Talk:iOS version history

On December 13, 2025, the iOS versions 15 & 16 went from supported -> unsupported, yet received updates in 2026 still.

Since December 13, 2025:

- iOS 15 is marked as unsupported, but the latest security update was provided on January 26, 2026.

- iOS 16 is marked as unsupported, but the latest security update was provided on February 2, 2026.

The page is still updated to show these updates, but the unsupported status was not revoked.

I could not find any official announcement about a support end, but also not an official support status.

Corresponding edit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=IOS_version_history&diff=prev&oldid=1327298572

Notiafox (talk) 19:17, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

I could not find any official announcement about a support end, but also not an official support status. That sounds like an excellent reason not to have a "support status" section for Apple OS releases that are neither the current nor the previous release, unless there are reliable sources to support the claim that a release is supported or unsupported. Guy Harris (talk) 19:26, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

I received a reply from Apple Developer Support on this topic. They refer to https://developer.apple.com/news/releases/ for supported releases.

So, iOS 12, 15, 16, 18, 26 are supported. Runephilosof (talk) 08:23, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2026

The release date of IOS 12 at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IOS_version_history says it was released on January 26 2026, but it was actually released on September 17 2018 ~2026-29782-88 (talk) 16:59, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: The original release date still says September 2018; the latest release was on January 26, 2026. It was a minor security update, so no change is necessary. GSK 17:15, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2026

Under the Overview Header, in the Overview of iOS versions table:

• on the iOS 26 row, change "26.6 beta 1" to "26.6 Beta 1"
• on the iOS 27 row, change "27.0 beta 1" to "27.0 Developer Beta 1"
• on the iOS 27 row, remove "TBA" (see https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/will-your-iphone-run-ios-27-compatible-models/) Maytoe711 (talk) 08:39, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Update: My mistake, don't remove "TBA" from the table. Maytoe711 (talk) 08:44, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: Historically, the betas have always been lowercase (even if Apple's own naming says otherwise??) Feel free to challenge me on this, but I guess that's just how it is Pattersonuwu (talk) 22:56, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. I should have checked the other pages and the page history. Just so you know though, the reason why I thought it should be uppercase is because it's a product which in the Apple operating system has an uppercase when you're updating in the software menu. Nevertheless, I understand that there's a set convention and it's best to keep it that way for continuity. Maytoe711 (talk) 05:08, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Honestly I was just too scared to approve it myself... when you eventually get autoconfirmed please go for it I highly doubt you would get contested on that pattersonuwu ^njz (talk) 05:09, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Cleanup proposal to template

Previous Discussion The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

iPhone supported OS releases

I have undone your recent changes on Template:IPhone supported OS release. Not only was this latest edit now breaking the format, but as explained in previous edit summaries; the 16e and 17e do not share a life cycle with the 16 and 16 Pro, and 17 and 17 Pro respectively. The fact that a note is needed to now make a distinction where that was previously just made clear from these devices having their own line shows that they shouldn't be on a shared line to begin with, not to mention that it is just a less accessible way to display information, and inconsistent with earlier generations and other device categories with similar templates. Your personal opinion that these devices are "not important enough to get their own row" is of no relevance either. Please refrain from making further edits like this without discussion, feel free to open one on Template talk:IPhone supported OS release. --YannickFran (talk) 21:32, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

So you are confused that Apple has "changed the rules" on iPhone releases? They wouldn't have called them the iPhone 16E and the 17E if they weren't the same model / family / series. They are all the same life cycle because they all were released with the same OS. iPhone 16, 16 Pro and 16E all shipped with IOS 18. Same thing for 17E, 17 and 17 Pro, they all shipped with IOS 26. All will run that release OS plus at least 6 more major versions, then all have support dropped at the same time.

When you walk into an Apple Store, the 17E doesn't have its own display off somewhere else. The table has the whole series, all in order from lowest to highest, 17E, 17, Air, 17 Pro, 17 Pro Max.

 

Up through 2016; they always released 1 iPhone at a time, individual models, with the slight exception of the re-release of the 5 in a new case called the 5c. That was clearly a new model since it didn't exist during the lifespan of IOS 6.

In 2017, they changed the rules and released a mid-tier 8 and a top-tier X for the first time. (Both the 8 and X ran the same OS(s) for their lifespan then lost support at the same time with the release of IOS 17.) That pattern continued until 2024, when they chose to add a base tier along with the existing mid & top-tiers, to the 16 lineup. The 16, 16 Pro and 16E were all released as mid-tier, top-tier and base model respectively during the same cycle. (The Air came along during this time, but didn't have 16 or 17 anywhere in its name, so not part of the same series.)

In 2026, all indications point to them changing the rules again and releasing 5 iPhones for the 2026 cycle; 18E, 18, 18 Pro, Air 2 and Ultra. All of those will again be released with the same OS, IOS 27, but they won't all be released in September. The Air and Ultra are clearly their own lines, thus deserve separate entries for each.

