Jump to content

Talk:iPhone/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

Why is there no section in this entry for the criticisms that those who have recieved preview copies of the iPhone expressed. To not include any negative aspects about the phone would lead to an unbalanced article. Suckered 22:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, why is the fact that many PDAs do all this been removed - this is a valid critism provided it conforms to a NPOV. Perhaps the Criticisms heading show be renamed public response or something! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.94.167.145 (talk • contribs).

(linkspam removed) I've been searching everywhere for well thought out critisms of the Apple iPhone that haven't been addressed elsewhere and this is by far the best article I've run across. It not only covers the shortcomings addressed elsewhere, but suggests solutions that Apple can adopt in future revisions to the product. I was actually most impressed by it's explanation of novel ways to utilize existing features that would really would push this device over the top.Wikoogle 13:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah it impressed me: the first point is incorrect and the rest is not much better and highly opinionated. EDGE gives you between 120kps to 220kbs download and about 108 upload. That's real world use - my only internet connection for 5 months on a Nokia 6230i. Then it complains about a battery life of 5 hours. That's talk time and better that most phones. The link is essentially spam and can be ignored. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Darkov (talk • contribs) 16:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC).Any errors been corrected.

Some of those ideas are pretty neat. I think some of them like the tv shows on itunes and such, should be inlcuded in the wikipedia entry.Suckered 21:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Why the hell has the criticisms section been removed? What is this an Apple fan page?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chris Fletcher (talk • contribs).

my guess is that since only a very few privileged folks have actually handled the iPhone (and no one really has used it), any such criticisms were merely speculation or rants, neither of which have much encylopedic value. also might not have been from reliable sources. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 06:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, we have to go with the official specs. Those places were criticizing the announced features, and until Apple says they are changing, these sources are completely valid in criticizing the features. I think it's weasely to avoid criticism because it's not 100% confirmed. There should be some notable sources for it. We should try to cover everything as well as possible. We can't be totally correct, but we can try to get the info out there. Scepia 06:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, as an encyclopedia, we do need to strive to be "totally correct" and avoid just "getting info out there". Criticisms that Pogue points out in his NYTimes reaction after having a couple of hours with the device are reliable and likely notworthy, but some business writer just complaining about the price or questioning its uniqueness is not really a criticism of encyclopedic worth...just someone's rant. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 06:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Try to get the info out? yeah if it's from a good source - not some ranty blog like many people wish to insert into the article. Blogs are like assholes, everyone has one.--Larry laptop 06:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. Many reviewers have already handled the iPhone and criticisms they have of the iPhone are valid and should be included in the Wikipedia article. To discuss only the positive features but exclude any negative aspects of the phone even if they were confirmed by reviewers can be considered biased. Suckered 22:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Reviews will be included once the product is released. No reviewers have handled the current preview devices. None. Pogue and a very small number of people had a few minutes to look at them while being observed/directed by Steve Jobs or Apple employees. There are no real reviews of the product and the product is not even finished yet.
You can keep pushing this issue as long as you want, but we are not going to link to your blog. AlistairMcMillan 22:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • About the most you could possibly do would be to criticize the defined specs and announced features. And you would need a huge disclaimer that this is based on an unfinished prototype and incomplete information. But that all seems a little silly for an unfinished product whose prototype has been handled briefly by just a few people. And many criticisms I have read (some quite valid...I have some too) make assumptions. "Well, if this iPhone here doesn't have xyz/if Apple didn't announce xyz, then clearly then the iPhone is not going to have xyz." Duh, it's not finished. David Pogue notes that there's a calendar "Add new event" button that does nothing. Does that mean all iPhones will have that non-functional button? Now Pogue isn't dumb enough to say that, but a lot of other "previewers" aren't being much smarter than that level of critique. I don't notice any text in here about how wonderful iPhone is, why should there be any about how terrible it is?
Jason C.K. 07:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Wow, not a single criticism in the article? This is so unreal. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.159.165.35 (talk) 01:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

This is highly suspicious. I suspect some kind of commercial influence preventing critism of published specs using the VERY LAME excuse that the phone is not yet available.

No, it is because the product is not yet out in it's final form, so any criticisms we publish at this time might have been removed in the final product. the only thing we can be relatively certain of is that the mayor functionality of the -hardware- won't change much. Criticisms on software however are a moot point untill the thing is really launched. Also please sign your messages and place them at the end of the text (where I had to move it to), not in front as you did. Mahjongg 11:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

4th June 2007. If you cannot critisize because you can't be sure of accuracy to final product then you cannot include detailed specifications which may not turn out to be correct either. I want to include a brief sentence comparing the device to other contemporary smart phones and to mention it lacks 3.5G (HSDPA) and GPS (according to current specifications). Not to mention this fact would refelct a kind of U.S bias since the rest of the world are well advanced as far as fast 3.5G (2mbs) internet goes and pointing this out is in the public interest. For us Europeans EDGE is a bit dated.

It should be mentioned that Apple has said that the iPhone will be a closed platform and that no SDK will be available to developers. This could go in a future criticism section, but for now, I'm going to add the information in the OSX section, where the other applications are mentioned. Hemidemisemiquaver 20:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Separated at birth: why no mention of the LG KE850 (a.k.a. LG Prada Phone)?

