Apple Inc. B‑class Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Apple Inc., a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Apple, Mac, iOS and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Apple Inc.Wikipedia:WikiProject Apple Inc.Template:WikiProject Apple Inc.Apple Inc. articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

I have noticed that the following two statements conflict with each other. This should probably be rectified to avoid any confusion.

Statement #1: The operating system takes up about 700 MB of the device's total 4 or 8 GB storage.[8]

Statement #2: As well, the 8 GB iPhone has been commonly noted[1] to list only 7.3 GB of disk space available, causing a rumor that the version of Mac OS X for the iPhone was 700mb. After further investigation, a df revealed that the size of the OS partition to be 300MB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.252.191.18 (talk) 09:16, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Certainly an ordinary plastic stylus (as used on the Palm etc) won't work. A solid metal stylus would work fine - but would scratch the glass. However, a compromise has been designed, which is metal-bodied, but has a thin layer of softer material on the tip; this keeps the capacitance relatively high, but won't scratch the screen. One such example is here: http://www.thinkgeek.com/gadgets/cellphone/a31f/ RichardNeill (talk) 02:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for posting that. Although they are out of stock I hope to get one when they become available. It looks like we may have to change the article. -- Atama^chat 20:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The question is how do we indicate that only one known stylus works with the iPhone, and at the same time avoid endorsing a niche product like this? If there were several companies making iPhone styluses (or is it styli??? :P ), then it would make editing much easier. Groink (talk) 22:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How's this: The iPhone is designed for human fingers, but at least one third party has developed a [[stylus]] for it.<ref>whatever</ref>--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 23:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like it. – ɜɿøɾɪɹℲ _{( тɐʟк • ¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs )} 23:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that an editor attempted to correct the use of multi-touch by capitalizing it as "Multi-Touch". This is incorrect. Apple did register for multi-touch as a trademark in June 2007. However, as of today it has not been registered with Apple. The term is also not a proper noun. And, if you read the multi-touch Wikipedia article, it uses the form "multi-touch" (except when it is the first word in a sentence), as well as all the academic papers linked via the external link references at the bottom of the article. As long as the parent article for multi-touch uses this convention, we should not be deviating from it for the sole purpose of Apple devices. Also, other forms such as "multitouch" or "MultiTouch" are also not correct when used here. Groink (talk) 23:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just because the Apple web site uses the convention "Multi-Touch", that does not mean Wikipedia must do so as well. Again, the trademark guideline does not apply here because Apple does not own the trademark to the term. Even the party who currently owns the trademark does not use the "Multi-Touch" form. Groink (talk) 23:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This link proves that Apple does not own the trademark. It is owned by DPI Labs, Inc. Groink (talk) 23:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This set of documents show the trail leading up to, as of this writing, the trademark not being registered with Apple.

A letter of protest was sent to the Commissioner of Trademarks on January 17 2008. The letter was filed on April 1 2008. In the memorandum, "The term 'multi-touch' is descriptive, if not generic, for electronic devices such as those of applicant that may employ a touch screen capable of recognizing multiple simultaneous touch points." "It has been determined, by the Commissioner for Trademarks, that a clear error has been made in allowing this mark to be published." Groink (talk) 00:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't there now a 16Gb iPhone, and rumours of a 2nd generation iPhone?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tombsc (talk • contribs) 16:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there's a 16GB iPhone, it came out some time ago and that info was added to this article long ago as well. As for rumors of a 2nd gen iPhone, we don't include rumors or speculation on Wikipedia. Only accurate info that can be verified by a reliable source. -- Atama^chat 17:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