My edits were to harmonize the table to make it consistent with itself. The XR and XS were the same cycle (mid-tier & top-tier), so they share one line. Same thing with the 12 and 12 Pro (mid-tier & top-tier). So I just moved all of the 16s (base, mid, top) and 17s (base, mid, top) together, because they are also the same series and on the same lifecycles. ~2026-33592-55 (talk) 15:46, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia. We are not Apple's marketing department, how Apple organizes its stores is really of no consequence, nor are any of these "rules". The point of these tables was never to identify which devices belong to any given series. They do not have the same life cycle, your edit specifically has to add notes to make that clear. This was information that previously was easily visible at a glance, but is now being obscured. YannickFran (talk) 21:25, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

So you are still confused about what the 16E is? I suggested series and family, but you didn't seem to like those. What lineup do you think the 16E belongs with?

 

Why do you think that the 16E needs its own entry, when other sub-models like the 12 mini, the 15 Plus and 11 Pro Max aren't even on the table at all? Isn't the 16E mostly the same as those other sub-models?

Why do you think an iPhone 16 released with IOS 18 and an iPhone 16E also released running IOS 18 have different lifecycles? They both were released with the exact same OS. All that is needed is a small footnote to say that the 16E didn't run all of the minor versions of 18 because it was released after 18.3 was out. That's just an overly specific detail. I do agree with you that it should be in the footnote because no-one should still be running such an ancient, easily hackable IOS as 18.3 on their 16E at this point. The table headers don't say anything about minor versions of IOS, they just lists the major versions that each phone ran during their lifespans.

I'm not suggesting that the 16E be removed from the table; I'm just saying for readability and clarity, it and the 17E should be grouped with their family / friends / series / parent-models, whatever you want to call them. That would make the table consistent with itself because all of the previous groups of iPhones are already listed together on the same line, with the exception of the 8 and X. (The 8 and X were a family, but we didn't know that at the time.) All of the 16s ran IOS 18 and 26, plus will soon run 27. Same thing with the 17s, all of those ran 26 and will run 27. ~2026-33592-55 (talk) 14:01, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

The only iPhones listed together are iPhones that were launched together. Mini, Plus, and Max variants aren't listed on their own because they are variants of their baseline model, just in a different size. The 16e and 17e are completely distinct devices with their own spec sheets, own release date, and own life cycle. Again; this table is not meant to show which iPhone is part of which generation. It is a timeline, not a list. Yet again; please open a discussion on the template's talk page if you feel the way these tables are structured should be changed. YannickFran (talk) 15:04, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Supported iOS versions on the iPhone

Model	iPhone OS			iOS
	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	26	27
iPhone 14 / 14 Pro	—N/a
iPhone 15 / 15 Pro	—N/a
iPhone 16e / 16 / 16 Pro	—N/a
iPhone 17e / 17 / 17 Pro	—N/a
Note: Model variants (Mini, Plus, Pro, Pro Max) have the same support as the base model unless specified.

Here's my proposal to cleanup the cruft that has crept into the template after Apple started having 2 iPhone events per year. Now that the other user has been blocked for edit warring, we can have some discussion around grouping all 16 and all 17 variants into one row. This would make the table consistent with itself as other model families are already grouped together, ie the XR through 15 families. It would simplify the table and make it more readable to have all of the families as a group instead of scattershot all over the place.

Thoughts?

~2026-33592-55 (talk) 13:06, 4 July 2026 (UTC) ~2026-33592-55 (talk) 13:06, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

It makes sense to me; Apple’s model numbering certainly indicates that they belong together. The XR/XS weren’t released together and phones even within families have their own spec sheets, so I don’t understand those arguments. Would we really put the iPhone 18 on a line after the 18 Pro when it comes out in the spring instead of the fall?

Ultimately, the purpose of this chart, as it’s on the ios version history page, is to quickly show which iPhone models are compatible with which iOS versions. Creating more iPhone entries that share identical iOS compatibility goes counter to that.

Celjski Grad (talk) 16:21, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

As mentioned before, this isn't the purpose of the table. It shows which iPhone is compatible with which versions of iOS through its life cycle, if merging rows means you have to add notes to clarify the one thing the table is supposed to show, then it defeats the purpose of this table. The e-devices don't share a life cycle with their higher-end counterparts, a table that tries to display that life cycle should then not merge them anyways. Furthermore, we are not Apple's marketing team. What Apple calls it really doesn't matter. Otherwise we might as well merge SE devices with their numbered counterparts as well, as would the Air. YannickFran (talk) 11:22, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

We already have to have an (inline) note for exceptions, merging rows doesn’t create more notes, it just turns it into a referenced note and removes a row in the process. Combining phone models that share a family name and major iOS version compatibility sounds reasonable to me. The 16e and 17e so far do share a lifecycle with the other 16 and 17 phones. Celjski Grad (talk) 12:59, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

The table as it is now doesn't have any notes for exceptions beyond the iPhone 12. Any other exception has been given its own line. Like all SE devices before them, the e's don't start at the same point and do not start of at the same version, thus do not share a life cycle with the other 16 and 17 devices, which is also consistently applied throughout similar tables like MacBook Pro#Supported operating systems. YannickFran (talk) 14:13, 6 July 2026 (UTC)