Talk:iPhone/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

File:IPhone 4 box.JPG Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:IPhone 4 box.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

edit request, drivel and spam

"The iPhone has garnered positive reviews from critics like David Pogue[26] and Walter Mossberg.[27][28] The iPhone attracts users of all ages,[18] and, besides consumer use, the iPhone has also been adopted for business purposes.[29]"

What is the point of this statement? Someone gave it a postive review and with regard to the second part- Surely the above applies to virtually every product- shoes are used by all ages and both for business and leisure.

iphone has been consistently recognised as one of the best phones on earth.[33]

Erm the link shows that 34 people have voted for the iPhone 4- hardly scientific and just a lame excuse to link to an amazon affiliate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.190.128 (talk) 08:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

fMRI

Martin Lindstrom's editorial in The New York Times has some interesting tidbits about marketing tests he ran on consumers using the iPhone, finding users experiencing synesthesia (hearing and seeing the device in the audio and visual cortex), and feeling love and compassion for their iPhone as if it were a family member. Lindstrom concludes, "the subjects didn’t demonstrate the classic brain-based signs of addiction. Instead, they loved their iPhones."[1] By itself, this doesn't seem like enough to add, but if there are other sources supporting these conclusions, it would make for interesting content. Viriditas (talk) 00:33, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Mine is like the long lost brother I never had. (Actually I have two brothers).--JOJ ^Hutton 00:44, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

When people are literally "loving" their iPhones, we are seeing, in reality, the embryonic stage of the "Man-Computer Symbiosis" of J. C. R. Licklider occurring on the consumer level. This is quite likely the first evolutionary step of a posthuman future. Are we changing the technology or is the technology changing us? Viriditas (talk) 10:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Games

Re removal of section on the effect iphone development has had on the gaming market, surely there is no dispute that the development of the iphone and the apps market for it, had a remarkable effect on gaming markets... why do you think the iphone is now a category for 'game reviews' on IGN etc. MelanieB2 (talk) 11:13, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The problem with your analysis is that your entire premise is based on just one game. Your analysis is basically, "I know that the iPhone is a gaming machine. Let me find something that can prove it." This is totally wrong, and Wikipedia covers this type of research in its guidelines. You cannot make a hypothesis, and then find data to prove your point. Rather, Wikipedia is based on having the fact already proven through sources. So far, I've yet to see ONE source that states clearly that the iPhone is indeed a leading device when it comes to gaming. All of your sources so far are talking about record-breaking sales and such. You're taking this information, and forming your own conclusion that if Angry Birds is selling like hot cakes, and that other platforms are now running this game as a result of the iPhone, then by all means the iPhone is a leader in the game development business. Again, you need to cite a source that states clearly - not around the bush, not wishy-washy - but states exactly that the iPhone is a gaming device. Groink (talk) 11:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

This is true. Wikipedia is only an aggregate of information, we find info that has been published elsewhere by reliable sources and then replicate that information here (written in our own words of course). We can't present original ideas, even if it's derived from reliable information. If we have A and B, we can't say A+B=C, we have to find a source that does that for us. For example, if it's relevant you can say that the iPhone has a "game reviews" category on IGN (I'd argue that it's not relevant but bear with me) and then source that back to IGN. You can't declare that because there is such a category on IGN, that the iPhone clearly has had a major impact on the gaming market. Only if you found, say, a journalist or some expert making such a declaration, then you can cite that person. -- Atama頭 17:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Request Edit

Verizon requires antenna diversity in all of their phones (iirc, the Anandtech iPhone 4 or iPhone 4S review may cover this to back me up, here), so in the HW comparison chart, the segment on celluar antenna diversity being new to the iPhone 4S (for iPhone product line) is not true. It was present on the iPhone 4 CDMA version, prior to the iPhone 4S. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.78.139.235 (talk) 21:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

It's true, dual band should not be confused with dual antenna. However, the antenna redesign of the 4S mentioned in the chart is referring to the solution to "antenna-gate", not the antenna diversity inherent in Verizon CDMA phones. Still might be nice to mention it under CDMA iPhone 4 or at least clarify iPhone 4S entry. DJKillcrazy (talk) 04:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Manufacturing

It is stated in this article that Apple manufactures these phones. Apple itself does not manufacture these phones. Foxconn does, in Shenzhen, China. Neither Foxconn nor China are mentioned anywhere in the article. Because of the bad press concerning the working conditions and suicides at Foxconn factories, it may be something Apple does not like to mention. Nonetheless I do find it worth noting, and factually closer to the truth than what's being stated on the current revision of the page. 62.133.118.70 (talk) 20:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Many products are made under contract by subcontractors - but the normal meaning of "manufacture" includes the company which issued the subcontract - the subcontractor has no right to make the product for anyone else. Almost every part of an automobile is made by subcontractors - but the company which orders those parts is the automobile manufacturer. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

iPhone 5

The redirect from iPhone 5 just has to go, because as I read in a magazine, the iPhone 5 will definitely be released this year. So please remove it. I do not know how.

Largerthanlife147 (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Remove it and do what with it. Currently it redirects to this page. Do you have another option to propose?--JOJ ^Hutton 22:30, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The iPhone 5 is now expected to be released only in the summer or fall of 2012. Many think that the release date will be in fall as the summer release date is usually reserved for the iPad. Hence, the iPhone 5 might be released only after the release of the iPad 3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iphone5maniac (talk • contribs) 15:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Quarters confused in sales data

It seems that the image showing the sales data has the quarters confused. For example, it provides data about 37M iPhones sold in 1Q 2012, but we have just seen this number reported for Q4 2011. We are not even half way through Q1 2012, so how can data about it exist? This article talks about 37M iPhones sold during Q4 2011. I did not try to verify data about other quarters, but they might be shifted as well.

95.80.54.178 (talk) 16:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

This is correct. The quarters referred to are the fiscal quarters, not calendar quarters. Apple's fiscal quarters are offset from the calendar. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

In that case it's correct, but confusing. A clarification would be very appreciated, since even finance-related newspapers call it 'fourth quarter' not 'first quarter'. I find it very confusing every time. Thanks! 95.80.54.178 (talk) 18:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Added designer

It's weird, all products usually state the designer but this didn't, anyway added designer and cite. Twobells (talk) 18:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Your source lists the designer of the various Mac products as "Jonathan Ive and Apple design team", so we should avoid misrepresenting that - if it's not explicit that he's the sole designer, we shouldn't describe him as that. --McGeddon (talk) 18:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

LOL, sure, it's weird. Give me a break, Twobells, you've been trying to push this for a long time.

And why shouldn't the designer be mentioned in the first paragraph, that after all IS best wiki practice. Also I have just discovered you have deleted all the entries without debate in talk history which is completely unacceptableTwobells (talk) 12:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

It's pretty dishonest of you to pretend to be a new editor showing up to this page for the first time and noticing that info is "missing".

what on earth are you talking about 'new editor', I came to the article and saw that Jonathan Ive was missing in the entirety of the piece and wanted to add him which is best practice, whoever said or wrote anythign about being 'new'?Twobells (talk) 12:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

As has been said multiple times, we don't need to add Ives to every product he ever helped Apple with. And he's already mentioned on the iPhone history page, in the lead no less, he does not belong in the first sentence of this article. -- Atama頭 18:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Where exactly has this been said 'multiple times'? I have just checked the talk history of all Apple products Jonathan Ive designed and there has been no discussion about this apart from deletions by you. Twobells (talk) 12:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, falsely labeling your edit as a revert of "vandalism" is disruptive. Don't make such accusations flippantly, especially when you know they're untrue. -- Atama頭 19:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Any deletion of important data without discussion is vandalism and you know it, and a suggestion that it was flippant indicates you have trouble understanding the term Twobells (talk) 12:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't seem unreasonable to mention the designer in the article somewhere, but clumsily jamming five quick words into the lead to make "smartphones designed by Jonathon Ive and marketed by Apple Inc" is a very unclear way to explain his role. (It can be read as implying that he designed a product independently and handed it over to Apple, when he was actually employed throughout as a senior vice president.) --McGeddon (talk) 19:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree. And we've been over this before. I don't mind a mention later in the article, it seems that the History and Availability section would be appropriate. I'd say the hardware section would be appropriate, because he was involved in designing the appearance of the device as a whole, but that section generally talks about features not design. Given the history of this discussion, though, I don't have a lot of hope for a compromise here. :( -- Atama頭 19:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Where have 'we' been over this 'before'? certainly not in talk history.Twobells (talk) 12:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I just wanted to add, for anyone reading (including Twobells) I'm most definitely involved here so anything I say or do is as an editor, not an administrator. I'm not especially active at this article anymore but I'm still not going to be using my tools here. -- Atama頭 19:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

user Atama is even editing the talk history page to suit his view, this is outrageous, he has deleted all my replies to the discussion. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:IPhone&diff=493177929&oldid=493177098 Twobells (talk) 12:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

That wasn't User:Atama, it was User:Acps110. Please try to be WP:CIVIL. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 18:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

3D rendering??

What is "3D" about the image at the top of the page? It looks like any other photograph to me. Cresix (talk) 17:32, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 April 2012

please change "The CDMA model of the iPhone, like all CDMA phones, does not use a SIM." because The cdma network in the usa does not use the sim but when traveling globally the micro sim is required for use.

the iphone 4s is a global gsm phone and does require the use of a micro sim. http://www.iphonefreak.com/2010/06/the-iphone-4-micro-sim-situation.html

under the specifications listing verizon also states the network is "global gsm" so the cdma model of the iphone does use a sim for the gsm technology to work. http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/store/controller?item=phoneFirst&action=viewPhoneDetail&selectedPhoneId=5773

Inserting / Removing SIM card - Apple® iPhone® 4S link http://support.verizonwireless.com/clc/devices/knowledge_base.html?id=49046

Noahcnnc (talk) 20:56, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

AT&T Unlocking iPhones

AT&T has stared to unlock iPhones for their customers.

http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/06/atandt-to-begin-unlocking-iphone-sunday-april-8/

DanielDPeterson (talk) 23:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Clarification.

