Talk:List of iPhones

Format
I think this should be formated like theiPod touch page with images and metric weights and stuff --5urd 15:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This page is in urgent need for more cowbell. --Blackbox 23:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Battery
Six rows for battery life is far too much. Can we merge this into one row? Maybe just the battery capacity in mAh? --http 10:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree --5urd 22:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Battery V2
The "DesignCapacity", reported by BatteryInfoLite on my iPhone 4S shows 1430mAh, not 1432mAh listed here. Where does the current value come from? If this battery tool does not have these values hardcoded (which I don't assume) I would trust this far more than any specification. Also the value in Wh is probably wrong; just multiply the mAh with the Voltage and you get different values than the ones listed. --http 12:30, 4 November 2012 (MST)
 * The number here is from iFixIt's tear down. As for the formula you use amps. But milliamps is what is listed. I went through and recalculated them a while back and the numbers were off on one. You can see it in th source as a comment I put. --5urd 12:46, 4 November 2012 (MST)

CDMA iPhone 4 initial firmware
I'd hate to ruin the chart, but I believe the initial firmware on the CDMA version of the iPhone 4 was 4.2.5. My friend pre ordered the Verizon iPhone 4 and it came with 4.2.5, I didn't catch the build number, but just a minor correction which probably doesn't matter. --Gamer765 05:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a pretty obscure topic; I've seen reports of some phones shipping with 4.2.5, and some with 4.2.6. For the sake of consistency (and authenticity?), I'd prefer the build number to go with the addition of 4.2.5 in the "Initial Firmware" field. If anyone has the build number, providing it would be appreciated. -- Dialexio 05:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe the version number was 4.2.5, with build number 8E128. --Gamer765 06:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This should also go into the main firmware list as well, except we can't get a hash for it since no IPSW was publicly released for the firmware. --gamer765 06:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Cache and Properties to show in general
I feel like listing the CPU cache doesn't quite fit on this page… I think it's better suited for the CPU pages. -- Dialexio 00:06, 22 September 2012 (MDT)
 * I figured if we were listing the RAM and other stuff CPU centric like cores, then the L caches would fit too. --5urd 13:08, 22 September 2012 (MDT)
 * L caches never really struck me as notable when talking about mobile CPUs or SoCs. CPU cores and RAM are often used to boast about smartphones' power, but I have never seen a mobile SoC boast about how much L1/L2/etc. cache it has. -- Dialexio 17:52, 22 September 2012 (MDT)


 * I think on this page we should list the main hardware properties only. All these features that are software-dependent don't really belong here (like HDR, Siri, Latest Firmware, etc.). Also the "rated battery life" is something subjective. We should just list the battery size in [mAh], not all these "music playback time" and that stuff. For the question about the cache, I don't care. If it's of some importance, we can list it, otherwise better leave it away. For comparison, we also don't list CPU technology, instruction set or die size. --http 11:31, 24 September 2012 (MDT)

Architecture
I want to change the information in "Architecture" to the ARM instruction set the iPhone uses (ARMv6, ARMv7, ARMv8). Both ARMv6 and ARMv7 would get lumped into "32-bit," yet their performance is notably different. "64-bit" isn't very descriptive, considering PowerPC, x86-64, Itanium, and ARMv8 can perform 64-bit processing. Obviously, none of those except ARMv8 are going to come even close to fitting in an iPhone, but just having "32-bit" and "64-bit" seems too vague. Thoughts? -- Dialexio ( talk ) 05:16, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * agreed. --http (talk) 22:09, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Design
Now that the iPhone 6 has been announced and will be added to this page, I have noticed that it will stretch over the page. I was thinking that maybe we could have a table for each device instead of one big one? Or maybe just text? What does everyone else think? Anybody got any better ideas? --iAdam1n (talk) 18:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Having one big table is very useful for comparison, however I think it should be split in half. Like one table for iPhone (original) to iPhone 4S and another one below for iPhone 5 to iPhone 6 Plus. --Jaggions (talk) 19:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If we were to do that, I think we should include the iPhone 4S in the same table as newer devices as it supports iOS 8. I have shrunk the images, and it currently fits. --iAdam1n (talk) 21:22, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I've been thinking about asking this, but never got around to it. I like the shrinking of the images, but it is a temporary fix. It won't last, but I guess no solution ever lasts forever. However, I'll Apple is going to have two firmwares for each device ( - ?), so the table will get even wider when the devices are released. If we really need to, we could add  ( s already use  ), but it may be too hard to read for some people. Guess we'll wait and see. --5urd (talk) 14:55, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * We could probably cut up the table into what is and isn't supported. (Of course, when we start seeing eleven unsupported models, it'll be time to cut that table again.)
 * While contemplating solutions, I saw how some of the information on the page may be useful, but I think the page in its current state has just way too much. (Is there really a need to compare mundane specs like L2 cache?) That being said, I think we should probably drop several rows (the information can be moved to appropriate pages) in the process, lest we want this page to become the next iTunes software license agreement. --Dialexio (talk) 15:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That sounds great to me, with or without the removal of some not so important rows. --iAdam1n (talk) 15:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That sounds great to me, with or without the removal of some not so important rows. --iAdam1n (talk) 15:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)