Talk:iPhone/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

App Store content discussion going on...

Just thought anyone participating in this article might have an opinion on this. There is a discussion to split this content from the App Store article into a new one. If you're interested in participating, you can comment here. Brian Reading (talk) 17:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

1g

Why can't there be different articles about different models? --Xxhopingtearsxx (talk) 23:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Ummm.... List_of_iPhone_and_iPod_Touch_models Groink (talk) 23:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

correction on image caption

[[:Image:IPhonehomescreen.PNG|thumb|The default Home screen of the iPhone shows most of the applications provided by Apple. Users can download additional applications from the App store, create Web Clips, and rearrange the icons. The numeric battery meter is achieved via the jailbreaking process.]]

The numeric battery meter is a standard feature on an iPhone 3GS. Would someone correct this? 98.230.214.136 (talk) 18:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. Have a nice evening.--Totie (talk) 21:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Controversies regarding the iPhone

I just removed the header called "Controversies regarding the iPhone" because the first section that would have been under that header is about iPhone's intellectual property history, which does contain controversies but isn't solely about them. The other section isn't necessarily about any kind of iPhone controversy, but rather a controversy regarding a Foxconn employee. I haven't removed the Foxconn employee suicide section yet, because it is sourced (in fact I changed the source from "Yahoo News" to an AP story on the New York Times web site) and it does involve the iPhone in at least a tangential way. And, to be honest, I think it's interesting. I do however think it's against the spirit of WP:NPOV to attempt to label those sections "controversies". -- Atama^chat 00:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It also could be argued that it isn't encyclopedic content. All content added here should be just as relevant now as it is in ten years or beyond. I think that piece of information may not qualify for that. Maybe a WikiNews article. Brian Reading (talk) 01:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Not only is it not encyclopedic, I can't for the life of me see what the link is between the suicide and Apple's iPhone. Source it to death, but it still has no link to Apple or the iPhone. If a postal worker shot himself, we wouldn't link it to any company that uses USPS for mailing. Groink (talk) 05:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Let me re-phrase this... If an employee is going to commit hara kiri because he lost a prototype, that's his business. At worst, this guy would have been fired. But nothing - NOTHING would force a person to end his life over something like this. People have got to understand Eastern Asians, and put this story into perspective. I'm not going to allow Wikipedia to turn this into a conspiracy theory. Leave that to the Michael Jackson articles. Groink (talk) 05:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. My gut told me that the section didn't belong but I thought I'd bring it here first. Foxconn has an article where it's discussed, I suppose it's best left there. -- Atama^chat 07:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Good man. You're a gentleman and a scholar. Groink (talk) 07:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Trapster?

Not sure where this would go, or if it's of real encyclopedic value, but Fox News has an article about "Trapster", an app that works with the iPhone's GPS to alert drivers when they approach a known speed trap or traffic light camera. Law enforcement has been mostly positive about the app, surprisingly, since in theory it would help drivers slow their speed in certain areas. Again, I'm not even sure if it belongs in the article (or where) but it seems interesting. -- Atama^chat 16:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, but yeah, I'm pretty sure it doesn't belong in this article. Maybe as an article for itself? It just depends on how much coverage it's gotten from reliable sources. Brian Reading (talk) 21:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I just did a Gnews search and came up with 127 hits. Maybe I will try to start an article. Thanks for the suggestion! -- Atama^chat 21:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, there already is one. Oh well. -- Atama^chat 21:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Heh, at least you're on the ball! Brian Reading (talk) 22:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Infobox

Can someone explain what the "Online Services" entry in the infobox of the article is supposed to mean? I don't quite understand what those entries are supposed to be. -- Atama^chat 15:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Can't speak specifically for the iPhone. The purpose of the "services" field in the infobox template is to list applications on an information appliance that is used to access on-line sevices, such as instant messaging. For example, the Motorola Razr via AT&T can access AOL and Yahoo Messenger. BTW, the docs for that particular infobox sucks big-time. Groink (talk) 22:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought it might be something like that, but for a device like the iPhone what is the point? Can't you put hundreds of applications in that list (or more)? Why isn't Safari listed, since it accesses the entire WEB? -- Atama^chat 00:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I know what you mean. I think the definition of "service" on the part of a cell phone is the provider end, and not actually the client end. Using the RAZR as an example, it lists AOL because AOL on the server end allows AT&T RAZR phones to IM. In the case of the iPhone, Safari is a client and doesn't really provide a service per-se, while something like MobileMe is actually an on-line service at Apple. Now, if it were up to me, the "service" field for the iPhone should be limited to on-line services that come built-in out-of-the-box, and has a dedicated application to support the service. So in this sense, "service" should include Mail (GMail, MobileMe, Yahoo! Mail, AOL,) Google Maps, App Store, iTunes, and YouTube. I left out MS Exchange in the Mail service list because it isn't actually an on-line service provided by Microsoft like GMail, but a client to access an office server - much like Safari could be used to access web mail. So you get the idea of my logic. Groink (talk) 01:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Your logic seems sound to me. It should certainly be applied with some sort of reason, right now it seems somewhat arbitrary. -- Atama^chat 01:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Just for grins, I went ahead and asked the question in the talk page of the info app infobox template. If we don't get an answer soon, then I assume any of us can go forward and define the field the way we want it. Groink (talk) 02:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I think mobile me is a fine addition there. Do we discuss these services and associated costs somewhere in the article? HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 10:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