"In the United States, it was announced that two new carriers, Sprint and C Spire, would begin carrying the iPhone 4 and iPhone 4S in October and November 2011, respectively."

The way this is worded makes it a little confusing. Are they carrying the phones in October and then November? Or did Sprint have the phones and then C Spire? DanielDPeterson (talk) 23:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Clarification of battery life terminology: Hours of use between recharges, versus cycles or years before requiring replacement of the battery.

Some of the statements are about time between charges (i.e. capacity and power draw) while others are about total lifetime before a battery no longer takes/holds a useful charge and requires replacement by a repair shop. See excerpts below with my commentary in italics with {}. I don't have time to fix it right now, so perhaps another editor can do so?

Apple runs tests on preproduction units to determine battery life. Apple's website says that the battery life "is designed to retain up to 80 percent of its original capacity after 400 full charge and discharge cycles", which is comparable to iPod batteries. {clearly referring to total lifetime before replacement of the battery}

The battery life of early models of the iPhone has been criticized by several technology journalists as insufficient and less than Apple's claims. {reading the referenced article's I conclude that they are referring to how many hours of use before needing recharging.}

--Techguy95 (talk) 18:30, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

6 More US Carriers for iPhone to be added

Recently, on 20th April, six more regional US carriers - CELLCOM, APPALACHIAN WIRELESS, ALASKA COMMUNICATIONS, GCI, MTA SOLUTIONS and nTelos have been added into the list of iPhone 4 and iPhone 4S providers . Lisamickelson (talk) 06:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Ryan Vesey Review me! 06:05, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

"Audio processor" - missing.

The Ipod Touch page has a "Audio processor" field in it's spec table; why is this iPhone spec table missing this? I presume it also has it? --Jimthing (talk) 06:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Split

The article is rather.. err.. long. I think we should split the hardware section to Hardware of the iPhone and the software section to Software of the iPhone. Zach Vega (talk to me) 22:18, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose such a split. I think it is much better to have this all in one place. Besides, you can't separate the software from the hardware in real life, so why do it here? ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose split. But I wouldn't oppose moving some of the details out into appropriate sub-articles. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:12, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, software of the iPhone? Isn't that what iOS is for? EelamStyleZ talk 20:45, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose; too long? Not everything in life fits onto a single screen, nor should it. Let's keep the hardware and software together unless we pull iOS from the iPad, iPhone, iPod (and everything else that uses it) and put it into a separate "iOS" article (where it might be confused with Cisco IOS, which has been around longer, BTW). — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 21:25, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose Doing so will make this article bocome a stub. TheChampionMan1234 (talk) 05:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

There's a clear consensus against splitting the article, so I'm going to remove the spit-apart template from the article. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request - Over the Air (3G) download data limit raised to 50 MB as of March 7th, 2012

Though it coincided with the release of iOS 5.1, the raising of the data cap had nothing to do with the new version of the operating system. DJKillcrazy (talk) 06:48, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Link not working

"Video of Jobs launching the iPhone at Macworld 2007" the link goes to a ad promoted site and it does not have the video. So no point in having it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosomono (talk • contribs) 12:27, May 25, 2012‎

Link was fixed by User:TheChampionMan1234 in this edit. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 04:42, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Small edit

in the section "other countries" there is a sentence that says "All new mobile phones sold by carriers in Canada are locked, and none of the major carriers (Rogers Wireless, Telus, Bell Mobility) unlock iPhones without a fight and a $50 fee" . Without a fight? perhaps a registered user on wikipedia can change this to "extended negotiation" or a related phrase. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.243.209.99 (talk) 21:08, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Anonymous edits

Why is this article locked for anonymous edits? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.131.6.8 (talk) 03:01, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Because people keep vandalising the article. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 04:36, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

If you would like to make an edit the the article you could always propose it here, and somebody else can do it for you. Otherwise you can create an account and become a regular contributor. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

iPhone Sell Image

I do not agree with the image on the right. It suggests that in Q2 2012 more than 35 million iPhones were selled. But that's not true, because apple.com said explicit in the source : "iPhone and Related Products and Services" and "Includes revenue from sales of iPhone, iPhone services, and Apple-branded and third-party iPhone accessories". --Nightfly85 (talk) 08:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The source contains the number of units sold (35.064 million) and the revenue ($22,690 million). Reading the footnotes it seems clear that these are relating to the revenue, not to the number of units, so the table on the right seems both credible and correct to me. --Biker Biker (talk) 09:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

yes, you're right. Sorry. --Nightfly85 (talk) 09:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request: Clarification on new features in iOS 6

The article page states:

"With the release of iOS 6.0, which will be released in Fall 2012, Apple plans to release features that enable the user to have options to decline a phone call when a person is calling them. The user will have the capability to reply with a message, or to set a reminder to call them back at a later time."

Wow that's awkward and ultimately unclear. Extra syllables don't make information more accurate. It would be easier to read and understand if it said:

"Apple plans to release features that include additional options when declining an incoming call. Users will be able to reply with a message(iMessage? text message? voice message?) or to set a reminder to call them back at a later time." 174.31.192.105 (talk) 05:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Timeline on page is broken.

The timeline on the page is returning with an eror — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.21.153 (talk) 19:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Map

Can someone please update the map to include Bolivia, Cyprus, Albania and Morocco (per http://support.apple.com/kb/ht1937). I would do it myself but my technical capabilities stop at png's, I have no idea how to do svg's.... Thanks Bernerd (talk) 10:43, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Current event?

Should I tag this as a current event due to the release of the "iPhone 5" today? Dmartin969 (talk) 14:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Uh, no. This isn't an event. It "was", past tense, simply a product announcement. There is no current event going on, and there never was.--JOJ ^Hutton 02:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

iPhone 5 GPU

This article says the GPU of the iPhone 5 is the PowerVR SGX543MP2. The ARM_Cortex-A15_MPCore#List_of_Cortex-A15_SoC says it utilizes the PowerVR SGX6 Rogue. Which one is it? Oh, and the iPhone 5 technical information needs reliable citation when added. Jørgen88 (talk) 11:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Marketing slogan and infobox

I've noticed that on this article, as well as the iPhone 5 article, people keep adding the slogan "iPhone 5: The biggest thing to happen to iPhone since iPhone" to the top of the infobox area in big Apple letters. I think this is inappropriate for an encyclopedia article, as we don't need to parrot the company's latest unsubstantiated marketing claims. Also, I disagree with cramming the infobox full of iPhone 5 specs. This article is about iPhones in general. The iPhone 5 article is about the iPhone 5. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protection

This article has been permanently semi-protected due to the persistent fcukery of drive-by IP and newly-registered vandals. From now on only established contributors will be able to edit the article. If you don't like this then you can always request unprotection (or reduction to temporary semi-protection) at WP:RPP. For now though sit back and enjoy the peace and quiet.... --Biker Biker (talk) 18:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Or use the edit semi-protected template with a description of what you would like changed. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Add screen height and width and explicitly indicate diagonal measurements

(Note: This section is essentially identical to one I added on Talk:Comparison_of_smartphones.)

Historically, TV screen size was a single number reflecting the diameter of the round cathode ray tube. (Try a Google image search for: old round tv.) The actual diagonal screen size of the rectangular view was a bit smaller, but still meaningful, because all screens had the same aspect ratio of 4:3.

With the coming of wide-screen TVs, manufacturers continued to use a diagonal measurement -- because it impressed buyers. A 16:9 TV with the same screen area as a 4:3 TV had a greater diagonal size, so it seemed bigger to the casual buyer. And in many cases, manufacturers of LCD screens specified a diagonal measurement that was quite a bit bigger than the actual diagonal screen size, even though this makes no sense for LCD screens, again counting on buyers to not notice the discrepancy.

Manufacturers of computer monitors also liked the diagonal measurement for the same reasons. Go from a 4:3 screen to a 16:10 screen to a 16:9 screen, and for the same screen area, the diagonal measurement keeps getting bigger and buyers continue to get more impressed.

Something similar is now happening with smartphones, as screens get more elongated.

Let's provide more useful facts. While a diagonal screen measurement should still be included, more important than that are screen height, screen width, and screen area. These should be included.

The diagonal measurement should be clearly indicated as such.

Rahul (talk) 23:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 September 2012

A6 chip is a custom hand layout design with a dual-core CPU running at 1.3 GHz and a tri-core GPU, all built on a 32nm process. http://appleinsider.com/articles/12/09/26/new-benchmark-shows-apples-a6-processor-may-be-clocked-at-13ghz, http://www.macrumors.com/2012/09/25/teardown-of-apples-a6-chip-reveals-manual-layout-of-custom-dual-core-cpu/, http://www.zdnet.com/inside-apples-a6-processor-7000004786/ 66.75.127.30 (talk) 02:03, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

We should consider adding the features that the iphone doesn't have. For example, a micro SD card and the extremely useful flash. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.18.60 (talk) 11:02, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

While I can't vouch for all models, my iPhone 4 does have a light used as a flash for photos, or constantly for videos, and the article does mention that it doesn't support external storage. How do you propose deciding which none-existent features to mention? Is there some standard set of notable features for present smartphones? Do other articles have these types of sections? Would we be talking just about the latest model, or looking back historically? I'm concerned this would simply become a hunt for features some other phone has that iPhone does not purely to add negative points, regardless of notability. Aawood (talk) 11:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Not done: per above response. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:37, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Camera: panaroma support added for iOS6 and iPhone5 (currently we say beta iOS5)