There is not a single mention of the LG KE850 in this article, even though the two could have been separated at birth. There are many product articles on Wikipedia in which a particular item's similarity to an Apple product - particularly the iPod - is noted prominently. Wikipedia should be consistent and note that the iPhone is very similar to another product already launched: the LG KE850. Indeed, if I were LG ,I'd be security-checking my mobile phone design team right now. 86.17.247.135 17:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Your tales of industrial espionage are entertaining, but unfortunately do not constitute a reliable source. Can you give us something more substantive?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkov (talk • contribs)
It's a smartphone with a screen covering the whole face, but otherwise, they're probably very different. (There isn't enough info in the LG KE850 article for me to tell.) The iPhone has a "home" button on the bottom, the KE850 has some sort of bar. At most, it merits a link in the "See also" section. At most.--HereToHelp 18:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
A see also entry may be enough. You can't mention it in the body of the article without a reference. Remember, we don't add original research. -- ReyBrujo 18:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Please read my post, Darkov, and read my point about similarity and the convention often found in non-Apple product articles. It's in plain language. I have seen many articles on Wikipedia about consumer electronics which mention the alleged similarity between one mp3 player and the iPod, even though the similarity only goes as far as the product is a portable mp3 player, just like the iPod, with a screen and some buttons. No claims or proof of espionage in those cases (and completely fails to recognise that the iPod was not an original product when it first came out either). So why can't this article point out that the iPhone is almost identical to another product that has already been launsched, even though Jobs claimed it was a "reinvention of the mobile phone" and a "magical revolution". Clearly it ain't: LG KE850. 86.17.247.135 18:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I repeat myself: original research. Unless it is public knowledge, something that is known for most of the world population (the sky is blue, the stars shine at night, the sun is hot, the ice is cold, etc), you can't say "The iPhone is almost identical to the LG KE850." because it is a personal opinion, even if it is true. We are not a publisher of original thought, so we must rely on what others say. -- ReyBrujo 18:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • "point out that the iPhone is almost identical to another product that has already been launsched, even though Jobs claimed it was a "reinvention of the mobile phone" and a "magical revolution". Clearly it ain't" Then again, you have no idea who stole from who, if anyone, and whether they were independent or not, which one came up with the form-factor first, or was it simultaneous, blah, blah, blah. Maybe one day we'll know. Until then, all we know is LG is making some noise and Apple is claiming years of development.
Jason C.K. 07:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Fine; if only the rules were applied consistently across all articles I wouldn't have a problem with it. The page is locked: someone please add the LG KE850 to the "See Also" section (the iPhone is noted on the LG product's page so it's only fair). 86.17.247.135 18:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I've added it to the See also section. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 19:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh what a surprise. Link to the LG already deleted. 86.17.247.135 02:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
It's not original research. In many forums - and newspapers - around the net, it is speculation that LG KE850 ripped off iPhone. This article should mention THAT (not original research), but also that the KE850 was released before iPhone. It was even speculation that the KE850 in fact WAS the iPhone [1]. This should definitely be mentioned. Kricke 14:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

using a post based upon speculation in a blog? that's your source? You have read WP:V ? --Larry laptop 14:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Eh, it is a pretty reliable source to the claim that speculations in various blogs existed. That blog serves only as one of many example. That blog links to its source (an Hungerian site). The massive amounts of discussions arount the internet about LG KE850 and iPhone should be mentioned. If you want to confirm that there are in fact discussions, use Google [2]. Kricke 17:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Wow, I hope you're trolling. Does someone have to draw you a picture? No speculation, no opinions, no everybody's talking about it, no conspiracy or other theories. Only facts that can be reasonably verified or trusted. Sheesh. Darkov 17:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Wow. "Only facts that can be reasonably verified or trusted." Priceless! If Wikipedia was limited to information that met this criteria 75% of the pages would have to be deleted. Half the reference links I click lead nowhere (an old but still widely-used trick from "editors"). And the number of "Irish-Americans" would plummet by 98%. Get real. And by the way, not sure how anyone could claim LG ripped off the iPhone given the Korean came first.....unless of course you believe the internet rumour and blog speculation about LG working with Apple then walking off with the latter's design (which kind of disqualifies the current fanboy cry of "They're nothing alike! The iPhone is completely different!"). 195.92.40.49 21:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Clearly the 2 appear similar in form factor. Obviously people are noticing that. If someone wants to write that coherently, in 1-2 sentences and use appropriate citations, that could be sensible to include. Though you might as well note the LG isn't worldwide (not coming to U.S.). "how anyone could claim LG ripped off the iPhone given the Korean came first" Putting aside the rumors that are flying both directions (& the bluster-y noises LG is making), just because LG announced theirs first doesn't mean it was designed first...we know nothing at this point.
--Jason C.K. 00:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
If Wikipedia was limited to information that met this criteria 75% of the pages would have to be deleted. - that's right and that's what I'd do. --Larry laptop 21:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Here are some tempaltes you can use when you come across unsourced content in articles. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 21:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Maybe so, but that's our goal. And you can help by diverting your energies from off-topic discussion on talk pages to fixing those three-quarters of a million pages. And as for internet rumours and blogs: We now have an infinite number of monkeys on typewriters, but where is the Shakespeare? Darkov 22:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
You seem to believe that the claim I want added to the article is "iPhone copied KE850" and then you disqualify the sources: speculations and discussions in forums. I would disqualify them too, if that was indeed the claim. However, it is NOT. If you read my post again, you would probably see that the claim is that "many people think that iPhone and KE850 looks similar" <- along those lines. I can add enormous amounts of sources that are fully reliable as to THAT claim. How about some newspapers? [3] [4] [5] [6] (The last one is in Swedish, from the biggest IT-news company in Sweden. The translated headline is: "iPhone and LG KE850 - confusingly alike?"). Is this NOT verifiable sources that the similarity of the two telephones is recognized by a notable amount of people? If it is, this should be mentioned (that SOME people think they look similar). A lot of wikipedia articles claim "many people feel that" type of statements, not to implicate that what they feel is the truth, but because it is notable in the article that SOME people think in that way. But really, I don't care. Kricke 22:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Addendum: LG Electronics has made a statement, by the way: "At first glance, we recognized the iPhone shares many form factors with the Prada phone. We are flattered that other makers follow our design policy," spokesman Lee Hyoung-kun tells The Korea Times. "We can't say at the moment whether or not we will file a lawsuit against Apple regarding this." Apparently, even LG think that iPhone looks similar. How is that "speculation, opinions, everybody's talking about it, conspiracy or other theories.". Please, draw my a picture! Kricke 23:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
What I'm wondering is: what does that information actually add to the article? I can pull articles that say sedan X resembles competitor's sedan Y, but unless they're similar enough to warrant a lawsuit, how is it notable? -- Kesh 00:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
That's funny, a butt-load of mp3 player articles mention the iPod sometimes for no apparent reason and sometimes to allege similarities to it (i.e. a screen, plays mp3s....er, has a screen with some controls some of which are round...er, plays mp3s.....er...). One Sony product page which lists some of their mp3 Walkmans mentions the iPod five times in two short paragraphs even though Sony's units are completely different and mostly take styling cues from their decade-old minidisc range!! - amongst numerous other mentions of the Apple unit on the same article. The Sony LocationFree page mentions Apple TV/iTV even though the latter is a product which came later and isn't in the same league as the Japanese unit. Of course, I can't find any reference to Rio or Creative on the iPod page though, nor any reference to LocationFree on the Apple TV/iTV article (though it was there once: deleted of course)...funny that, isn't it? One rule for one, one for all the others. 86.17.247.135 13:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Good point about the LocationFree page - I've removed the details of Apple TV given that the latter came way after the former and does much less. (Essentially they are different products: Apple TV does not let you watch BBC2 or Channel 4, or your games-console hard drive content stored at home, on your hand-held while sitting in a safari hotel in the middle of the Serengeti!) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.92.40.49 (talk) 18:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC).
That's a reasonable question. But why even have an article about an, in it self, not specifically notable product? I mean it's not like it's a milestone in the history of phones (at least not yet - it hasn't even been released). The only notability for this phone is the hype - and this "controversy" is a part of that hype. If there was an article about sedan X (not because it was the first in history, but only because it was the topic of many discussions), and there was a similar amount of discussions and newspaper articles about its resemblance to competitor's sedan Y (to the point that the first is actually considering a lawsuit - see the quote above), I would say that was notable in the context. Many people turn to Wikipedia when they hear about "iPhone vs. KE850". If you search for the word "notable" in the article, you find only one text that btw looks like a commercial from Apple: "easy control of many independent applications" is POV: if you are disabled in some way, it might not be easy (it's completely subjective). It's not like it's, in it self, more notable than the discussions about it. Kricke 00:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
(I've removed that "easy control" passage as POV/original research. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 01:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. It now has it's own, adequately sourced section.  hmwith  talk 21:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Pricing