What makes MobileMe more applicable than, say, Pandora? Is it because it's from Apple? -- Atama^chat 15:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

If applying my idea earlier, Pandora is an add-on service, and not one that came built-in (or was it?) so it shouldn't be listed. That's why I asked the question on the infobox's talk page. Cell phones were stuck with services that their provider offered. Smart phones with access to the Internet are not limited to just its provider (ex: iPhone and AT&T.) So I would suggest either sticking with the inspiration of the service field as it would apply to a non-smart phone, OR just eliminate the field completely from the iPhone infobox. Groink (talk) 23:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

MobileMe is add on, like Pandora, but it is from Apple. The iTunes and App Stores are optional, but have dedicated icons and access part of the iPhone 's functionality. Mobile Me is part of the iPhone interface, although more subtlely, but are its features as integral as the App Store? HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 04:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) I thought MobileMe is out-of-the-box and built within the Mail app, along with Yahoo Mail and AOL? A service doesn't need to have its own icon for it to be listed here. The only thing I consider add-on is if you need to hook up to the App Store and download the app. Groink (talk) 05:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I added MobileMe mainly for its Find My iPhone feature.[1] As far as I know this is a service that can only be supported and offered by Apple (like the App Store and iTunes Store). Anything else requires the support of a 3rd party. I'm not sure if this is a distinction we should make in this field but that is what I was thinking. ~ Paul^T+/_C 06:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Those are the same points I was going to make but was to lazy to type ;) HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 03:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any preference about how the Online Services area is used, I just wanted to have a consensus on some kind of standard so that we can keep it from getting out of hand, I can see any editor with a favorite app adding it to the list because it provides an "online service" to the iPhone. -- Atama^chat 04:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Hottrix article

How about a hottrix article? See [2] Famous creators of iBeer, iMilk, iMunchies, and more for iPhone and iPod touch. 98.230.214.136 (talk) 18:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The place to suggest creating an article is WP:AFC, but what the heck, I think I'll start an article. They certainly seem notable enough. -- Atama^chat 20:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

This article is too long

This article has too much info... it's just a phone. There isn't anything like this for other phones, even phones with many versions such as the Motorola RAZR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.20.235 (talk) 04:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

This phone has had an almost unprecedented amount of popularity and press coverage (for a phone), and has had some controversies as well. That gives us a lot more to write about than what you'd see on another device. With that being said, it could stand to be trimmed somewhat. -- Atama^chat 05:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Atama's statements. Brian Reading (talk) 06:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Atama as well. In short, there are basically two levels of writing on Wikipedia regarding popular topics: hype and historical. Hype will always be filled with details. But eventually, as the days, weeks and even years go by, these details become less notable, hence we can weed out the really non-notable stuff and basically re-write the article as more of a historical piece. We're not quite at the point of making a total re-write, BUT there are certain things that can be addressed immediately. For example, once Apple fixes something or changes something for the good, any negative comments and criticism regarding the problem can essentially be removed; I mean, if the problem's fixed, the issue is gone. Since editing of this article seems to be dead right now, I would encourage cleaning up of stuff like this. Groink (talk) 11:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