please can spme one tell me if the iphone takes vidios as well as photos and how much is the newest one cost in pounds? thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.210.222.15 (talk) 10:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, this is not a forum for questions or discussion about the iPhone itself, this is to discuss issues only about this article. Secondly, if you go to the other features section of this article your question about the camera is already answered. If you want an answer about the cost, look up the iPhone in Google or visit AT&T's web site. -- Atama^chat 17:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a saw an iPhone commercial last night which shows the phone's user using it to access Wikipedia's article on Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. Anton Mravcek (talk) 19:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising information belongs in the Apple Inc. advertising article. Groink (talk) 01:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seriosuly? No one? no one has anything bad to say about it? I've seen lots of complaints online, but no complaining or critisims hhere. Yes, I did not spell good. So what.--135.214.40.68 (talk) 21:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A separate criticism section is not within Wikipedia guidelines. Instead, Wikipedia encourages all criticism to be placed within the context of the sections. Also, most of the time criticism can be considered POV. By having the criticism blended in with the other sections, information that counter the criticism can give the article the balance it needs. If you're looking for something along the line of "The iPhone cannot __________", this is not the place. Groink (talk) 09:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should have a critism section, the iPhone lacks even basic function of a phone, the bluetooth only pairs with handsfree kits so you cannot send/recieve files from friends. Also you cannot send and recieve MMS. I think instead of praising this phone as the ultimate phone it should have some critisms, but it should be done correctly. Not like "the phone is rubbish because it can't do this or this. 212.219.220.125 (talk) 13:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There isn´t much point in having a section that mentions all the stuff it doesnt have. All its features are covered fairly well. This article is only about the iPhone, not to compare it to other superior handsets such as the Nokia E50 and Nokia E61. The article doesn´t praise the iPhone - at least it shouldnt. If you can find a phrase that ´praises´ the iphone it should be removed Towel401 (talk) 13:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but isn't it notable that it lacks functions that even 90% of handsets have? Jay794 (talk) 16:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again (how many times must I say this) you can add that kind of information into the existing sections. Just DO NOT create a criticism section. We already discuss the iPhone lacking 3G, stereo bluetooth, copy/paste, etc. Did you actually read the article, or did you just look for the criticism section and found there there isn't any??? IMHO, creating a section just for criticism demonstrate laziness on the part of the editor, and that he doesn't have what it takes to blend the information into the article. It also shows the laziness of the reader if he's looking for the criticism section, bypassing everything else before it. Groink (talk) 01:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But that's what Wikipedia is for. Its for easy to access information. Almost every product, person, or historical event has a criticism section. There's nothing strange about the need for one with an iphone. Also, the most serious problems with the iphone are not even listed (or hidden imho) in the method you have described. There have been many serious problems with reception on iphones. Many reputable sites (Tom's hardware) have done studies on the hardware and found it lacking in that region. There is also a serious problem with reception in Britain at the moment. Go check out the Blackberry wiki. Notice a criticism section there? Personally I love my iPhone, but it has some serious deficiencies and they should be mentioned. - Hellkyte —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.7.123.51 (talk) 22:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there are iPhone issues not listed in the article, and they can be verified with reliable sources, please feel free to add them at the appropriate locations within the article. It's interesting that you hold the BlackBerry article up as a standard because it has a Criticism section; that page needs work and even has a template requesting that the article be fixed. You say, "Almost every product, person, or historical event has a criticism section." That's not true, and the articles that do contain criticism sections are often articles that need to be changed. Please see WP:CRIT, where it states, "In general, making separate sections with the title 'Criticism' is discouraged." -- Atama^chat 00:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, at one time Wikipedia had a guideline (not a policy) where inclusion is not a proper argument. In other words, if X and Y articles have criticism sections, it does not mean that ALL articles can have the section. In Wikipedia's eyes, it just means that X and Y are in violation. Groink (talk) 18:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No need to go mental Groink. Just trying to contribute Jay794 (talk) 08:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article lacks a criticism section. This expensive piece of trash has more issues than religious fans, and so a criticism section in which normal people can express their view on this pocket size god surrogate shielded from fanbois is needed. Thanks. Femmina (talk) 18:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is just repetition of Groink, but we can still mention criticism without the criticism section. And stylistically speaking, the consensus here in wikipedia is blending criticism into the article is better. This is per Wikipedia:Criticism. I would add that I think the problem with the criticism section is that the section is often abused. Oftentimes, it contains language like "product X doesn't have Y" and the end result is that it reads like a blog or ranting. Maybe the section can be written tastefully, but that's usually a challenge and simply getting rid of it is a simple and effective solution. -- Taku (talk) 21:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we has criticism with the criticism section for the iPhone? Plz? And another thing... This article is incorrect and biased from the very beginning. functions include those of a camera phone is false according to the very article it links to. And that's just the beginning of the second sentence. Femmina (talk) 08:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting WP:CRIT:

In general, making separate sections with the title "Criticism" is discouraged. The main argument for this is that they are often a troll magnet:

And I agree with the view expressed by others that often, they are a symptom of bad writing. That is, it isn't that we should not include the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article rather than having a troll magnet section of random criticisms.