Pricing in this article is too inconclusive, shouldn't someone expand it to include prices from other places than america as well, like britain, europe, china and australia. The Danielmeister 14:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

When non-US prices are announced I'm sure they will be added by someone. The problem is, they haven't been announced, so we can't add them yet. AlistairMcMillan 18:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I know this isn't strictly pricing, but in NYC the iPhone will hit the shelves on June 15, 2007. If your wondering my sources, I asked many retailers there on a trip I had there. --Scikidus 23:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

If You could let me quote the article for one moment: "The iPhone will be available from the Apple Store and from AT&T Mobility, formerly Cingular Wireless, with a price of US$499 for the 4 GB model and US$599 for the 8 GB model, based on a two-year service contract. Apple intends to make the phone available in Europe in Q4 2007 and in Asia in 2008." That should answer your questions Masterhand10(Talk)(Contributions) 15:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Verizon passed up Apple iPhone deal

http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/29/verizon-passed-up-apple-iphone-deal/ -- Delsource (talk) 21:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's particularly notable. Darkov 00:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It's probably worth mentioning, if it's confirmable, it could've changed the course of the iPhone (so many people dislike cingular for one reason or another) T3h 08:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Due to Verizon's restrictions, the Iphone was rejected.

  • Verizon's restrictions?! Don't tell me: the iPhone is too advanced for that company to handle, right?! LOL! Please do explain - and cite; the article tells a very different story. It's perfectly reasonable to add this to the article in my view. Basically, according to the quoted VC official the first attempt by Apple to get this product to market with a cell-net partner failed because of seemingly unreasonable demands from the manufacturer (a first?). How is that "not particularly notable" given the article's current verbosity - particularly in regard to the Cingular tie-in? There's an awful lot in this article that isn't particularly notable but stays in. 86.17.211.191 15:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the iPhone is certainly to advanced for Verizon to handle, and does not fit with their anti-consumer "walled garden" approach. Verizon customers are dumb.

This story is definitely noteworthy for the article, but when the information goes in, please make sure it's sourced correctly and properly cited. I'll throw it up there in another day or so if no one else does it first. Roguegeek (talk) 21:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

User Interface of iPhone.

The article seems to contradict itself. The third paragraph on "1.1 Multi-touch screen" claims that the user interface used is a "Zooming User Interface" where as the "4 Specifications" paragraph claims that the user interface is a plain "Graphical User Interface" Apple website claims that "iPhone features the most revolutionary user interface since the mouse." [1] Though some parts of the phone uses a zooming user interface, the major way of interacting with the phone is ,multi touch. Can some one throw light on this? or edit the article so that it's no longer ambiguous. I also consider adding the contradictory tag. Mugunth 10:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

  • A zooming interface is a type of graphical user interface. Multitouch is a method of navigating this sort of interface, instead of using a mouse. There's no contradiction. Darkov 12:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Several points are apparent once you study the available UI videos. (Note: I've done touchscreen apps and special effects for the past 15 years.)

First, the only vaguely "ZUI" part is the browser, which you'll notice does NOT use a two-fingered "pinch" to zoom or not... instead it's a one-finger tap... which is a good thing, since otherwise you'd need two hands to browse. The other effects, such as the scrolling and sliding pages, are simple UI bling that's been around for a decade or two (albeit rarely used).

Second, multi-touch refers to noticing and using more than one touch spot. This can be done in software or hardware. Multi-touch in the iPhone is so far apparently only used for zooming graphic images. It is in no way a "major" part of the UI at this point.

If you watch closely, there are some rules being used. User-scrolling sideways between pages is only done when it makes sense (e.g. moving between multiple images). You never see a combination of vertical and horizontal page-scrolling, undoubtedly partly to make it easier to figure out what the user is trying to do.

It's unfortunate that a stylus cannot also be used, since that limits what the touchscreen can be used for. (No signatures, drawing, doodling, handwriting recognition, etc.) Apparently it's used only for gross gestures and taps.