Under Camera, citation 91 is used to state that beta code in iOS5 states upcoming support for panaroma. The correct statement should have been iOS6 and iPhone5 and it's no longer beta (released). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veeru.mehta (talk • contribs) 20:37, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done Anonymouse321 (talk • contribs) 02:00, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

iPhone Infobox

The reason why the infobox should have all the information of the iPhone 5 is because it is the latest tech specs. We don't want to put the specs from the iPhone 4/4S we want to put it with the new iPhone. Dplcrnj (talk) 23:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I touched on this in the section immediately above. The problem with putting all the iPhone 5 specs in the infobox is that this article is not about the iPhone 5. It's about iPhones in general. We shouldn't give undue weight to the 5 just because it's the most recent. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I see you re-added the information. Rather than getting into a revert war, I would appreciate it if you would talk it out here and get a consensus before adding it again. (See WP:BRD...You made a Bold edit by adding the infobox; I Reverted, removing the extended content on the 5; now we Discuss here and try to reach a consensus.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The infobox could have the infomation from all iPhones on the infobox. If you know any other way to do it please say because I don't mind what's on the infobox.( in this case meaning iPhone 4/4S or 5 just as long as it states it.) But please keep the infobox it keeps infomation organized.Dplcrnj (talk) 00:02, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Before today there wasn't an infobox and we got along just fine. Infoboxes with detailed specs are better suited to articles about the specific phone models. This article is not about any specific model. It's the parent article for a bunch of sub-articles on specific phone models. It's a general history of all the iPhone models. If people want to learn about the iPhone 5, they can go to iPhone 5. If they want to learn about the 4S, they go to iPhone 4S. If they want a side-by-side comparison, they go to iPhone models. You'll notice there's a smaller navigation box below your new infobox that lists all these links. You'll also notice that having all the specs on the 5 is making the infobox so bloated that it pushes the second box way down into the article. In other words by cramming all that info at the top of the article, you're actually doing readers a disservice by making it harder for them to find what they were actually looking for. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok I think you are correct now. Sorry for all the trouble. Dplcrnj (talk) 00:54, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

No problem at all. I appreciate the work you've done here, and thank you for taking the time to discuss this with me. It's been pretty crazy the past couple of days :-) ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

It appears that the screen resolution was duplicated from the iPad infobox. The text under the display topic says that the resolution is 320x480 (gen 1-3), 640x960 (gen 4/4S) and 1136x640 (gen 5), but the infobox says 1024x768 and 2048x1536. I'm not certain if these are correct so I'm not going to edit the infobox, just point out that they offer conflicting info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.55.200.20 (talk) 15:27, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Add info about Wi-Fi protocols?

I noticed that the iPhone 5 has 5GHz Wi-Fi, the iPhone 4 and 4s (and presumably earlier models) do not. While not greatly important, to be complete, perhaps information about Wi-Fi modes supported for each model should be included, either in the article, or in the comparison table. Rfinchdavis (talk) 01:30, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion

I Would like to suggest that a little section be created for each iPhone so for example ==iPhone (original)== and addd al the other iPhone models and write a little tiny bit about it under the section and include

Main article: iPhone

Lockheart1 (talk) 22:33, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

There is already a comparison table for the range, and the differences between the models are brought up where necessary in each section. What would you suggest these individual model sections are used for? How would altering the article in the way you suggest improve it? Aawood (talk) 12:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 December 2012

unitssold = 250 million McDolphins (talk) 05:01, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Done. I changed it in the infobox. Rivertorch (talk) 08:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Historic importance and cultural impact of the iPhone missing

From a quick glance, I don't find any information or a well-deserved entire section on how the iPhone changed the entire smartphone industry with its "iconic" user interface. This article seems to be a bit too "neutral" on that...

80.187.103.10 (talk) 21:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC) Actually, there were iPhone-like cellphone UI s before the iPhone's release in 2007, therefore that would be false and not suitable for Wikipedia. Kelton2 (talk) 02:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Launch

Because on every page of wikipedia say that the iphone was launched by Apple in 2007, and in 2000 the gradinte had already launched in Brazil? 187.62.105.208 (talk) 02:06, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Are you talking about IGB Electronica? It trademarked the IPHONE name only in Brazil in 2000. Only now are they using the IPHONE trademark. This is a totally different line from the one made by Apple. That's probably the confusion. Right now, there's a possibility that, unless Apple settles with IGB Electronica, the iPhone by Apple may not be sold in Brazil. Groink (talk) 07:27, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Add Image of Announcement?

Could we add this picture of Steve Indroducing the iPhone to the History section?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Justinhu12 (talk • contribs) 08:18, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Others can chime in. IMO, the photo doesn't add anything to the article. Photos have to add context to the article when the subject cannot be explained in just words. Groink (talk) 09:07, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion

The section "Sales and Profits" says "led to a demise in high-end fashion phones and business-oriented smartphones such as Vertu and BlackBerry". This is evidently not factual because BlackBerry are still manufacturing high end smartphones for business and pleasure, and BlackBerry are still reporting a profit in their 2013 fourth quarter fiscal year end results. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.208.147.211 (talk) 12:44, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Resolutions format mentioned are in reverse order in Model comparison section

Usually when a resolution is mentioned it is specified in following syntax: (width x height)px.

But in that model comparison section, its mentioned in (height x width)px format.

Which is very confusing, because that is not model used in most sites especially in www.gsmarena.com. Suggestion: Either correct to the most standard format or mention it (H x W) format clearly in side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajoe.blk (talk • contribs) 08:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Legacy

This article is excellent except for the poorly written Legacy section. This section is riddled with non-essential observations and was published with multiple typos. I plan to completely remove the section as it is an eyesore in an otherwise stellar article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.201.93 (talk) 01:12, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 April 2013

There is a line in this article that's from "iPhone Blog All about the iPhone" at url=http://www.unlockaniphone.org/blog/%7Cpublisher=www.unlockaniphone.org%7Caccessdate=5 January 2013}}</ref> That states "The locked/unlocked state is maintained on Apple's servers" The reference that's being sited is a blog, and no longer exists on that blog. The word "maintained" in this sentence suggests that Apple has the ability to edit and change the lock/unlock state of an iPhone, and it can not. Here is a reference from an article that will be around in 3 months from now; "Only your carrier can unlock your iPhone. Contact your carrier and request an unlock. You may need to meet certain requirements to qualify for unlocking. This may take up to seven days."

Thank You

Slickvicpxx (talk) 00:22, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

iPhone OS

The opening paragraph states that the platform on which the iPhone runs was called the "iPhone OS" until the release of the iPad. Didn't "iOS" exist on the iPod Touch well before the iPad? Icehcky8 (talk) 00:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I corrected that portion of the article and added a source for it. The operating system was known as "iPhone OS" until it was renamed "iOS" in June 2010, which was when iOS 4 was released (after the original iPad was released). The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 05:18, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 May 2013

The "Internet connectivity" section (3.4, section=21) says "The maps application can access Google Maps in map, satellite, or hybrid form." Could someone please fix that? -Jc86035 (talk) 12:28, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Vehicle Navigation & iPhone

This is a request to include a section in the iPhone page for vehicle navigation and the iPhone.

Companies such as Garmin, Navigon and TomTom have applications in the iTunes store, to turn the iPhone into a GPS device. Example: https://buy.garmin.com/en-IE/GB/shop-by-accesories/accessory-kits/streetpilot-iphone-5-car-kit/prod132534.html

This section should include a) Vehicle mounts for the iPhone (e.g Garmin Car Holder) b) Available maps for the iPhone (e.g. Garmin Maps USA & Europe) c) Other available navigation software (e.g. for aircraft or boat navigation) d) Navigation apps for the iPhone (e.g. http://www8.garmin.com/apps/) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.215.138.190 (talk) 12:59, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Representative Photo

There's this really stupid trend of having representative photos of mobile devices while being turned off. This is incomplete and unrepresentative. It implies the mobile device doesn't have software, a software user interface. The home/index screen, all with default settings, is ideal. Representative photos should be complete and representative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.218.203.136 (talk) 18:45, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Repeated paragraph

The paragraph that begins... 'Before the release of the iPhone, handset manufacturers such as Nokia and Motorola were enjoying record sales of cell phones...' and ending with 'The iPhone's success has led to a demise in high-end fashion phones and business-oriented smartphones such as Vertu and BlackBerry, respectively.[46][48]' is repeated in both the History and availability section and the Sales and profits section. One paragraph should be deleted.

Alituxworth (talk) 10:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 July 2013

Please change "taljs" to "talks".

Reference: "On July 6, 2013, it was reported that Apple was in taljs with Korean mobile carrier, SK Telecom, to release the next generation iPhone with LTE Advanced technology. [68]"

Nicholasngjf (talk) 03:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Done. Rivertorch (talk) 03:56, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

IPhones sold to date needs to be updated

387,535,000

Source:

http://aaplinvestors.net/stats/iphone/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidpartin (talk • contribs) 19:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 September 2013

add iPhone 5S and 5C Dylan1219 (talk) 23:49, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Not done: Please detail what you would like to say in a "please change X to Y" degree of detail and supply reliable sources for any factual changes. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 03:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 September 2013

For Mobile Comparison, please add the 8 GB version for iPhone 4S and update the discontinuation date to September 10, 2013 for the 16 GB version. Here's the link: http://www.apple.com/iphone/compare/ Thanks 76.69.127.26 (talk) 21:14, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Done. —RP88 ^(talk) 05:21, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Bigger iPhone

What screen size does it has to be so it can have a resolution of 1280x720 and still be 326 ppi? Giggett (talk) 18:50, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

It should be 4.5" to remain at 326 ppi with resolution of 1280x720. --TheGoldenBox (talk) 16:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Sixth generation iPhone 5S?

It's the seventh generation. --109.145.25.194 (talk) 20:01, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

iPhone 5C is seventh generation and iPhone 5S is eight generation Giggett (talk) 18:52, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• Depends whether you count them as part of the iPhone 5 generation or not. Even if you don't, the 5S is not eighth generation. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:16, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

The iPhone 5C seems to have the identifier of iPhone 6,1 and the iPhone 5S has iPhone 6,2 which suggests that they're both considered the 6th generation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.101.97.13 (talk) 10:39, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• Have you got a source for those identifiers? :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:52, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd say it's seventh generation because it's running a A7 chip, I would identify the AX SoC as generation. Also here's an article calling it the seventh generation phone http://www.phonearena.com/news/Apple-iPhone-5S-7-new-features-of-the-seventh-generation-iPhone_id46538 --TheGoldenBox (talk) 17:01, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Revert help

I've no idea what's up, but I did not (intend to) make this edit! I've no idea where the bulk of that edit came from; all I wanted to do was the very last one - at Line 750/Line 747, so that there's a sentence that reads,

• For example, an unlocked iPhone may be used on the T-Mobile network in the US but, while an unlocked iPhone is compatible with T-Mobile's voice network, it may not be able to make use of 3G data functionality (i.e., may be limited to lower speeds).

but now there are a ton of newer edits…--Elvey (talk) 02:53, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Petri Krohn reverted your changes. The newer edits are all based on the version preceding your problematic edit. If there is a consensus for that addition, you should add it to the current version of the article. Huon (talk) 03:51, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Rewrite of Fights over brand name / Brazil section

It appears that the Brazil section of the Rewrite of "Fights over brand name" (last section on page) needs a significant rewrite.

