Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

iOS 12.x.x Speculation Thread [Merged]

Build 16E5181f. 181 days old (or so we think), which is typical for the first beta of the x.x spring releases. I'm expecting some performance improvements, animation tweaks, etc due to this version being 181 days old.
 
daffie said:
Haha...just did this myself. Waiting for 12.2 beta 1...

However after removing beta profile and a reboot my phone now says update to ios 12.1.3 public beta 4 available....is this normal? Should I install?
Click to expand...
This is what I'm seeing too. Probably because OTA isn't available for 12.2 yet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: daffie
sorgo said:
I have this strange feeling it’ll be tomorrow but, hey—just a random guess.
Click to expand...
Oh, wow…looks like I was actually right! Let me maintain this track record and refrain from ever again speculating on iOS beta releases. :D
 
Dougteeshot said:
Build 16E5181f. 181 days old (or so we think), which is typical for the first beta of the x.x spring releases. I'm expecting some performance improvements, animation tweaks, etc due to this version being 181 days old.
Click to expand...
Where are you getting this information that it is 181 days old?
 
All Fine here now. Restarted phone
2a1f51c5cdcd3ebb0452cd9d27d0392a.jpg
 
Mlrollin91 said:
Where are you getting this information that it is 181 days old?
Click to expand...

Assuming this is compiled once a day (like typical software companies, daily build), This build number is 181 builds old (as indicated by the build number 16E5181f. The 5 indicates that it was built with logging tools enabled, and the 'f' indicates the number of revisions of the 181'st build (but not enough to warrant another build (which would then be 182)). They may compile more than once a day, we don't know. But typical software companies commits code changes in the afternoon and the build is compiled before everyone leaves work for the day. If this holds true, 181 days ago was July 27th, which I would assume the first build for this update was compiled.
 
Dougteeshot said:
Assuming this is compiled once a day (like typical software companies, daily build), This build number is 181 builds old (as indicated by the build number 16E5181f. The 5 indicates that it was built with logging tools enabled, and the 'f' indicates the number of revisions of the 181'st build (but not enough to warrant another build (which would then be 182)). They may compile more than once a day, we don't know. But typical software companies commits code changes in the afternoon and the build is compiled before everyone leaves work for the day. If this holds true, 181 days ago was July 27th, which I would assume the first build for this update was compiled.
Click to expand...
Quite likely there have been multiple builds in a single day on many occasions. In fact there are plenty of companies/products that practice continuous deployment/integration so there can even be a new build for every check-in at times.
 
Dougteeshot said:
Assuming this is compiled once a day (like typical software companies, daily build), This build number is 181 builds old (as indicated by the build number 16E5181f. The 5 indicates that it was built with logging tools enabled, and the 'f' indicates the number of revisions of the 181'st build (but not enough to warrant another build (which would then be 182)). They may compile more than once a day, we don't know. But typical software companies commits code changes in the afternoon and the build is compiled before everyone leaves work for the day. If this holds true, 181 days ago was July 27th, which I would assume the first build for this update was compiled.
Click to expand...
There are a lot of assumptions in your post, with no evidence to back up your stance. Based on numerous posts in this thread, and others, the '5' means that it is beta and not suited for public release. Yes, the 'f' stands for revision. But to say that this build has been in alpha for 2 months before iOS 12 was even released is beyond a stretch. By that logic, the 12.1.2, which was a quick bug fix because of the Qualcomm lawsuit was in alpha 104 days. I don't buy it. Apple's alpha stage is 2-3 weeks ahead internally, not 6 months.
 
Knowlege Bomb said:
Which profile do you have installed? If you have the public beta profile it’s not available yet.
Click to expand...

I'm in the Dev program so I assume it's the Dev beta profile...

Edit : redownloaded the profile and now it finds 12.2 beta 1. Cheers!
 
Last edited:
Mlrollin91 said:
There are a lot of assumptions in your post, with no evidence to back up your stance. Based on numerous posts in this thread, and others, the '5' means that it is beta and not suited for public release. Yes, the 'f' stands for revision. But to say that this build has been in alpha for 2 months before iOS 12 was even released is beyond a stretch. By that logic, the 12.1.2, which was a quick bug fix because of the Qualcomm lawsuit was in alpha 104 days. I don't buy it. Apple's alpha stage is 2-3 weeks ahead internally, not 6 months.
Click to expand...

12.1.2 was a continuation of 12.1.1. Same 16C build scheme. 12.1.2 has the same code base as 12.1.1 at the start but compiled 54 more times. Apple has multiple versions of iOS in development at the same time. There are builds being compiled as iOS 13.0 as we speak.

Here is an interesting article about Apple developing updates simultaneously back in the iOS 8 days. 8.1, 8.2 and 8.3 were all being developed at the same time and could be proved in web analytics. Worth the read for sure:

https://9to5mac.com/2014/09/29/apple-developing-ios-8-1-8-2-8-3-in-shift-for-2015-launches/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back