Kevindarling 19:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

  • I thought Jobs said that zooming on web pages could be done with tap OR with pinch? Not that I actually care, tap seems good. As for drawing, etc, could still be done with your finger if they implemented that, though I see limited use for that. Sketching & HWR are over-rated IMO. I still use my Apple Newton, and I have ocassionally done sketches on it (mostly diagrams of plans, things I need to buy at the hardware store, etc), and the HWR is awesome, I used to use it a lot. But ultimately sketching isn't that useful/practical. As for HWR, with a stylus, you need less screen real estate to use a tiny virtual keyboard than you need to hand-write, and without a stylus (if the iPhone supported finger drawing), you'd need less screen real estate to use a virtual finger keyboard than you'd need to finger-write, so in the end HWR becomes gee-whiz feature to me. I suppose for lots of note-taking HWR with stylus is faster than virtual keyboard, but I rarely did long streams of continuous note-taking. Maybe if you get REALLY used to iPhone's funky keyboard it will be fast for note-taking? Ideally I wish the iPhone would accept fingers & stylus, QWERTY virtual keyboards & HWR, etc. But it won't.
--Jason C.K. 19:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


POV/appropriateness? Re: Trademark, infringement, explanation

Is this new text POV/appropriate? "Apple doesn't tolerate any semblance of infringement on it's own trademarks. Trademark law is complex.... ...also establishes some rights." While I agree that what Apple is doing with Securipod is bad, even if this point belongs in the article, it doesn't seem well-positioned within the Trademark section or well-worded. It doesn't flow, it just seems to jump haphazardly into the text and make a statement that seems to carry a "tone" to me. It looks kind of POV to me, though the point could probably be made with NPOV. Also, the trademark section has been kept pretty fact-based. The explanation of trademark complexity seems kind of out of place, and perhaps better done with a reference to the wikipedia's entries on trademarking. Together with the seeming POVishness of the prior statement it carries more the flavor to me of trying to lay a foundation/defense for why Cisco is right and Apple is wrong. Comments? Anyone want to be bold and make those statements flow and be NPOV? If I had more conviction of it's wrong-ness and ideas on how to improve I'd do it myself...but I don't (yet). --Jason C.K. 16:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Continuing my debate with myself ;) my conviction grows that this is POV. This section is quite fact-based. What's the point of bringing up Apple's character, actions with others, etc? Seems like an attempt to point out one party as bad/wrong. Boiled down, this addition makes this section be: "There is trademark dispute. Here are the facts. BTW, Apple is an excessively bad boy and has prevented others from making some of the same arguments they are trying to make." This seems quite POV and should be addressed. If someone thinks this point belongs in the article, then make it directly, not by insinuation. Attempt to say in the article, with NPOV (if you can) & sources, "Apple has prevented others from making some of the same arguments they are trying to make." Of course, my reply to that might be "so what?" Bad actions elsewhere don't change the validity/invalidity of their dispute with Cisco...that'll be up for the courts to decide. It isn't up to us simply to point out "Apple is bad", that doesn't seem NPOV to me in this article.
--Jason C.K. 16:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Gosh Jason, I'm just so fascinated with this issue you raise ;) Anyway, I see this same edit has been put in before, and removed [7] (though I can't tell who put it in before). Clearly someone (or some sock puppets?) want this text. Do we consider it so flagrantly NPOV that it requires no discussion? And if it doesn't belong (whether because discussed or just flagrantly NPOV), if someone (& their sock puppets) keep putting it back, do we do anything about that editor?
--Jason C.K. 18:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The "trademark is complex" thing is just not appropriate. User:Erxnmedia added it to Linksys iPhone and I dropped it when I was merging the two trademark sections here and at Linksys iPhone. Since then he/she has added it twice here. It isn't appropriate. It is obviously POV and as such doesn't belong in any article here. AlistairMcMillan 12:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, voice memos

Regarding my new reference in the History section to the Sep. 2006 iTunes, an interesting thing I notice at the gizmodo link is "The mobile phone "^1" contains new voice memos. Would you like to move these voice memos to your iTunes library?" So what does that tell you about voice memos on the iPhone? Though I suppose this is much too weak evidence to justify putting it in the article, it certainly looks promising for the future. --Jason C.K. 09:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

iTunes has had an icon for OGG files embedded within it for ages now.[8] They still don't support OGG files. So these resource strings tell us exactly nothing. AlistairMcMillan 12:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Heh, well they do at least tell us that at least 1 person at Apple has thought of both voice memos, and OGG. :P
--Jason C.K. 02:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Daily multiple vandals...semi-protection?

This article seems to get daily, multiple vandals, or spam or extreme POV pushing..should we be requesting semi-protection against unregistered as well as newbie (<4 days old) users? Though I do realize we have some good contributions to this article by unregistered users. I do not have time to keep reverting vandals, though I guess if the rest of you continue to keep up maybe we're fine as is. --Jason C.K. 02:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I have recently applied to it. I too find it annoying to go through the history and see blatant vandalism. Madd the sane 08:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Apple has patented wireless patches/music downloads to mobile phones

While there's no way of knowing if this will be in THIS iPhone (at launch, or via s.w. rev), should we have a section in here on iPhone-related patents/Apple telephony patents? Reading here, of particular interest is (quoted stuff in brackets are insertions by me from elsewhere in the article): "In other examples, the user initiation may be as a result of interacting with an application on the computing device 102 to be upgraded [or "attempting to download a twenty-sixth song" where "the song-holding capacity is twenty-five songs"]. For example, the computing device 102 may be a mobile telephone that is configured to also operate as a portable media player. The user may interact with the portable media player application, which then wirelessly (e.g., via a cellular or other wireless connection) interacts with the service ["the service may provide media to the [mobile] computing device"]." Seems pretty clear the groundwork has been laid for an iPhone to wirelessly pull iTunes content off your computer, even going so far as to hit the Music Store via your iPhone ("securely configure a [mobile] computing device"). It even mentions cellular connection, and I don't think anything in there specifies it's YOUR personal computer that is part of the overall "service"...so maybe cellular downloads from the Music Store? --Jason C.K. 20:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Detailing patents is a bit of a mine-field isn't it. Most carriers offer today wireless music and video download from their "online store". In fact Cingular has it for all their camera phones except for the iPhone, which will use iTunes. It's very difficult to know who if anyone has prior-art. It may make sense to stay about from this. HuskyMoon 11:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Similarly to my reply above, just because they have applied for a patent doesn't automatically mean they are going to release a product based on that patent. And if you take the example of the iPod scroll wheel patent, I believe they actually wrote the patent as if the scroll wheel was a new feature they were planning to add to mice. So you can't take them too literally. AlistairMcMillan 12:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

This page needs to be cleaned of vandalism. Thank you.(72.95.185.44 02:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.95.185.44 (talk) 02:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

Why is this about Apple phone?

