marketing. Most pages that remain (like for support) use "4S" with a couple mentions of "4s". ——Rich jj (talk) 15:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tense[edit]

An editor keeps disputing WP:COMPNOW, and confusing it with WP:TENSE (which does not apply because this is not a work of fiction). The fact that it was succeeded by the iPhone 6 does not mean that it no longer exists anymore; it is still sold and marketed by Apple, and is presumably still being produced. In fact, the iPhone 5 was the only recent iPhone model that was explicitly discontinued after the launch of a new model (i.e. the 5S) because of the 5C replacing it in its price range. ViperSnake151  Talk  05:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Uh, no, viper snake, you're wrong. I already agreed with what you said about WP:tense a long time ago, and if you would pay a little attention to your talk page, then you would see that I have even gone to the effort of thanking you for finding WP:compnow for me! I only disputed the fact that you and jo j. hutton were being irresponsible editors and just using bulldoze-reversions over my unrelated editions (that you didn't even notice existed, by the way) instead of responsibly picking out only the tense changes and reverting those (or using your bulldozer but then responsibly replacing the unrelated edition). That is where you two are actually the ones who caused things to go wrong.

SummerFunMan (talk) 00:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:IPhone 5S/GA1

Talk:IPhone 5S/GA2

Bias against s releases[edit]

Many reviewers have bias against s releases and I feel this article reflects their biases. I am okay with mentioning that reviewers believe that this is an upgraded iPhone 5 but I think it's worth mentioning that these biases exist. The article states that some reviewers have criticized the phone for being too similar to its predecessor and that is definitely worth including but of course it implies some sort of lack of changes. We should clear that up by saying reviewers have bias against s releases. 2602:306:32DF:1EC0:D922:6E4:71B4:D0A9 (talk) 23:00, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you're wanting us to explicitly state that reviewers are always critical of "S" releases because they are marginal upgrades, that would be considered original research (which is never allowed) because we are corroborating multiple sources to make a claim not explicitly made by any of them. ViperSnake151  Talk  23:48, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was just thinking that this article implies that the iPhone 5s is some sort of a minor upgrade. I am the same user just in a different location. 97.103.155.112 (talk) 01:19, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it is more apparent with iPhone 4S and iPhone 5. Reviewers said that the iPhone 4S was disappointing due to it not being a huge upgrade from the 4. No such things were said about the 5. 2602:306:32DF:1EC0:45A0:AA14:DA47:ED86 (talk) 22:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Release date in India[edit]

In the infobox, in the "Availability by country", India is listed in both September 20, 2013 and November 1, 2013. Which is correct and which is wrong? VibeScepter (talk) (contributions) 16:07, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:10, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with iPhone 5C?[edit]

The iPhone 5C was released alongside the iPhone 5S is an experimental phone. The main phone as the 5S, while the 5C came in various different products. If the other iPhones share the same page with their Plus/Max counterparts, I see no reason not merge these to into one page as well. The 5C wasn't a main iPhone, rather an experimental one, so it doesn't deserve it's own page prior to the iPhone 11 Pro and 11 Pro Max.

Well technically the 5c should be merged with the 5 not the 5s as it is the same internally, the 6 and the 6 Plus both have an A7 and therefore the same 21C117 (talk) 07:19, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Name change to 5s, not 5S[edit]

It's been 10 years since the phone has been called the 5s. Most sources properly refer to it as the 5s. Wikipedia policy is to respect casing in names. I wrote more about this on the page for the iPhone 6s that I won't repeat here. See also: Apple's list of iPhone models.

It doesn't matter that 6s sounds like the plural of 6. I happen to agree with that and think it is stupid to name a product with a lower case s at the end like this. Nikon does the same stupid thing (I used to own a Nikon 70s and now own a Nikon 300s. Dumb names! But my opinion doesn't matter. It also doesn't matter if the phone was ever called the 5S by Apple. Names get changed and Wikipedia articles are routinely updated to reflect current names (e.g., Altria, not Philip Morris). The name of the phone is clear and Wikipedia should respect it.

Therefore, I am being BOLD and changing the page and requesting a move.

RoyLeban (talk) 02:04, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:IPhone 6S which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 07:19, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion closed as "moved", iPhone{4,5,6}S pages moved to iPhone{4,5,6}s. Guy Harris (talk) 20:40, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:IPhone_5s&oldid=1213051193"