The final paragraph begins with "In Brazil, the final battle over the brandname was finished in 2008."

Apple has just (9/24/13) won the right to use the name "iPhone" in Brazil, so it appears that the final battle was not over.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57604579-37/apple-wins-right-to-use-iphone-name-in-brazil/

As a newbie I do not have privileges to edit the page, but am offering this up as an alternative.

PeteY48 (talk) 22:55, 29 September 2013 (UTC)PeteY48

Interface

Re "The user interface is built around the device's multi-touch screen..." The user interface IS the multi-touch screen; it is not "built around" the screen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.147.170 (talk) 22:50, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

mount.sh Waiting to Mount...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.2.222.59 (talk) 19:31, 5 September 2013 (UTC) 

• The user interface is the portion of the operating system with which the user interacts during usage of the device. The multi-touch screen is hardware. So the UI and the screen are definitely separate and distinct. So the user interface(software) could certainly have been 'built around the device's multi-touch screen..." 198.99.24.125 (talk) 16:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

The number of Iphones sold in total is 421 million Iphones as of November 2013 http://ipod.about.com/od/glossary/f/how-many-iphones-sold.htm

The number of Iphones sold in total is 421 million Iphones as of November 2013 http://ipod.about.com/od/glossary/f/how-many-iphones-sold.htm 98.164.212.145 (talk) 07:00, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. This should be available from a more reliable source. Also, please specify the exact change you want to make in a "please change X to Y" manner. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 20:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Number of iOS versions

The article says "There are seven generations of iPhone models, each accompanied by one of the six major releases of iOS." The table in the article shows seven generations and seven iOS versions. Is this a mistake, or are one of the versions not "major"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.203.8.19 (talk) 23:28, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

what is a micropixel?

The article uses the term "micropixel" (or "µ pixel"), but does not define it or provide links to a definition. The term is not in common use. Wiktionary has a entry, but the definition is "a very small pixel". (You can imagine how that guy would define "microwave".)

Is there really such a thing as a micropixel? Or did Apple marketing people make it up? I'm having an emperor's-new-clothes feeling about this. TypoBoy (talk) 17:38, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Great question, and I wish I had the answer. Some light Googling reveals talk of "larger" 1.9µ pixels, so I wonder if the "µ" bit ("micro" isn't spelled out in the article) might not be shorthand for micro-something—but what? What unit is used to measure pixel size? Since this refers to the camera, might it also be trying to express the theoretical resolution of the camera's photosensor elements relative to the available resolution on the phone's screen? I really don't know. Rivertorch (talk) 18:39, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

µ = micron = micrometer. In this case, I believe it means the pixels are squares with side lengths of 1.9 micron. Kevin chen2003 (talk) 21:47, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit Request : iPhone 4 discontinuation date

The article states that the iPhone 4 has been discontinued on September 12, 2012; this is actually the date is what discontinued in most markets, but it remains being sold in japan.--Amos101 (talk) 17:57, 17 January 2014 (UTC) . And its reintroduction in India is also discussed as of January 2014..

Hence, the discontinuation date is for me incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.232.230.253 (talk) 07:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

iPhone 4 still available

As of today, the iPhone 4 is not discontinued, but still available in China. Therefore this should be marked as available or marked with a special category 'available in some regions' or something like that! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madboy86 (talk • contribs) 12:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

NSA's kit for iPhone

[2] Article [3] Someone not using his real name (talk) 20:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Request of edit

{{edit semi-protected}} In field of infobox: manufacturer please change: [[Foxconn]] ([[contract manufacturer|on contract]]) to [[Foxconn]] ([[contract manufacturer|on contract]])<br> Of IPhone 5S 85% are assembled in China, 15% in rest of the World.<ref>http://venturebeat.com/2013/07/31/iphone-manufacturing-graphic/</ref><ref>http://financesonline.com/how-iphone-is-made/</ref>
Reasons:

1. Provide source of Foxconn manufacture
2. to show how much of this pricy products are made in China
3. Foxconn have manufactures all of the World, even in the Czech Republic(Europe, union), in fact this means that saying only "manufacturer Foxconn" is not telling important things - something like e.g. "I known that Kansas maybe is in Europe, Southern Am. or Northern Am. ..."

Declining, not because of the nature of your request, but because of where the text is located. It's part of the infobox, which is only supposed to present simple facts without much text; your suggested addition would be too much for the box. If you'd like to suggest a place in the text where it could go, that would be quite different. Nyttend (talk) 03:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2014

Under the sub-category "Battery," in the fourth paragraph: "The battery replacement service and its pricing was not made known to buyers until the day the product was launched,[125][126] it is similar to how Apple (and third parties) replace batteries for iPods." This is a run-on sentence. Please change the comma to a period and capitalize the word after it. Morncreek (talk) 09:14, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Partly done:. I changed it to a semicolon. --Anon126 (talk - contribs) 21:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Sales Credit

[The iPhone is the top-selling phone of any kind in some countries, including the United States[22] and Japan.[23]]

Isn't this no longer relevant since a couple years ago? We should probably either removed this or put in an "as of "X" year" there. Japan this might still be relevant but I can't find any current source since 2012. (oops forgot to credit)Tigersuperman (talk) 19:41, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit Request

Hey I'm new, and I was reading about the iPhone to know where the sensors are and I noticed something, under Software it states "However, the apps never ran in the background. Starting with iOS 7, though, apps can truly multitask, and each open application runs in the background when not.[166] S although most functionality is still available when making a call or listening to music." What does that mean? Troll212dashie (talk) 10:51, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. That was either the result of (bizarre) vandalism, or someone made a mistake trying to edit the article. It looks like the word "used" got turned into a (non-functioning) reference and was hidden, and an extraneous period, space, and capital S were added. I made an attempt to fix it and make it more clear. -- Atama頭 17:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2014

Match the iphone sales with the chart below - 472m instead of 250m. Nbrites (talk) 23:38, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 23:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2014

Please change iOS 7.0.6 to 7.1 in the table for highest supported operating system as Apple just released a new version that works all the way back to the iPhone 4 Alex J. Philips (talk) 22:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 22:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Please see http://www.apple.com/ios/ios7-update/ for official Apple information relating to iOS7.1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philipsaj (talk • contribs) 22:42, 10 March 2014‎ (UTC)

 Already done --Sam Sailor ^Sing 19:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Historical false

The following sentence is an historical false. Please remove or elaborate more why this should be part of the article

The dominant mobile operating systems at the time such as Symbian, BlackBerry OS, and Windows Mobile were not designed to handle additional tasks beyond communication and basic functions

One example: well polished version of Tom Tom on Symbian are available since 2005.

The iPhone strenght at launch was based on good user experience, ecosystem and advertisement campaign. Not on functionalities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucacutrignelli (talk • contribs) 08:14, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Also consider the second half of the sentence:

iPhone OS (renamed iOS in 2010) was designed as a robust OS with capabilities such as multitasking and graphics in order to meet future consumer demands.

This is factually incorrect, as iPhone OS had no concept of multitasking, a feature that Symbian and Windows Mobile had since the beginning. In fact this entire paragraph seems quite one-sided; things such as 'these platforms never focused on applications', where Symbian and Windows Mobile had thriving developer ecosystems – what they lacked was a unified store to deliver them in, as it was convention at the time to find smartphone software like you find PC software and download it from the web. iPhone OS didn't have an application store at launch either, and Symbian actually had an app store a long time before the iPhone was launched.

I also think these false statements be removed, or elaborated/modified to remove the bias/ignorance. — Nik Rolls (talk) 06:03, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Units Sold is outdated.

Here is the latest article source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/markrogowsky/2014/03/25/without-much-fanfare-apple-has-sold-its-500-millionth-iphone/ Another article: http://www.macrumors.com/2014/03/25/apple-500-million-iphones-sold/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.20.241.93 (talk) 11:40, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Iphone sales have surpassed 500 million. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidpartin (talk • contribs) 11:34, 6 April 2014 (UTC) Davidpartin (talk) 17:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Those two sources are really the same source (Macrumors is just quoting Forbes). Forbes is definitely a reliable source. But Forbes did not actually say that there have been over 500 million iPhones yet. Forbes said, "So even if it proves a bit high as it did last quarter, we’ve crossed the point where it’s safe to assume that Apple has sold 500 million smartphones in less than 7 years." Saying "it's safe to assume Apple sold 500 million smartphones" isn't the same as saying that it actually did. So until you can show a source making that declaration, we can't include that information in the article. -- Atama頭 20:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Nearly exactly

When searching "iPhone resolution" Google quotes this article saying that the iPhone 5 display has width/height ratio of nearly exactly 16:9. That sounds like marketing speech to me. Either it's nearly, or it's exactly. And it's not exactly. To be precise, the shorter dimension has to be one pixel larger, or the bigger two pixels larger to be 16:9. And that's even when we round the pixel count. I propose "The iPhone 5 model's screen results in an aspect ratio of approximately 16:9.". — Preceding unsigned comment added by LongWindingRoad (talk • contribs) 14:09, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. I fixed it in the article. It may take awhile for Google to catch up but we can't control that. -- Atama頭 16:34, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Running Apps on a computer

Can iPhone or Android apps be run on a computer? If so, is there an article about this topic? Thanks! Misty MH (talk) 09:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

@Misty MH: Both iOS and Android have their own articles. If there was information about that on Wikipedia it would be in either of those articles. The Android article states here that "Android can also be run on x86 architecture by using an Android emulator which is part of the Android SDK, or by using BlueStacks." So you should be able to run Android apps on a PC with an emulator. Our iOS article doesn't mention anything about emulation, neither does the article for the App Store which talks about what devices can run apps (which should include iPhones and iPads). Knowing how restrictive Apple tends to be, I wouldn't be surprised if there was no officially-supported way to run those apps on any other kind of device.

