# Talk:IPhone 5s

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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
Lowercase @ The Verge, The Guardian, IGN, ZDNet. CaseyPenk (talk) 21:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I hope you aren't cherrypicking. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 22:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)

Agreed. Let's hold off on reverting until we reach consensus. CaseyPenk (talk) 22:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
Which part of WP:TM? Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 22:19, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
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)
Apple never called the 4S the 4s before today. Just look at Apple press releases. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 03:49, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Needs to be iPhone 5S. The iPhone 5s is plural of iPhone 5. JOJ Hutton 03:57, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


### Explanation from Lifehacker
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)

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)
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)


### Reliable Sources
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)
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)
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)
"nor are blogs a reliable source" Where does WP:RS state that? CaseyPenk (talk) 20:56, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
It's self-published blogs that are a potential problem. ViperSnake151  Talk   16:03, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)
Does it matter? Zach Vega (talk to me) 11:32, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
I support whichever model is most recognizable i.e. whichever color sells the most. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 21:44, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Well that's gonna be clear then: I suspect white/gold it is, lol! Jimthing (talk) 22:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks y'all, and Gold it is! Zach Vega (talk to me) 22:50, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
OK Justinhu12 (talk) 03:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)
Thanks - I'll look up some references! 122.150.200.116 (talk) 12:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
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)

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)

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)
I'm pretty sure this is the 7th iPhone:

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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

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)
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)

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

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)
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)
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)
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)
All as previously discussed. Discussion is over. The end. Jimthing (talk) 21:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
"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)

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)

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)

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) 

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)

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)

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.  

Argument: The Manual of Style says "all caps is preferred if the letters are pronounced individually," unless sources universally use lowercase.
Why don't all products follow this?  Is the MOS preference not a hard rule?  Does this guideline mainly apply to initialism words (KFC) and not to model numbers/identifiers?  Are these articles out of compliance: Apple IIe,  Apple IIe Card, Apple IIc, Apple IIc Plus, Macintosh 512Ke, Macintosh IIx, Macintosh IIcx, Macintosh IIci, Macintosh IIfx, Macintosh IIsi, Macintosh IIvi, Macintosh IIvx, PowerBook 3400c, PowerBook 2400c, 3dfx Interactive, Fusion-io, PCIe, eSATAp, NVMe, Ext2Fsd, nvSRAM, etc, etc?
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.
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
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.
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)

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)
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)

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)

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)
Talk:IPhone 5S/GA1
Talk:IPhone 5S/GA2

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)

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)
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)
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)

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)

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

IPhone 5s golden.svg
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:10, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)