Why is this article pointing to the Apple product which is not even released? As far as iPhone is concerned, Cisco still has the right, and actual product in the market. Its pathetic to see wikipedia hijacked by Apple fanbois. - 69.142.159.60 03:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed extensively before. Please refer to the archived talk pages for more information. Havok (T/C/e/c) 07:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Cisco Droped the lawsuit Apple Inc can use the name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.238.160.98 (talk • contribs) 22:41, February 22, 2007

Yes, but this article is just "iPhone" rather than "Apple iPhone". We have "Linksys iPhone". Why does the latter have to carry the company name as well as product, where this article does not? -- 86.17.211.191 11:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
The last point is one that many overly zealous people seem to have some trouble with and - it appears to me - tend to ignore or gloss over. There can be of course no objection that this article carries the name "iPhone", given the agreement between the two parties, and neither can there be much argument about the automatic direct to this product from the term "iPhone" given the hype that surrounds it. But there is no justification that I have heard or read (including here and in the archives) for not calling this article "Apple iPhone". -- Delsource (talk) 17:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Free Service for 2 years?

I heard somewhere that if you purchase the apple iPhone you get 2 years of free service (possibly 1.5 years). Is this true? Thoraxcorp 15:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

This is speculation so far, but it was my understanding that the agreement with Apple included a provision requiring that the price of the phone not be discounted by Cingular as an incentive to lock people into a contract. It makes sense, then, for Cingular to move that incentive/discount over to the price of service. N months of free service, or extremely cheap introductory rates don't seem too far-fetched. But until we have a source one way or the other, none of this is fit for inclusion in the article. —Fastolfe00 20:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Excessive use of references

For a relatively short and (fairly) trivial article there are too many references. The short 'History' paragraph alone has 15(!) references most of which are redundant (one should contain enough information and the rest is just repeating). Someone should filter the worthwhile links out and remove some. Agentbla 11:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I have a better idea, now that the trademark dispute is over the time has come to move contents of whole "iPhone trademark" paragraph to it's own article, and only keep a few sentences in which we link to the new article. That alone would remove most of the unnecessary references.Mahjongg 11:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think this iPhone trademark thing is really notable enough for a whole article. I say we just shorten the section here and leave it. I've shortened the section, removing duplicate and borderline argumentative content. AlistairMcMillan 23:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Any speculation as to there is a built-in VoIP capability in the iPhone?

I haven't found any references to a VoIP app being included with the iPhone, nor have I seen this phone being discussed as a hybrid EDGE/Wi-Fi phone. I think the capabilities are there, I'm just not sure if anyone (Apple/Cingluar) is ready for that step yet. I know that Cingular has been testing cellular/wi-fi for years with some very closed tests (I worked in a BLS building for a time as a contractor and was offered a test phone), but don't know that it's ready for prime-time. I'm sure there are still a ton of problems with wi-fi/cellular handoffs and vice versa. Personally, I would take a hybrid phone with the understanding that when moving from Wi-fi to cellular, I would experience a significant number of dropped calls. It could even be a setting on the phone whether to accept incoming calls over wi-fi or cellular technology and/or a prompt when making an outgoing call (wi-fi or cellular). This seems to me to be a killer app in a phone and someone will get it all figured out eventually. Personally, I wouldn't put it past Steve to announce that with some of his usually flair in the next few months or even with the upgrade to Leopard on the iPhone (not really related, but Apple has consistently done things like this in the past).

As for me, I can't wait...my VZW contract ends soon and I'm holding out for the iPhone....
24.127.115.100 18:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

iPhone's first advertisement, an appropriate Wiki entry.

I do not see or understand why my entry on the first iPhone ad was removed. I believe not only that this is relevant an appropriate information, but it is also information that people might go looking for. This IS and online encyclopedia is it not? The purpose of an encyclopedia is give information, as stated in the oxford English dictionary. Why is this piece of information being removed? The main reason I came to this specific Wiki article was to look up more information on the ad and when I saw that there was none, I decided to add all that I know about the ad, to give back to the community. Nabeel_co 14:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Content on Wikipedia is supposed to pass a certain threshold of notability. Personally I don't think we need to chronicle Apple's iPhone advertising campaign. I'll leave it for someone else to decide. AlistairMcMillan 16:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Given the Vaporware nature of a page about a product that does not yet exist, I suspect that the ad campaign (to the extent that it is also statements about what does not yet exist) is just as valid, and probably should be on this page. -Gomm 16:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
It should definately be put back on. Perhaps under a new "Marketing" heading? Mambo Jambo 18:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe that the iPhone constitutes as Vaporware, the biggest reason being that not only do several exist and Apple (acording to Steve Jobs' Macworld Keynote) is just pending FCC approval, but also typically things that are vaporware keep having there release date pushed back (like Apple TV (well not really), or the Optimus OLED Keyboard.)
Nabeel_co 19:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Ugh, that was rough. I re-wrote the blurb about the ad to be a bit more encyclopedic and wiki-linked. – Fʀɪɺøʟɛ ( тɐʟк • ¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs ) 19:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering if the advertizing section should be moved from the History section to the Pricing and Availability section, since both are time and geography specific. -Gomm 20:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Why no external references to websites dedicated to iPhone?

A reference to a social network dedicated to the iPhone was deleted from the "external links" section. These types of websites provide up-to-date information, such as new videos, which are not found on wikipedia. Moreover, they comment on rumours, which eventually turn out to be true, but obviously should not be commented in here. Isn't it reasonable to include sites such as www.2-iphone.com in the article? If it's not, why should other product articles contain more extensive lists of external links? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.37.23.178 (talk) 01:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

Please read Wikipedia:External links. AlistairMcMillan 22:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Release date

i just wanted to say that the release date for the iPhone is June 15 —Preceding unsigned comment added by IloveiPhone (talk • contribs) 20:50, February 28, 2007

How did you come across this information? AlistairMcMillan 22:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that's true, 2nd, he dosent provide any links or quotes! The New apple comercials say that it will be released June, 24 2007. Masterhand10(Talk)(Contributions) 15:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Criticism Section