If you're looking for instructions on how to do any of this, you'll need to look elsewhere. Wikipedia is not a guide or how-to place, it's just an encyclopedia. You can try checking Google or any other search engine for "Android emulation" or "iOS emulation" to get more assistance. -- Atama頭 16:45, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2014

Release date is incorrect in the frist section of this article.

Release date information in the text box on the right side is also incorrect.

Torodd.oppeboen (talk) 07:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:43, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, both this article and the article for the first iPhone use this PDF as evidence of release date. Yet that PDF does not say when the device was released. It's not that we don't have reliable sources, this source being used on the History of the iPhone page states that it was released on June 29, 2007 (and the New York Times can be considered a reliable source, surely). The text in this article, the original iPhone article, and the History article should probably be updated to use such a source as an inline citation. But bottom line, we have verification that the date is correct, so no it's not going to be changed. -- Atama頭 16:30, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, my guess is that this request above was actually a sockpuppet of Edger2006, an indefinitely-blocked vandalism-only account who recently made some nonsense changes to this article, claiming (among other things) that it was released in 2005 (two years before it was actually released). So I'm pretty sure the above request wasn't made in good faith. There's a reason why this article is semi-protected. -- Atama頭 16:34, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2014

Repair the dimension of iPhone 5C http://www.apple.com/iphone-5c/specs/

   Height: 4.90 inches (124.4 mm)
   Width: 2.33 inches (59.2 mm)
   Depth: 0.35 inch (8.97 mm)
   Weight: 4.65 ounces (132 grams)

Fabrianivan (talk) 14:33, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Done Dom497 (talk) 17:45, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 May 2014

iPhone 5S or iPhone 5s? Because it shows as iPhone 5s in Apple sites.

Fabrianivan (talk) 10:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: There have been lengthy discussions about this topic at Talk:IPhone 5S. The consensus is rather muddy for this issue; as a matter of fact, there is currently a discussion going on right now at Talk:IPhone 5S#Requested move over whether or not to retitle the page to "iPhone 5s". Feel free to participate there. For the time being, {{edit semi-protected}} will not be of much use in fixing this. Mz7 (talk) 03:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

To elaborate on the point a bit further: I think (from my perspective) why Wikipedia uses the capital S is because when you say "iPhone 5S" you are saying the name of the letter S—as in, "iPhone Five-es". If there is a lowercase s, readers who are uninitiated with the topic may be confused, and pronounce it like "iPhone fives". The capital letter indicates that you say the name of a letter, whereas a lowercase letter indicates you pronounce the letter. I hope that makes sense. The discussion focuses on whether or not we should use Apple's marketed stylization, or the natural stylization. Best, Mz7 (talk) 04:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2014

Based on the graphic of iPhone that sold by apple in Wikipedia is 683.786 million. So 250 million is incorrect Fabrianivan (talk) 15:41, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. 123chess456 (talk) 01:46, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I think what you wanted to change was the "250 million" units sold value in the infobox to 683.786 million. The problem is that you are synthesizing multiple sources to say something the individual sources don't say specifically. That's original research, which is not used on Wikipedia. There is a source included that verifies 250 million as the figure; it may be outdated, but it's the only one we've got right now that explicitly verifies the information in question. Can you find a source that explicitly verifies 683 million? Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:54, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, an anonymous user has found a source below. I've updated the number to 500 million per this source. Best, Mz7 (talk) 02:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Units sold outdated

The units sold is outdated as the iPhone has passed 500 million sold

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markrogowsky/2014/03/25/without-much-fanfare-apple-has-sold-its-500-millionth-iphone/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.114.162.240 (talk) 23:52, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks! Mz7 (talk) 02:57, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

That's a relief, a couple months ago we didn't have a source like that. I suspected it was true but we had to verify it. Good find! -- Atama頭 15:35, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2014

Please repair it. iPhone 5C has 1507 mAh battery. http://www.gsmarena.com/apple_iphone_5c-5690.php Fabrianivan (talk) 12:53, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: Article already says 1507 mAh, and it is sourced. Sam Sailor ^Sing 14:09, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Two horizontal scroll bars, please!

I think a horizontal scroll bar should be both above and below, not just below, for the growing comparison section...

I don't know that we can do that. The scroll bar is automatically added to the table, it may require a technical change beyond this article to accomplish that. I don't see anything in the code for that table that defines the scroll bar(s). I understand your request, though, the table is really big (and getting bigger) and it's a pain to have to go to the bottom to find the bar. -- Atama頭 21:56, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2014

• [blog link redacted] – iPhone 6 Release Date, Improved Hardware, Specs And Features

Nitin 416 (talk) 18:17, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Adding a blog link to the article's external links is strongly discouraged by WP:ELNO. --McGeddon (talk) 18:22, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2014

Juan Miguel (talk) 02:14, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done: No request made. — LeoFrank  ^Talk 04:08, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Intro

The intro is far too long and detailed - e.g. the paragraph summarizing every release and its main features.

2.123.214.136 (talk) 09:35, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

hi

why don't have Armenian keyboared in iphone — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.253.22.195 (talk) 03:48, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi there - article talk pages are for discussing the article itself, not for general discussions or questions on the subject. That being said, I believe you can find Armenian keyboards on the app store. Cheers, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:01, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Three contracts

Three's phones are now all unlocked as standard (any network sim can be used in them) Firadesunna (talk) 17:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Done, added source WhiteWolf55555 (talk) 10:39, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

iPhone 6 and iPhone 6C listed as versions of the iPhone family. As of August 2014, this is not confirmed nor true. Please update accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.148.196.4 (talk) 19:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2014

Please add the iPhone 6 redirect notice on top of the article. 206.19.188.252 (talk) 16:28, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Saying what, exactly? The {{redirect}} is of the format "X redirects here. For Y, see..." - what should it point to? --McGeddon (talk) 16:34, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2014

The iPhone 6 will not be released on September 9th, it will be presented.

155.41.85.215 (talk) 02:57, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

 Not done: This can wait for the announcement, no need to put in unsourced rumors at this time. PaleAqua (talk) 03:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion

The second sentence makes no sense. Please fix it / unlock this article.

It's iPhone 5s / 5c, not 5S / 5C. Please fix it. For Science (and mankind).

Yeah, I can't find anything that indicates these phones are really called "5C and "5S". Everything (including from Apple) says "5c" and "5s". Is there a source for the capitalization (which is explicitly asserted in the heading of the iPhone 5C article's first line)? ——Rich jj (talk) 22:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Images sizes for model comparison

The iPhone image sizes in the model comparison table made the screen increases from iPhone 4S to 5, and then to 6 and 6 Plus, look way bigger than they really are. The increased pixel width appeared to be pretty arbitrary, so here's the calculations they should be set to:

Model	Screen Size	Width	Percent wider than iPhone 4	Current display width	Correct display width
iPhone 4	3.5"	58.6 mm (2.31 in)	0% wider	85px	85px
iPhone 5s	4"	58.6 mm (2.31 in)	0% wider	100px	85px
iPhone 6	4.7"	67.0 mm (2.64 in)	14.33% wider	125px	97px
iPhone 6 Plus	5.5"	77.8 mm (3.06 in)	32.76% wider	150px	113px

Because some of the images have a weird blank border around the phone, this is what I think the values should be at for the whole list:

IPhone 2G PSD Mock.png|85px
IPhone_PSD_White_3G.png|85px
IPhone_PSD_White_3G.png|85px
IPhone_4_Mock_No_Shadow_PSD.png|85px
IPhone_4S_No_shadow.png|100px
IPhone_5.png|96px
IPhone_5C.png|85px     
IPhone_5s.png|85px
IPhone6_silver_frontface.png|97px
IPhone6_silver_frontface.png|113px

——Rich jj (talk) 22:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Seem reason, made the change. Have a 3G, 4, 5, and 6 which I zoomed screen in browser and compared against actual size and seem to match quite well with your numbers. Also aligned the images to the bottom as a separate edit since it makes the differences easier to see and shows that the bottom border stayed the same. Though a separate 6+ picture might be needed. PaleAqua (talk) 04:29, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Update needed

Hey all. This article needs its history section updated in light of the latest release, and that section also needs rewriting in some places to put it in past tense. I would do it, but I don't contribute enough here to justify creating an account, and the article is semi-protected. 121.217.153.251 (talk) 10:48, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Audio section

For the caption of the iPhone's speaker and microphone at the bottom of the phone, the speaker is on the right, and the microphone is on the left. Please fix that. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.226.22.174 (talk) 03:31, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

 Fixed: The photo caption has been fixed. Thanks. Aytk (talk) 16:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Update required to Comparison Chart

Now that the iPhone 6 and 6 plus have been unveiled, apple has put their Tech Specs on their website. A new section should be put on the 'comparison of models' chart for each. Yea55 (talk) 13:18, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The comparison chart is unusable on my 1280x1024 monitor. Can someone figure out a screen-agnostic way to do the layout? 47.18.34.63 (talk) 06:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

If side scrolling is a must, please make the left-most column NOT scroll. If that's not possible, there must be a better way to display this data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisisfutile (talk • contribs) 19:45, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2015

At the bottom of the history and availability section, add "On September 9th 2014, Apple revealed two new iPhone models at a press event in cupertino. PaperMarioGuy

References

Done Stickee (talk) 02:42, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 February 2015

The first sentence of history and availability section ends with "...including Jonathan Ive, the designer behind the iPhone." While this is technically a true statement, it doesn't quite make sense to write sentence along the lines of "Development of the iPhone began with a development team including Jonathan Ive, the designer behind the iPhone". In other words, this sentence reads as "X was designed by Jonathan Ive, designer of X". I believe this sentence was intended to end with "...including Jonathan Ive, the designer behind the iPod." though it could just as well end with "...behind the iMac." or "...behind the iMac and iPod."