True, but not entirely. That it lacked copy and paste for two years will remain significant for a long time. The history, hardware, and sofware sections can be editted down a little, but not much. The other ones, like patents and whatnot, make the best candidates for slimming down. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 19:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Lack of copy/past significant in what context exactly? That Apple didn't come up with it until now? I disagree - once an issue is cleared up, it is no longer an issue. Wikipedia is not a list of morals or something to learn from in the future. You listen to the customer, and then you make the addition. That is a part of the overall innovation process. Even the lack of 3G support in the beginning might eventually be removed in a few years. If the lack of a feature is used as evidence to demonstrate something more serious, such as Steve Jobs' psychy, or drop in sales, then I can see keeping the information for prosperity. Groink (talk) 20:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Since we have so much info we can also split it off into multiple articles. For example, we already have a History of the iPhone article. That article, in fact, is where we could possibly put the information about the old lack of copy-paste which was such a significant concern for earlier iPhone users. We can always trim the article without losing information, just by branching it off. -- Atama^chat 04:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Interesting idea indeed. To see where I'm coming from, I manage many of the legacy Apple products from the 1980s, such as the Apple III, Macintosh SE/30, Macintosh Performa, and so on. Seeing I came from that era, I can honestly say that for any of these legacy products - if Wikipedia existed back then, those articles would be just as long as this iPhone article. That's what I meant by the transition from hype to historical. Five years from now, this iPhone article will only be a smidgen of what it is today, because what concerns and upsets people about the iPhone today will be irrelevant later on. I see no difference between hype and historical - I just see "an article." We really need to start thinking of this article as an encyclopedia entry and not a review or news article to satisfy all the readers. If we get way too caught up in the small details such as bugs, lack of a feature, billing issues, etc., then this article will continue to further itself away from being encyclopedic. I really have a problem with the point made about the iPhone article being large because of its popularity - I see that as a fault rather than a by-product that everyone else just accepts without much thought. Sorry for the lecture! Groink (talk) 07:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) True, but you have to balance that with combatting recentism. What we also don't want is an article about the most recent iPhone, the Platonic form of the iPhone, as we'd here about it from Apple. I don't see anything wrong with "feature x was added in update y in date z". The infobox, on the other hand, is very bloated and will probably collapse entirely with the next model. Hence List of iPhone and iPod Touch models. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 11:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Why no discussion of the "exploding iPhone controversy?

http://tech.yahoo.com/news/afp/20090825/tc_afp/franceusitinternettelecomapplecompany

http://tech.yahoo.com/news/afp/20090812/tc_afp/francebritaintechnologyapple —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.33.30.187 (talk) 15:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

That appears to be more of simply a news story than an encylopedic piece of information. A large amount of reliable sources citing a widespread phenomenon would probably be more appropriate here. Otherwise, it probably belongs at Wikinews Brian Reading (talk) 15:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

See how it shakes out. If this generates enough controversy it deserves mention. Right now all I see for the most part are blogs and tech magazines talking about the problem. I know that overheating is a known danger for lithium-ion batteries, and any device that uses one has a potential for explosion, so including this info for now is like including info in a Hummer article talking about people dying in car crashes. -- Atama頭 16:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no controversy. Out of over 20 million iPhones sold, two people claim their iPhones exploded. One was so badly injured that he "plans to consult a doctor" just as soon as he gets done talking to the media. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 19:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Earlier today, I posted a comment on C-Net about Wikipedia and people publishing information in haste. If people need immediate news-like information, they should be consulting Wikinews. At the external links of this article, there is a link to Wikinews regarding the iPhone. Right now, there's absolutely no information on Wikinews regarding the iPhone explosion situation. Maybe someone should write an article about it there. So in short, people requesting information must do two things: 1) determine if the information is news or information. The two are completely different. And 2) post/consult to either Wikipedia or Wikinews - depending on 1). Groink (talk) 20:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

first section; differences 3G and 3GS

The first section of this article does briefly mention the differences between the regular iPhone and the iPhone 3G (faster 3G data speeds and assisted GPS), but it does not between the 3G and the 3GS. I therefore suggest that after "The 'iPhone 3GS was announced on June 8, 2009." we add the following: "Among other things, it has improved performance, its camera has more megapixels, it can be voice controlled, and it has a built-in video camera. Volksphone" --82.171.70.54 (talk) 13:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for such a good sentence, with links and reference. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 15:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the information. --82.171.70.54 (talk) 01:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

this still sounds like advertising copy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elvisjnr (talk • contribs) 09:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

MMS will need updates soon

Reports are out (most dated 9/14/09) that Apple has already started releasing MMS abilities to iPhone users. The rollout it expected to take time, but it is probably time to update the article portions that discuss MMS abilities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Digitallib (talk • contribs) 00:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Worldwide iPhone availability

The colors of the world map don't correspond to the colors below it. I would update them myself, but I can't really say which countries offer 3G and 3GS. It also appears that the actual map uses "Coming soon" as well.--Totie (talk) 13:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 15:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey, can someone update the map to reflect that China is getting the iPhone? I can't do anything with a .svg. Nezzadar (talk) 18:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that?--Totie (talk) 15:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