As many other consumer electronics device articles have criticism sections, as do many software articles, I feel that the iPhone article deserves on itself. I've added what I can at my "work" computer. Feel free to include some sources: I know cnet has voiced their criticism over no 3g, and numerous other sites on the vast intarwebs have complained of the cost.--Arcaynn 20:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Until the product is finished and on sale, and has actually been used by at least one person, it is inappropriate to add criticisms. AlistairMcMillan 22:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I was under the impression that some people at Macworld 2007 had already used it. Am I mistaken?
Nabeel_co 04:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Yep I just checked, David Pogue says he was allowed to demo one.
Nabeel_co 04:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
No he did not use the finished product, only the hardware is finished, (otherwise no FCC aproval could be started) but by all practical standards he used a prototype. So no, nobody has used the used the real product yet. Mahjongg 11:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
But, didn't Steve Jobs state at Macworld '07 keynote that all they were waiting for was FCC approval, and that the product its self was finished?
Nabeel_co 01:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't remember that, but if he did, he was lying. A good portion of the software was incomplete at Macworld, as noted by several people who got face time with the device. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 02:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Says who? If you bring in a source we might be able to use it in the article.--HereToHelp 02:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree the models at Macworld were prototypes. Not the finished product. Sfacets 02:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Pretty close to it. The features Jobs demoed looked complete. Yes, he didn't show off the camera or a couple other things...but that's a pretty good prototype. And you still need a source.--HereToHelp 02:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Seriously? How about the sources we already have? How about everyone that got to play around with one? Pogue talked about placeholder graphics for feature that weren't actually on the demo model. Ihnatko also talked about features that hadn't been implemented yet. Steven Levy said that Jobs told him "we can expect more apps ... by the time it ships in June". AlistairMcMillan 03:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I was mistaken, Steve Jobs said one of the things they are waiting for is FCC approval, there for leaving it open. (God in heaven it took a long time to find that part of the keynote...) The direct quote is "...with products like this, we gotta go and get FCC approval, which takes a few months, and we thought it would be better if we introduced this rather than ask the FCC to introduce it for us."
Nabeel_co 02:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Just because it is unreleased does not mean it has no criticism. To have a NPOV article it must include criticism. --Arcaynn 22:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Nope that isn't how NPOV works. You need to read up NPOV some more. AlistairMcMillan 22:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


One may praise and eulogise about an Apple product one has never even seen let alone touched, but not criticise. And when one has bought an Apple product, taken it home and used it, one must still refrain from mentioning any negative points without first checking to whom one is speaking lest one be talking to a fanboy. It is the way of things. Observe this one rule and your life on the internet will afford an easier existence. Just check the histories of those that delete negative comments. Do they apply the same strict criteria to the speculatively positive remarks? Rarely. Welcome to iWikipedia (formerly O'Wikipedia - where everything is Irish - including Eddie Murphy). -- 195.92.40.49 18:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay... did you have any specific suggestions on how to improve the article? MFNickster 19:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Surely the biggest criticism of all is this disturbing and very wrong trend towards putting computers and other things onto phones instead of phones and other things into computers. I'm not gonna use the n-word but you know what I'm talking about.

Apple/Cisco iPhone

I think to make this article NPOV "iPhone" shouldn't automatically go to the Apple iPhone page. There should be a disambiguation page with both devices listed.

--Waynekruse -- March 03 12:17 GMT +11

Already been discussed more than once. See the archives linked near the top of the page. AlistairMcMillan 06:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
If you don't want to read through all that (as some parts just seem to endlessly repeat), let me summarize all of the previous discussion: people on one side (mostly people who have been on Wikipedia for a while) argued that primary topic disambiguation applies, trademark disputes are irrelevant to naming of articles, and that being NPOV does not entail overturning of the usual Wikipedia procedure. People on the other side (mostly new editors, who don't seem to have a great familiarity with Wikipedia procedures on disambiguation) argued that Wikipedia was taking sides in the trademark dispute, that NPOV is violated by primary topic disambiguation, and that everyone disagreeing is a Mac fanboy. Feel free to correct my summary. --C S (Talk) 16:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

While kind of amusing I don't really think this is a good idea. We have the table of content right below the intro which is there for navigating the page, why have these links in the paragraph above that serve the same purpose?

And then there is that policy about making links as unambiguous as possible. If people click on a link that says "email client" they expect to be taken to a page about "email client". AlistairMcMillan 16:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, what is the most informative info about the iPhone email client than the email section of the iPhone page. That section can then link to broader discussions on other pages. -Gomm 17:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Cool. So if they want to know about the email features, they look in the table of contents and click on the word "Email". If TOCs work for every other article on Wikipedia, why do we need this extra navigation? AlistairMcMillan 17:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, TOCs are cool, and certaintly, if readers want to see a list of the contents in a page, then they should look at the table of contents. My question is not about what should be in the TOC or whether users should use the TOC if they want to learn about the contents of a page. My question is whether a link should link to the best discussion of the subject listed in that link. If the best discussion of the subject of a link just happens to be on the same page, then should we be able to direct readers to it? or should we only be able to link to superior content if they couldn't also get there by going to the TOC, looking for it there, and following that link? -Gomm 18:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Links should respect the principle of least surprise. So a link to camera phone should go to camera phone. It is understood by the reader that further information on the iPhone's camera features will be contained in the later part of the article. It is also understood that the reader wishing to learn more about camera phones can click on the camera phone link. --C S (Talk) 19:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
As a further clarifying example, the article on Bill Clinton mentions he is President of the United States. The link to President of the United States should not be an anchor link to another part of the Bill Clinton article, surely. If you consider what you are doing, it is contrary to the usual wiki practice. --C S (Talk) 19:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Alistair. The current setup is confusing and violates the usual linking practice. Before doing something so out of the norm, you should discuss it first before implementing these changes. For now, I am reverting it back. --C S (Talk) 19:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

spelling

didn't steve say that the iphone has automatic spell correction, not automatic spell checking? Goldencrisp87 01:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.179.143.92 (talk • contribs).
Woah, I don't need a copy/pasted lecture. I've edited a decent number of articles here and I know how the process works. I was just looking for confirmation before I changed the article. Geesh. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Goldencrisp87 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

"iPhone trademark"/"Trademark dispute" section deleted

In revision #117159717 user AlistairMcMillan has deleted the entire Trademark dispute section. There has been no discussion whether it should be taken out of the article and I hereby call for the reintroduction of this section. At least there should be some way of finding a consensus to avoid such suspicious overnight removals of entire sections. It even looks like a mistake. Agentbla 18:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea how that happened. I had no intention to delete that section. I'll fix it. AlistairMcMillan 19:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I've restored the deleted section. I'm really not sure what is going on there. I remember making that edit. I was only planning to remove the extra line break that was obvious in this edit by SeaFlat. That's kinda disturbing. AlistairMcMillan 00:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Aloha

I've removed this from the article:

According to a leak iPhone's OS is named 'Aloha OS X'.