Done ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2015

On the map of availability, Serbia should be "available", not "coming soon", http://www.telenor.rs/en/Consumer/webshop/iPhone-6/ Telenor is a major network operator in Serbia. 82.117.218.112 (talk) 22:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

 Pending I've requested someone at Commons to update the image. Stickee (talk) 01:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Done Image has been updated by Lokal Profil. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 02:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2015

It would be nice to show this under the populated introductions 2007 tab, please add Category:2007 introductions Mice007 (talk) 11:54, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

•  Not done - Whilst your suggestion is a good one, the article is currently located in a sub-category of the one mentioned above, so placing it in the category you suggested is against standard procedure. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request for 15 May, 2015

The next-to-last sentence of the opening paragraph says "compared top 51.0 million in the last quarter of 2013." It should say "to" instead of "top."

Lzpanzer (talk) 04:17, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

•  Done Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:27, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2015

I would like to propose a format change to the graph near the bottom, the one that displays each of the iPhones' system specifications. What specific aspect I'd like to suggest a change to is simply to change the size of the entire chart to a smaller size so it can be view-able without having to scroll vertically and horizontally to properly read the char, much less a single characteristic of the iPhone. If I am not clear enough, strategies that can be used to make this change is to reduce the size of the texts within the boxes, as well as changing the size of the boxes of the charts themselves. Why this change? I feel it is a very uncomfortable experience when trying to look up and compare specific characteristics of the iPhones, especially to individuals who don't have a screen large enough to fit at least either the entire chart vertically or horizontally on their screens That is all & thank you for your time to read my request! Ultiyplayer (talk) 06:57, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This is going to take a LOT of work. I've cleaned out the WP:HTML5 non-compliant code and made a very small dent in the width issue. I'm thinking the best way to resolve this is to either remove unnecessary content from the table or/and transpose the table so the versions go down and the specifications go across. I'm leaving the ticket open as I have a lot of work to do at school this week (and the two weeks after) so don't have much time to work on this. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 13:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Not done for now: While I totally understand the rationale for this request, as Technical 13 said, doing so would require a lot of work. At least more work than we usually handle with the {{edit semi-protected}} template. It's been over a month, and a certain administrative situation on Wikipedia has made Technical 13 unable to contribute for a while, so I'm going to go ahead and close this request as non-actionable for now. If another editor sees this later on down the road that can help, I'd encourage them to pitch in. On the bright side, Ultiyplayer, you are now autoconfirmed, which means you can directly edit the page yourself, without having to make a another request. I apologize for our unhelpfulness. Best, Mz7 (talk) 04:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Any other uses for the iPhone, where GPS is utilized

Also include a list of other features or functions, where the GPS in the iPhone is utilized.

Historical pricing

There isn't much uniformity in the iPhone articles when it comes to reporting the original release price. For historical research purposes, I think this kind of information is noteworthy. Both the on-contract and off-contract pricing should be reported, or at a bare minimum the on-contract pricing should be clearly labeled as "2-year contract required."

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2015

iPhone 4S' release date is in 2011, not 2013. NoidedN8 (talk) 08:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Not done for now: - there are 60 mentions of 4S in the article - the only dates relating to them all seem to be 2011 - which section are you seeing 2013 in?
Please reactivate the request when you have explained where in the article the error is, by editing "answered=y" to "answered=no" on the first line of this thread. - Arjayay (talk) 09:10, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit Request

In the Model comparison table, it says in production for the iPhone 6 and 6 Plus despite the fact that the 128GB models are no longer available. 2.223.188.185 (talk) 07:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Change discussion: update "Secret Tracking" section to "Undisclosed Tracking"

For clarity of what is happening -- "Secret Tracking" can be interpreted as tracking secrets, rather than secretly tracking. Additionally "secret" promotes a sensational connotation rather than factual. I'll make this change in a day or two if no objections. aerotheque (talk) 19:51, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 October 2015

Claiming in 4.9 that "The American and British intelligence agencies, the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) respectively, have access to the user data in iPhones. They can read almost all information on the phone, including SMS, location, emails, and notes." citing a german tabloid as the source of information is dubious at best. Should be removed or at the very least marked as "speculative". 94.191.185.107 (talk) 10:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Not done: Spiegel appears to be a reliable source (Over 800 uses on Wikipedia). Besides that, a quick google shows many other English based reliable sources reporting on the topic as well. -- ferret (talk) 17:53, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Summary panel (upper right)

This comment is about general readership and the lack of readability. As a reader, I find there is too much 'technical specification' information in the summary panel, or box, displayed on the right side at the top of the article. I am referring to the information on 'system-on-chip,' CPU, memory, display, graphics, connectivity, power, dimensions, and weight. This level of excruciating detail in the summary panel completely defeats the purpose of the summary panel. This lack of readability is the antithesis of the intuitive, user-friendliness that makes most Apple products so excellent and that makes many if not most Wiki articles so helpful. Wikipedia is not publishing technical manuals, and its summary panels should be suited to general readership. This information could easily, and should be, moved by its original contributor or editor into a table somewhere in the body of the article. If you want a great Wiki article, this change is necessary. Jrgilb (talk) 09:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Edit Request: Apple Upgrade Program.

This entire section of the article is written in a very casual tone and uses relaxed language. I would suggest this entire section be rewritten in a more professional manner.Ryangehret (talk) 04:53, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 November 2015

IPhone/Archive 20 on Facebook 43.254.12.120 (talk) 17:58, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

•  Not done Facebook pages are rarely if ever suitable as external links.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:03, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Spelling mistake

Wiki page has "bye Steve Jobs" written in section 1.1 (Sales and profits), it should read "by Steve Jobs"

Please fix 'bye' to 'by' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.219.209 (talk • contribs) 01:59, March 8, 2016‎

Removed that entire edit. It was added fairly recently, unsourced and didn't really fit with the rest of the section. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 12:19, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2016

The second sentence of the first paragraph underneath the 'Apple Upgrade Program' section currently reads: "As every other iPhone release...".

I believe semantically it should read "As with every other iPhone release".

GNZR (talk) 20:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Done EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:54, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on IPhone. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150213101032/http://archive.wired.com/gadgets/wireless/magazine/16-02/ff_iphone?currentPage=all to http://archive.wired.com/gadgets/wireless/magazine/16-02/ff_iphone?currentPage=all

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

please update unit sold to 896 million units not 700 million

please update unit sold to 896 million units not 700 million. http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/04/technology/iphone-sales/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.205.83.113 (talk) 00:12, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

why the cost is more for i phones... i Know the more features but still..why??

why the cost is more for i phones... i Know the more features but still..why?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.31.215.2 (talk) 10:46, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, this talk page is for discussion on ways to improve the article. Apple prices their products as they wish/need to, I don't think anyone would know the true answer to your question :0 Guysayshi (talk) 15:23, 27 May 2016 (UTC)Guysayshi

iPhone 2G naming

Hi, there is the sentence "Each home screen holds up to twenty icons for iPhone 2G, 3G, 4 and 4S, while each [...]". I would like to get rid of the unofficial "2G" naming.
Maybe you could change it to "[...] icons for original iPhone, 3G/3GS and 4/4S, while [...]". Thanks. 84.173.205.195 (talk) 21:45, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

encryption horsesh*t

some note about this? [4] 178.222.86.81 (talk) 12:13, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Totally agree! --2003:70:CF41:301:D41C:B5A3:919C:998C (talk) 21:16, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Why would they do that?Oh I forgot.ITS BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT IS SLOWLY TURNING US ALL INTO MIND SLAVES!!!! Annaloveshungergames27 (talk) 00:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 July 2016

MallyMan586 (talk) 02:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC) Ava Yentzen

•  Not done Please make your request in a "Please change X to Y" format. Everymorning (talk) 02:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

The iPhone SE does not have 3D touch.

In the iPhone page it says that the iPhone 6s, 6s Plus, and the iPhone SE all have 3D touch capability. However, the iPhone SE does not actually have 3D touch.Sir Daniel Alvarez (talk) 01:58, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Please update number of apps in app store to 2 million

The article currently has outdated information from 2013 regarding the number of apps in the app store (currently listed at 1.3 million). The app store has now grown to over 2 million applications. http://www.statista.com/statistics/276623/number-of-apps-available-in-leading-app-stores/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisKerrigan (talk • contribs) 00:14, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 August 2016

Tacoloco1 (talk) 15:56, 9 August 2016 (UTC) Can I edit this article?

Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. clpo13_(talk) 15:58, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

iPhone 7

iPhone 7 has been debuted already and should have the proper page to include its details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorivaldo de C. M. dos Santos (talk • contribs) 17:56, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2016

Please remove reference 15 as it leads to an old iphone (6s) instead of the newest one. Also please add that the newest iphone runs on iOS10 leaving reference 16 as it.

Thetangent24 (talk) 05:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Partly done: Changed ref 15, but iOS 10 is mentioned further down in the article. Class455 (talk) 08:53, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

IPHONE 7 DOES HAVE 2 GB OF RAM, 7 plus have 3gigs

IPHONE 7 DOES HAVE 2 GB OF RAM, 7 plus have 3gigs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.160.235.253 (talk) 13:16, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

How about a new article section "Versions"?