— Jimbo Wales

Femmina's earlier comments about the iPhone is just an example of the trolling Jimbo is talking about if we actually had a criticism section here. Groink (talk) 09:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And you don't want to make Jimbo sad, do you? To me your reply sounds like an admission that the iPhone sucks so bad that opening a criticism section on the article would be a disaster for your much loved Golden calf. And what about the fact that this article claims that the iPhone is a camera phone when in reality it is not because it lacks video recording and MMS capabilities? Femmina (talk) 09:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have some news for you... I don't even OWN an iPhone. The only Apple product I own is a 5G iPod. If there's anyone active in this article that can edit without any form of bias, that would be me. And as I recall, a camera doesn't take motion video. Call me old, but I don't recall a Polaroid camera recording videos or sending out morse code. The iPhone IS a camera. The iPhone is a cellular telephone. Therefore, the iPhone is a camera phone. Groink (talk) 10:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Camera and a Camera phone are two different things. Basically, a camera phone is something capable of sending and receiving MMS. Not just a camera with a phone taped on it. It's true that an MMS can contain no video or include just a picture or be just text, but that's irrelevant because while the iPhone can somehow display the content of an MMS, it can not send them. So it's very misleading for the public to state that the iPhone is a camera phone, because the de facto standard capabilities needed for a phone to be considered a camera phone are lacking. And that's just about the first half of the second sentence of the article. Femmina (talk) 10:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few things to note here... 1) that definition of camera phone in the article is uncited. The debate over the camera phone requiring MMS is just as debatable as a smartphone requiring 3rd-party native application support (which in its article it was cited that there is no industry standard definition.) I believe the MMS is assumed because at the time most people defined the required transmission method as MMS when there was no EDGE network or equivalent with access to the Internet. So I wouldn't rely on the definition given on that article. Instead, If I were you I would fix that article by citing a reliable source on that MMS transmission requirement. 2) I assume you actually meant the 3rd sentence and not the 2nd, since the iPhone does have a vitual keyboard, along with the home and power buttons. To take apart the 3rd sentence... The iPhone is indeed a portable media device; it has all the features of the iPod, and is virtually identical to the iPod touch despite it being a cell phone and a camera. The iPhone can transmit text messaging; again, SMS is not the the ONLY protocol for texting. You can also text using Internet protocols and applications. Even people who use IRC and other chat systems consider their messageing systems as texting. There's even an SMS web-based application available for the iPhone. Again, the text messaging article on Wikipedia lacks citing of resources for its requirement that it must use SMS, which you can also fix if you feel so strongly about it. And, the iPhone does support visual voicemail, as AT&T had to modify their system to allow the iPhone to pull down voice messages in any order the user wants. That fact was demonstrated by Steve Jobs when he demonstrated the iPhone back in January 2007. This feature was actually one of the reasons Apple went with AT&T - as AT&T was the only company that allowed Apple to basically call all the shots such as providing this feature. So as I see it, none of the statements in that entire paragraph are false. What you have to do first is fix the Wikipedia articles that cover those features, and THEN come back to this article and make the necessary fixes that reflect the proper sourcing in those other articles. Groink (talk) 12:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Too long, didn't read, sorry. But just looking at the length of what I suppose is a very detailed rebuttal of my arguments, can we agree that the matter in question can be considered at least controversial and that stating in the article as a fact that the iPhone has the typical features found in other camera phones is wishful thinking? Femmina (talk) 13:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, since nobody is replying anymore, I'll go on and edit the page to remove the statement in question. Femmina (talk) 12:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that the definition of a 'Cameraphone' above is a bit outdated. The iPhone natively supports email for sending pictures, with a much wider audience than just MMS. So in my mind the functionality of the camera is better than my Nokia which although a 'cameraphone' by the above definition, can only send via MMS, and not email.Phooto (talk) 13:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- and Wikipedia's own definition of a Camera phone is "A camera phone is a mobile phone which has a camera built-in."

As I said before, the iPhone may have some camera-related capabilities, but not those one would expect from a camera phone. Any other cellular phone on the market today advertised as a "camera phone" can send and receive MMS. The iPhone can't. Femmina (talk) 13:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And wikipedia's definition of a camera phone is not: "A camera phone is a phone with a camera taped to it" as you say. Its more complex but one salient point in my opinion is this one: "Camera phones share pictures instantly and automatically via a sharing infrastructure integrated with the carrier network." The iPhone can only share pictures using some other additional service as it needs at least an email server and the carrier in order to share pictures. That not counting the fact that it can't share nor record small movies like most of the other phones on the market today. Femmina (talk) 13:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Femmina - please do not misquote me. I quoted Wikipedia, and did not say what you said I did. It does certainly have camera functions, and by the way, it's far easier to send a picture to someone else using an iPhone than my Nokia, or other phones I have used. Just because MMS is what the others use does not inherently make it the way to send pictures. MMS downsizes pictures, email does not. I added the word 'camera' back in to the article in any case. Phooto (talk) 13:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Unindenting) - The iPhone has a camera (which doesn't do video and that is in the article just FYI), but do we need to call it a "camera phone"? Does that really matter? If anyone objects to that, and Femmina obviously does, just make sure the article never calls it a "camera phone" and that's that. I don't think it makes a big difference to avoid the phrase "camera phone" in the article as long as it does mention that it has a camera in it. -- Atama^chat 16:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because Femmina didn't read my last long comment (a good editor always covers himself), let me repeat one more time: the Wikipedia definition for camera phone is not cited in its article. As someone else indicated earlier, the MMS requirement is old. Back then, there were no Internet-based phone, so MMS was the only way to transmit photos. IMHO, transmission of photos via the Internet IS the future, so it may be helpful to search around the Internet and trade publications for a credible UPDATED and industry-strength definition of a camera phone. Groink (talk) 18:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that got to me while reading the edit comments... "Consensus", according to Wikipedia, does not mean "if I throw out an edit concern and no one answers it, then we've reached a consensus." According to Wikipedia, a no-answer means that no consensus was reached and therefore things should stay as-is. The edit Femmina pulled just now under the assumption of consensus was totally against policy. Groink (talk) 18:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]