Firstly because we don't know whether it is a real leaked document or not. Secondly because we don't know if "Aloha" refers to the phone or the operating system. Basically this doesn't tell us anything definite.

Some interesting things about this though.

The PDF metadata has Bertrand Serlet as the author and the creation date as September 1, 2006, and suggests he was running a beta version of 10.4.8 when he allegedly created this.

According to a posting on Macrumors back in March 2006, Apple filed for a trademark on "Aloha" in Hong Kong, back in December 2004. AlistairMcMillan 06:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. "Aloha" means, amongst other things, "hello", which is a word Apple is pretty fond of using in conjunction with major product introductions. But yes, we need something more concrete than a purported leaked document. -/- Warren 08:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Cingular exclusive until 2009?

Before I had heard it was only a 6-month exclusivity contract (I've even seen 2 weeks...). Also, the reference cited says nothing about being exclusive until 2009. Any other references? 70.61.100.232 04:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Anyone? 65.82.104.120 20:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Bueller? AlistairMcMillan 22:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Seriously though, I've cited a CNN article as a source for the 2009 thing, and please don't believe everything you see posted at Digg/Slashdot/whatever. "This guy says he knows this guy, who spoke to this guy, who heard from his sister, who is married to this other guy, who buys his dope from this dude, whose brother works for this company, and he said..." AlistairMcMillan 22:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Keynote says "Apple and Cingular have a multi-year exclusive partnership. The iPhone is only available with Cingular Wireless Services." ~Stan Sigman, Cingular CEO —Shanesan (contribs) (Talk) 12:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
5 years people... I can't believe no one said anything yet, update please. http://www.usatoday.com/tech/wireless/2007-05-21-at&t-iphone_N.htm 199.209.253.27 8:20 7 June 2007

m2cents

I think there should be a serperate article, well maybe that is too much, but imo there is something worth mentioning between the release of the iPhone by Apple and the ENTIRE RESTRUCTURE OF AT&T For past several years and what they did to regain the wireless market by taking over Cingular in an "excluse" plan. Hoovie 23:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

... what? -- Kesh 00:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
the iPhone has nothing to do with the AT&T/Cingular Merger.Hemidemisemiquaver 04:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Motion to Redirect Page

Important or not, it is evident that the Apple iPhone page will receive much more traffic than the Linksys iPhone page. So why not redirect the "iPhone" page to the Apple iPhone page instead of the Linksys page? Arius Maximus 18:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

+1 to this. – Fʀɪɺøʟɛ ( тɐʟк • ¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs ) 22:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC) oops, uh, the iPhone page is the Apple product. What are you talking about? – Fʀɪɺøʟɛ ( тɐʟк • ¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs ) 22:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Arius was talking about Iphone. It is fixed now. AlistairMcMillan 05:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

iphone

I cant wait! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.223.47.42 (talk) 18:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

games??

Is the phone java enabled?? can we play the games as on ipod? What about the games sold through Itunes? Is there any feature of Ipod which iPhone will not have? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.167.62.67 (talk) 02:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

there had been suspesions that Nintendo are making $29 dollar games exclusly for iPhone URL: http://macrumors.com/2007/06/19/nintendo-iphone-games/ Langcam 07:12, 25 June 2007 (UT

Conveying a sense of the keynote

Hello, it might be a good idea to give readers a sense of the excitement surrounding the iPhone by supplying some text from the liveblogging that occurred during the keynote in which the iPhone was introduced. For example, Engadget's liveblogging of the event includes some good quotes:

"Huge, huge applause, standing ovation." "'I can just take my fingers and I can move them together and further apart, and make the photo bigger or smaller.' HUGE applause -- touch gesturing apparently really hit a chord with these people." "People are rapt, everyone is actually literally leaning forward and on the edge of their seat. We've never seen a presentation like this before."

To put this device in context, I think it might be important to show how people were looking forward to this for years--the keynote atmosphere would be a good way to convey the fever pitch. 140.209.101.205 04:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

No, bad idea. We don't need to include these quotes or do something that would lessen the encyclopedic value of this article. Mac fans are known for their extreme enthusiasm; delving into something which really only another Mac fan would be interested in reading about would only instill a Mac fanboy bias into the article. --C S (Talk) 10:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

UK / EU

Can someone remove the UK in the sentence: Apple applied for the "iPhone" trademark in the United Kingdom, Australia, Singapore and the European Union.

It is a bit redundant and falsely gives the impression that the UK is not a member of the EU. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.85.58.133 (talk) 07:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

Done. Seems like a reasonable point. Edward Grefenstette 17:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
UK Trademark law is different to EU Trademark law therefore the inclusion in not redundant. I see someone has reverted it anyway. (Ajkgordon 15:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC))
yes, while EU trademarks obviously apply in the UK, countries are allowed to retain additonal trademarks and have a seperate trademark organization. Mad onion 10:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

iPhone only on 2-year Contract?

This is a pretty weak source[9] to say that Cingular has full reign of how the iPhone is supposed to be sold (2-year Contract only?). I don't believe that we have heard from any legit source that says Apple has bowed down to Cingular so easily. How does Cingular have full reign of service agreement in Apple Stores? I believe this is an assumption and not backed by fact. —Shanesan (contribs) (Talk) 12:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Capitalization error?

I can't believe you guys missed this. The first letter of the article name lacks capitalization in every instance. Please fix ASAP. Thanks. -Indolences 04:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Please don't insult the many writers of this article with incredulity at a perceived oversight. The Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style states: "For the article title, follow the lead of outside sources and use the most common spelling and capitalization ..." An analysis of Apple's official press release for the iPhone, a Google search for the phrase iPhone, and recent headlines about the iPhone show universal consensus: the CamelCase utilized in the iPhone's name is the only way to format the product name iPhone. Therefore, the capitalization in the article name is unequivocally correct. 66.41.203.91 17:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure you just used entirely too many big words for that guy to understand. 65.189.210.173 07:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

2-year pricing only?