I think it would be useful to create a separate section detailing what the first configuration was, and then features that were added in subsequent versions. This information is scattered about here and in other Wikipedia articles, but it would be useful to create one organized list of changes, IMO. HouseOfChange (talk) 20:34, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2016

The third paragraph still says nine generations of the iPhone have been released with nine major versions of iOS. It should be updated now that the iPhone 7 and iOS 10 have been released to say ten generations and ten major versions of iOS. Charlie pepin (talk) 20:00, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done -- Dane2007 ^talk 20:05, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2016

Egenio2000 (talk) 02:34, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

 the iphone is more expensive

 Not done No requested changes. -- Dane2007 ^talk 02:39, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2017

Can you change these source links back from:

• https://www.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703791904576075681886276172.html
• https://www.wsj.com/article/SB117211001262715655.html

To:

• http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703791904576075681886276172.html
• http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117211001262715655.html

please? They redirect to the "sign up/subscribe" page. 103.199.137.190 (talk) 00:40, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done Thanks! — IVORK _Discuss 02:43, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2017

Webiste planetinsane.com is not valid any more, please remove the link to avoid spam sites use it. Moisty70 (talk) 20:13, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Moisty70: Thank you for bringing attention to this! Planetinsane doesn't appear to be a particularly reliable source, so I will replace it with a more reliable source. LocalNet (talk) 20:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 17 external links on IPhone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://smartyphoneshub.com/2015/01/complete-history-of-androids-operating-system/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.handheldhollywood.com/latest-news/foundrys-rollingshutter-can-fix-iphone-jellocam.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/techbeat/archives/2007/07/coming_soon_iph.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.macblogz.com/2008/08/12/iphone-3g-connection-issues-caused-by-immature-chipset/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1797
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.apple.com/iphone/specs-3g.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081207035309/http://blogs.pcworld.com/staffblog/archives/007748.html to http://blogs.pcworld.com/staffblog/archives/007748.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://developer.apple.com/library/safari/referencelibrary/GettingStarted/GS_iPhoneWebApp/_index.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gearlog.com/2007/09/apples_joswiak_we_dont_hate_ip.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news%2Fbusiness&id=4920783
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://blogs.zdnet.com/Berlind/?p=284
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.arb-forum.com/domains/decisions/94369.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://newsroom.cisco.com/dlls/2007/corp_011007.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.informationweek.com/news/231001147
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/sep2008/tc2008091_106953.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gta.net/guam-cell-phones/phones/iPhone/overview
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://veja.abril.com.br/noticia/vida-digital/apple-vence-gradiente-na-justica-e-pode-usar-marca-iphone-no-brasil

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:25, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

"Expected 2017 model"

I believe pretty strongly that mention of a future model does not meet the expectation of WP:CRYSTALBALL. As we all know, Apple is very secretive and protective of future product announcements. While we new device is certainly likely, I wouldn't consider it a guarantee until Apple says so. Further, any mention of features or specifications is 100% speculative. When I deleted it, two features were mentioned: OLED and inductive charging. I just found several articles about iPhone 6 and 7 including OLED and inductive charging. Didn't happen. The iPhone rumormill is HUGE and lucrative. Anyone will post an article to get some good clicks. Until it comes from Apple, it's nothing more than a rumor. heat_fan1 (talk) 16:55, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Information about the next generation of iPhone does meet the expectations of WP:CRYSTAL.

This is the sentence about the next generation iPhone, as I added it:

Informed sources within Apple and its supply chain partners report that Apple will release a next-generation iPhone, tentatively referred to within the media and industry as the iPhone 8, iPhone X, or iPhone 10th anniversary edition, in late 2017.[260][261][262].

Let's go step-by-step through the WP:CRYSTAL test for that sentence:

• All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable

Per WP:VERIFIABLE, "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source."

Here, I selected three published articles from the range of major media organizations that have published on this topic (the Wall Street Journal, Barrron's, and the Express) plus one industry-specific organiation (AppleInsider). (To avoid WP:UNDUE, I sifted those four as representative of the dozens and dozens of reputable media outfits that have published on this same subject, both online and in print.) Any reader of Wikipedia can check those citations, that the information conforms to the sources, and that it is based on information from industry experts.

• the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred.

Each iPhone model in the iPhone family has its own Wikipedia article, citing dozens of reliable sources that have published information about each model, typically also discussing the details of the model's release. It is nearly assured that the next generation model of iPhone will have its own Wikipedia article also.

• It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced.

My sentence discusses the likely release of the iPhone 8, and is properly referenced (as discussed above).

• Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view.

As you can see, predictions, speculation, forecasts, and theories are all acceptable, if they come from reliable expert sources. As discussed above, those were included.

And if you feel that my sentence carries an unacceptable POV and cites sources that create an undue bias, and that Apple will not be releasing a new model of iPhone, then of course you're free to find sources supporting that assertion and adding them to the section.

• Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place.

The release of a new iPhone model is notable, as hundreds of media organizations worldwide publish articles on the release of the new models annually.

The release of a new iPhone model is almost certain to take place, based on Apple's annual release schedule, and information from Apple supply chain partners, Apple corporate insiders, financial sector experts with industry connections who make their livelihood being informed about the status of Apple products, and journalists who are in constant touch with all of these people (all cited in the sources). Earlier today on an earnings calls, CEO Tim Cook himself indicated that Apple will be releasing a new model of iPhone.

• If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented.

Preparation for the release of the new iPhone is already in progress, per the reliable sources discussed above -- plus the speculation is well documented.

• even highly speculative articles about events that may or may not occur far in the future might be appropriate, where coverage in reliable sources is sufficient.

The scope of information available stating that Apple will be releasing a new model of iPhone is wide and deep -- plus there is extensive coverage of the process by reliable sources, as discussed above.

• Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic (such as an article about the creator(s), a series of products, or a previous product) if applicable.

Here, the information *is* merged to the larger topic, obviously.

--Infoman99 (talk) 01:05, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting, and I understand your take. For me, it was the last point in WP:CRYSTAL that suggested to me that it should be removed (emphasis mine):

• Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors. Although Wikipedia includes up-to-date knowledge about newly revealed products, short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate. Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic (such as an article about the creator(s), a series of products, or a previous product) if applicable. Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content.

To me, the points you refer to are discussing future events, though obviously discussion of the next iPhone can refer to the release of the device as the "future event." When I consider content, I think of the encyclopedic value of it. Understanding that Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER and has, effectively, limitless content space, I wonder whether something like rumors about future products would ever be in an encyclopedia, and I can't see it. Further, even the most reliable sources get Apple product speculation wrong all the time. The purpose of WP:CRYSTAL is to weed out information on what could be true, and instead focus on what is true or will be true. What's written about the next iPhone is nothing more than what could be true about it. heat_fan1 (talk) 13:16, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi heat_fan1 -- I understand your general concern about, as you called it, 'encyclopedic value.'

To answer your big-picture issue -- all discussion of anticipated events, by definition, involves what could be true, as opposed to what is true. Yet, the framers of WP:NOT and its sub-section WP:CRYSTAL, after 15 years of discussion,[5] have decided to allow such content, when notable and backed by reliable sources.

In this case, the release of a future model of iPhone has already been covered by many dozens of published reliable sources based on expert information, and the actual release will be covered by many hundreds of published reliable sources, as indicated by past releases.

Regarding WP:NOT and its section on encyclopedic content -- a mention of the release of the next model of iPhone does not appear to fit any of the prohibited specific situations listed in section 2.

Regarding "speculation" -- a search of WP:NOT / WP:CRYSTAL for all the instances of the word speculation shows that the thrust of the policy is that speculation based on documented, reliable, expert sources may be included, as long as speculation is not at the core of an article. If you read the surrounding paragraphs around the instances of "speculation", it specifically allows for: "articles about anticipated events", "predictions, speculation, forecasts, and theories", and discussion of "scheduled or expected future events", "unreleased products", and of "product announcements ... merged to a larger topic."

Regarding your statement that "I wonder whether something like rumors about future products would ever be in an encyclopedia, and I can't see it" -- the policy of Wikipedia (as opposed to Britannica and the like) is that, under WP:CRYSTAL, as discussed above, is specifically to allow well-documented discussion of future products based on reliable sources.

Regarding "Further, even the most reliable sources get Apple product speculation wrong all the time. The purpose of WP:CRYSTAL ..." -- again, the authors of the WP:CRYSTAL policy hashed out this rubric over many years. After much discussion, they decided to allow speculation and anticipated events, where it was well-documented by reliable sources. You may want to post on the WP:NOT talk page, and suggest a change to disallow such discussion, even when it's backed by published reliable sources.

Regarding "What's written about the next iPhone is nothing more than what could be true about it." -- like I mentioned above, the policy hashed out in WP:NOT and WP:CRYSTAL is specifically to allow for discussion of anticipated events, where it's backed by reliable sources.

In sum, it seems like your argument is more with WP:NOT and WP:CRYSTAL than with a one- or two- sentence mention of the release of the next model of iPhone based on many dozens of reliable sources. You may be able to suggest a change and to successfully convince them to modify the policy. (And I'm being sincere about that, not facetious.) Infoman99 (talk) 22:12, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the history lesson, and truly thanks for sharing the Archive Index, a tool I hadn't previously noticed. I get your point, and you may be right about my issue. But I still see the line, specifically under the 5th point about products (the other four being more tied to events than objects or products), that states Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content. Can you better explain how that statement doesn't apply here? heat_fan1 (talk) 12:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

That's a fair point. I have two main responses.

First, the phrase "encyclopedic content" at the end of Point 5, in this context, appears to mean an entire Wikipedia article. This is based on three things: the structure of Point 5 itself, the definition of the phrase derived from WP:NOT section 2, and the definition of "encyclopedic content" from another Wikipedia policy. (All of these are discussed below).

Second, the fact that WP:CRYSTAL specifically allows for speculation means that we should read Point 5 to try to make the policy internally consistent so that it does not contradict itself. To do so, the logical reading for Point 5 would be that "encyclopedic content" refers to entire articles. (This is also discussed below.)

I'll start with Response Two, and gradually shift into Response One.

At first glance, there does appear to be an internal inconsistency within WP:CRYSTAL regarding "speculation" (including in Point 5). But on closer examination, the inconsistency seems to resolve itself.

The introductory paragraph of WP:CRYSTAL, which should set the binding overall rule for all Wikipedia, mentions speculation twice:

• A) Speculation, along with predictions, forecasts, and theories, may be included, if stated by reliable expert sources or recognized entities in a field.

• B) The speculation cannot be unverifiable.

Speculation is also mentioned as allowable in Point 1, which I would argue also applies. My sentence, in part, is pointing out that a release for the new model of iPhone is anticipated to occur. These releases of new models of iPhones are covered widely by global media (public anticipation, first global sales in Australia, online ordering backlogs, long lines). The press also details the release announcement events themselves (venue, length of time, names of presenters, etc.). The releases also typically receive coverage within the Wikipedia article for the iPhone models themselves.