[[3]] Scroll to the bottom of the page. I don't really know how to edit images, sorry :( ManfromButtonwillow (talk) 19:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I have asked and editor who has done it before to take care of it. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 21:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Cool :) ManfromButtonwillow (talk) 22:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Done by Lokal_Profil yesterday.--Totie (talk) 22:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

CPU underclocking

None of the references used on the article (1, 2, 3) regarding CPU underclocking, do not mention the fact that the CPUs are underclocked. So any idea? Thank you. kedadial 22:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Email and Text Messages section

The article makes it sound like texting was released a few days ago. Would someone please fix? 98.230.214.136 (talk) 20:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Done.HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 20:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

iPhone in insurance claims

According If insurance company statistics, screen is fragile and causes most insurance claims which concerns mobile phones.

ref: http://www.e24.se/pengar24/dinekonomi/telefoniinternet/artikel_1584685.e24 This information is from reliable source, maybe someone would format it propelly and add into display section. "Trygg Hansa"-insurance company have samekind statistics. And iPhone have quite small market share in Europe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack007 (talk • contribs)

Insurance company statistics are not a reliable source for the iPhone screen. -- Atama頭 23:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Article Image

I think the image at the top-right of the page could be better - there's no point in having a picture of the 3 different phones looking exactly the same! I propose it's replaced with a single larger image, like the iPod Touch page has. JaffaCakeLover (talk) 16:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

See here where we already had a discussion (3 months ago!). Basically, we know the image is terrible but an alternative image needs to be found. -- Atama頭 16:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that, while iPods have enough hardware to be worth rendering with a black screen, an "off" iPhone (or iPod Touch) would be essentially worthless. Hence the need for a good fair use image. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 23:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

1g of 2004/2005

Just to tell everyone, the 1st generation iPhone came out in 2004 or 2005. It was very bulky, but still highly advanced for that time. The reason why it didn't get so popular was because it didn't have a large battery life and every time the battery was sucked up of all of its juice, you had to return it to the Apple Store because the connecter, as you know, is very different from regular MP3 players, or even iPods at the time. Then you would have to wait a few hours at the Apple stor so you could charge it up fully. Also, the iPhone 1g had very bad reception. That is the reason why the iPhone that came out in 2007 was called the iPhone 2g, not the iPhone 1g. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monsterous28 (talk • contribs) 05:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you a troll? The original iPhone is distinguished by the retroactive naming scheme appending "1G" for the reasoning that it was the first generation of iPhone models, and simultaneously as "2G" because it used 2G network technology as opposed to 3G. The iPhone did not exist as a consumer product in 2004 nor in 2005. In fact, the only phone that was in the market in which Apple even remotely worked on at that time was the Motorola ROKR E1. So to clear up your confusion, iPhone 1G = iPhone 2G. Brian Reading (talk) 07:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Anybody add Hacktivating?

Anybody wanna add hacktivating? Hacktivating is activating the phone without going through iTunes or anything. Basically if you have an locked iPhone locked to the Emergency Screen and don't have a AT&T Sim Card you can "hacktivate" it by jailbreaking it (though some solutions don't hacktivate like blackra1n) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.244.250.149 (talk) 07:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

We generally don't go into details on jailbreaking, because we don't want this to become an instruction manual. I don't see how "hacktivating" is separate from, or more notable than general jailbreaking which is already mentioned. -- Atama頭 23:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Additional info to the section 'SIM unlocking'

In Brazil it is forbidden to impose carrier-specific SIM locking. While most cell phone operators still sell locked phones, they are required by law to perform the unlock free of charge any time the customer requests it, regardless of contracts or subsidizing that may have occurred when selling the phone. The only requirement is to present the phone's original acquisition receipt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.153.253.102 (talk) 17:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a reference to back that up? If so, we might be able to add it to the article. -- Atama頭 18:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Minor change to Reference #12

Hi,

I would like to request a minor change to Reference #12. It currently reads: ^ "Apple (Samsung S5L8900) applications processor with eDRAM". Semiconductor Insights. http://www.semiconductor.com/resources/reports_database/view_device.asp?sinumber=18016. Retrieved 2009-05-12.

Semiconductor Insights is now part of UBM TechInsights and we have moved all the content to www.ubmtechinsights.com. This particular report is now accessed via a new URL: http://www.ubmtechinsights.com/reports-and-subscriptions/device-library/Device-Profile/?SINumber=18016

The citation should be to UBM TechInsights now, as well.

The old URL will still work for a while (it automatically gets remapped to the new site), but ultimately semiconductor.com will be re-purposed.

Thanks, -mark. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdroberts1243 (talk • contribs) 19:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)