Granted, the article mentions pricing for 2-year, new activation contracts; but what about those that have existing Cingular plans and merely want the phone? Does anyone have any information regarding retail sales?209.114.201.30 11:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Iphone Developer

Seems like the project is so under wraps content providers can't get ahold a contact to get developer support for the Iphone. (original research done by me :) ). Mathiastck 14:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Enterprise email

While there's no Exchange functionality built-in to Mail, users can still connect to their Exchange email via Outlook Web Access in Safari. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.107.0.73 (talk • contribs).

Links at the end of the page

The link for the at&t does not work, it says the page is not there. Swearnese 13:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

If you mean the "AT&T iPhone website" link, it worked for me - it was going to a site with a Cingular domain name, and was getting redirected to a www.wireless.att.com site. I've updated it to go directly to the att.com site. Guy Harris 17:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

Why are we using all these terrible old pictures of the iphone, at strange angles and behind glaring glass. Can't we use some of the avalible iphone pictures on the web, I've seen them all over. These probably a reason, so sorry ahead of time.

Because all of Apple's images are copyrighted. Until June 29, we have to content ourselves with the Flickr shots taken by private photographers after Macworld who were gracious enough to allow us to use them. Oh, and the convention with talk pages is to put new posts on the bottom--no harm done--so I moved it there for you.--HereToHelp 22:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not savvy on the finer points of copyrighting, so... would it be acceptable to take a photograph of a TV displaying an iPhone in an advertisement? I'm looking at http://freedomdefined.org/Definition but I don't see an answer there. — Epastore 00:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

iPhone "Hello" Ad

It says in the article about the song accompanying the "Hello" ad: The commercial's background music track is "Inside Your Head" by Eberg. Notably, some of the song's lyrics have been overdubbed, replacing "I wouldn't wanna be...Inside your head" with "I wanna be...Inside your head." Not only is this redundant information, but it's also wrong. I have here the quicktime video of the ad as it was shown on apple.com and the original song and after listening for a while, i hear no difference at all. I suggest to have this corrected (proof or consensus on the web is also great) or if there is no answer at all, deleted. I don't think a lot of people will need, or miss this information, but while it's there, I'd like it to be correct.

Cheers. Kickee 05:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

General Observations and Template Changes

Hey everyone. Really appreciate all of the great information and help here on iPhone. I am just so happy we've been able to move on from some pretty difficult situations, be them naming issues or speculation vs. actualization. I'm thinking that we should try to keep in mind that our focus should be the main purpose of this article. Is it here to publicize an actual release date without much validity? I would argue no. Additionally, I think we need to leave notes after each section to signify whether or not the user has general computing preferences for either Apple or IBM. This is key in determining whether or not this article truly meets NPOV. I trust that all users here to Wikipedia have some sort of self standards in terms of their editing contributions to various articles, talk pages, etc...but I think we really need to keep track of what's changing and for what reasons. This talk page is soooo long and I don't think that does much good for the actual article. So we should try to keep things simple, perhaps following in Apple's own footsteps. We should really revamp the main page to reflect the simplicity of Apple itself and therefore showing people just what is in store for Apple's new miniature computer, the iPhone. Let's open this discussion up to comments. --Cynthia18 12:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we need to leave notes after each section to signify whether or not the user has general computing preferences for either Apple or IBM. This is key in determining whether or not this article truly meets NPOV.
Actually, no, it's not. People write about subjects they aren't intimately familiar with all the time on Wikipedia. Platform choice is irrelevant to one's ability to write a neutral article.
As to the talk page length, I'm willing to create a new Talk archive if necessary, but it didn't seem that bad yet. -- Kesh
Thanks, Keshy. Really appreciate all you especially have done on this article. That was just an idea I thought I'd toss out there. But I see it your way now. That would only cause more confusion. Kudos. --Cynthia18 07:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

New iPhone ad

[10]

Released on 6 June, 2006, but has not yet appeared on Apple's site.

Yeah that ad is now at www.apple.com/iphone/ads/ad4 . However this ad does not feature the "requires new 2-year contract" line at the end, and I believe that it's been removed from the others (though only on the TV-airing ads, not the ads on the iPhone site).

82.28.228.147 20:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Third-Party

Shouldn't there be something about third-party application development for iPhone? -Tapd260 (but for some reason there's a glitch that won't let me edit so I'm using my IP) 69.118.198.115 01:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

We don't know that there will be third-party applications for the iPod yet. Give it until WWDC on Monday, we may have more solid announcements there. -- Kesh 01:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
This information has been added since the announcement that third-party apps would be used via Safari in a Web 2.0/AJAX format. Scottydude talk 16:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Scottydude, I undid your contribution regarding third party Web 2.0 apps in the internet section because I added this information 2 days ago to the OSX section. Since this has to do with phone functionality that will remain when not connected to the internet, I think it belongs in the OS section, or possibly a new section should be created. What does everybody else think? Hemidemisemiquaver 21:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


I updated the thrid party info in the OSX section based on the Walt Mossberg interview with Jobs at D5.
Q: "All indications appear that the iPhone is closed, we'd love to develop apps..."
A: "This is an important tradeoff between security and openness. We want both. We're working through a way... we'll find a way to let 3rd parties write apps and still preserve security on the iPhone. But until we find that way we can't compromise the security of the phone.
I've used 3rd party apps... the more you add, the more your phone crashes. No one's perfect, and we'd sure like our phone not to crash once a day. If you can just be a little more patient with us I think everyone can get what they want." Ahull 14:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Charging cable

Does anyone know what the length of the charging cable will be? Thickness would be helpful and interesting too. Thanks. Oh, and will the box be made out of a plastic/paper composite or will it be fully recyclable card? What weight per yard? -- 86.17.211.191 14:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

...No. That kind of information won't be available until, you know...the thing actually comes out. 65.189.210.173 07:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Privacy Issues

Have there been any concerns or discussions raising potential privacy issues surrounding the iPhone? Obviously, the iPhone is no more private than any other equivalent cell phone with regards to actual phone calls, but what about privacy concerns regarding informations being sent back to "Big Brother" on what music and movies are played on the iPhone? 204.147.113.36 17:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

That's against Apple's TOS. Unlikely. - ElbridgeGerry t c block 00:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.apple.com/iphone/technology/
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:IPhone/Archive_3&oldid=1141540737"