The mention of speculation in Point 3 says that speculation is inappropriate if it's original research and constitutes a full article. My sentence is not original research as it restates and cites sentences from the footnoted articles. It also is only a single small sub-section within an article.

As you mention, Point 5 touches on speculation in a way that seems to battle with the previous statements on speculation. This may be an artifact of the group-editing process. But the gist of Point 5 is focused on the 'size and shape' of the speculation. For example:

• such information should not be used as the sole basis of an article ("Although Wikipedia includes up-to-date knowledge about newly revealed products, short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate.")

• such information should instead be placed within a larger existing article about the franchise or series or the like ("Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic (such as an article about the creator(s), a series of products, or a previous product) if applicable.")

Given that Point 5 overall is focused on the use of speculation as the core of a full article, the phrase "encyclopedic content" at the end of Point 5 likewise reasonably appears to refer to the use of speculation or rumor as the basis of an entire Wikipedia article.

This is supported by another use of the phrase "encylopedic content" in Wikipedia, in WP:HERE, which defines encyclopedic content as "articles and media".

Even more on point, WP:NOT section 2 (labeled "Encyclopedic Content") is focused on what "A Wikipedia article should not be". The numerous uses of the word "articles" in section 2 confirm this further.

So, in sum, we have the following pieces of information that gravitate toward finding that "encyclopedic content" at the end of Point 5 should be read to mean that speculation should not be the core of an entire Wikipedia article:

• the internal consistency of WP:CRYSTAL and all of its uses of "speculation"

• the pre-existing focus of Point 5

• the examples of encyclopedic content given in WP:NOT section 2, and

• the use of "encyclopedic content" in another Wikipedia policy.

Taken on the whole, that's a strong case that Point 5 should be read consistently with WP:NOT and WP:CRYSTAL overall and -- so that the policy does not contradict itself -- that speculation is allowed, where it's backed by verifiable expert reliable sources and not the core of the article. In conjunction with Wikimedia's vision to "freely share in the sum of all knowledge"[6], I think a basic acknowledgement of experts' well-documented views of a major and consequential occurrence in the near future is appropriate to include in the iPhone article.

Infoman99 (talk) 02:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

You definitely know how to make a well-informed, quality argument. I think Point 5 should be clarified, but I can play along.

Now, I still think iPhone rumors are utter nonsense and not something that would be in my encyclopedia, but this is a community Wiki and all good content is welcome. Thanks for a good discussion; you've changed my mind. heat_fan1 (talk) 19:52, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Ah thanks heat_fan1. I think my high school English teacher would be gratified to hear that not all his red ink on my papers went to waste, heh.

I agree that Point 5 could benefit from a little tweaking. Thanks for the conscientious back-and-forth ironing this out. I enjoyed hearing your thoughts. Infoman99 (talk) 03:59, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

There are always rumours and speculation about upcoming iPhones and Samsung phones. This is exactly the sort of thing that WP:CRYSTAL is designed to prevent. Wikipedia articles should not rehash this type of material from the tech blogs.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:52, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi IanMacM - thanks for your input. Can you note the policy specifics that you're concerned about? That will help focus the discussion. Thank you. Infoman99 (talk) 17:41, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

There are clear problems with WP:V with this type of speculation, and it also runs into problems with WP:NOTNEWS and WP:10YT. Wikipedia should also steer clear of the subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) advertising that accompanies the constant round of speculation surrounding what the next iPhone or Samsung Galaxy phone will do, what it will look like etc. We aren't here to do this, we are here to write an encyclopedia.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:50, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Unsourced software info

Hi everybody! While editing the Software section, I noticed the text "It is a variant of the same Darwin operating system core that is found in Mac OS X. Also included is the "Core Animation" software component from Mac OS X v10.5 Leopard. Together with the PowerVR hardware (and on the iPhone 3GS, OpenGL ES 2.0), it is responsible for the interface's motion graphics." It is unsourced. I tried doing research to find WP:SECONDARY sources stating that information, and I couldn't find any. I then proceeded to try finding primary sources, and couldn't find any there either. This might (I want to emphasize might) be a case where the content is true because someone has done research on it themselves, and then the content has stayed for so long that it appears to be true. If anybody out there knows of a reliable source stating this information, please add it! Otherwise, I'll remove it within a few days. Hopefully someone else can figure it out! :) LocalNet (talk) 15:52, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Are full-price iPhones (bought for example from USA) always without operator customization?

If one pays full price for iPhone (for example iPhone X and iPhone 8) in USA, does one always get a device with NO operator customization? Does it help if one buys from Apple Store?

What is required for the full-price phone to work fully in Europe with European SIM card, except of course buying a new charger? Perhaps one need to first activate the iPhone in USA and then ask the operator to activate roaming? And then make at least one phone call in USA? 91.155.24.127 (talk) 11:42, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on IPhone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100106163724/http://www.mobileburn.com/review.jsp?Id=3526 to http://www.mobileburn.com/review.jsp?Id=3526
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110501035135/http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2008/06/09iphone.html to https://www.apple.com/pr/library/2008/06/09iphone.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090609115114/http://blogs.consumerreports.org/electronics/2008/04/send-in-the-icl.html to http://blogs.consumerreports.org/electronics/2008/04/send-in-the-icl.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100607043644/http://www.iphonealley.com/news/do-iphone-hacks-void-your-warranty to http://www.iphonealley.com/news/do-iphone-hacks-void-your-warranty
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.idroidproject.org/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110711154914/http://www.news-record.com/content/2011/07/08/article/security_holes_discovered_in_iphones_ipads to http://www.news-record.com/content/2011/07/08/article/security_holes_discovered_in_iphones_ipads

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:44, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on IPhone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090623022830/http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2009/01/21results.html to https://www.apple.com/pr/library/2009/01/21results.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081215230338/http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/06/11iphone.html to https://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/06/11iphone.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on IPhone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110521200837/http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/06/18iphone.html to https://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/06/18iphone.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080529133618/http://images.apple.com/pr/pdf/q307data_sum.pdf to https://images.apple.com/pr/pdf/q307data_sum.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110521104112/http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2009/04/22results.html to https://www.apple.com/pr/library/2009/04/22results.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110807043237/http://store.apple.com/us/product/MC953ZM/A?fnode=MTc0MjU4NjE&mco=MjE1Mjg1OTQ to http://store.apple.com/us/product/MC953ZM/A?fnode=MTc0MjU4NjE&mco=MjE1Mjg1OTQ
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081215230427/http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2008/01/15iphone.html to https://www.apple.com/pr/library/2008/01/15iphone.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090423162242/http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/09/05itunes.html to https://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/09/05itunes.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080325220021/http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/02/21iphone.html to https://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/02/21iphone.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110607035322/http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2011/04/27location_qa.html to https://www.apple.com/pr/library/2011/04/27location_qa.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:33, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 February 2018

Remove prweb citations and replace with

TaxAct2018 (talk) 21:18, 8 February 2018 (UTC) TaxAct2018 (talk) 21:18, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

 Partly done: I removed the part of the sentence sourced to PRWeb that was of doubtful relevance even assuming the original source and moved rest of the statement to a more logical location and improved transition. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:30, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2018

In the section "Encryption and intelligence agency access", please remove "which would equate to modernized slavery" from "The U.S. government attempted to use the arcane and outdated All Writs Act to obtain a court order ordering Apple to produce an IPSW file that would allow investigators to brute force the passcode of the iPhone, which would equate to modernized slavery."

It's not neutral and isn't in the sources. Right-o (talk) 13:26, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:41, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

iPhone Upgrade Programme is not 24 months in all regions.

I noticed the mention of the Upgrade Program only states the US times (24 months, eligible for an upgrade after 12 months). Would it be worth mentioning that the terms are not the same in all regions? e.g. in the UK, it is a 20-month plan, eligible for an upgrade after 11 months.

iPhone Upgrade Programme - Apple (UK)

--— Lee A. Christie (talk) 20:35, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 July 2018

Please change

"In 2000, Infogear won an infringement claim against the owners of the iphones.com domain name.[283] In June 2000, Cisco Systems acquired Infogear, including the iPhone trademark.[284]"

to

"In 2000, Infogear filed an infringement claim against the owners of the iPhones.com domain name. The owners of the iPhones.com domain name challenged the infringement claim in the Northern District Court of California. In June 2000, Cisco Systems acquired Infogear, including the iPhone trademark. In September 2000, Cisco Systems settled with the owners of iPhones.com and allowed the owners to keep the iPhones.com domain name along with intellectual property rights to use any designation of the iPhones.com domain name for the sale of cellular phones, cellular phones with Internet access (WAP PHONES), handheld PDAs, storage devices, computer equipment (hardware/software), and digital cameras (hardware/software). The intellectual property rights were granted to the owners of the iPhones.com domain name by Cisco Systems in September 2000." Iphonesdomain (talk) 22:28, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done. L293D (☎ • ✎) 00:13, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2018

Please add the New iPhone XS and iPhone XR to the "History and availability" Section. Thanks! LuckyTheCoder (talk) 19:35, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

 Already done Saucy^{[talk – contribs]} 04:01, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 September 2018

Change PPI for iPhone XR from 324 to 326 ppi. A wong2000 (talk) 06:40, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 18:55, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2018

The number of iPhone generations (eleven) is outdated. Change it to twelve. editor8778^[editor8778] 18:01, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. feminist (talk) 18:29, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Support lifespan of iPhone XR in History and availability

Support lifespan of iPhone XR in History and availability has the value < 3 months but should be > 3 months. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThomasMouritsen (talk • contribs) 14:29, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I fixed an incorrect date in the template that was generating the number of months. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:23, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2019

Changing from

< 6 years, 2 months

to

> 6 years, 2 months Kolen Cheung (talk) 06:46, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:23, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

What is OIS?

The section 'camera' refers to 'OIS' without explaining what this means. What does it mean? --Brian Josephson (talk) 22:30, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

It means 'optical image stabilization'. I've updated the article. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 05:20, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks! --Brian Josephson (talk) 09:19, 24 February 2019 (UTC)