Talk:iPhone/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

iPod coming to Canada

CTV news article here - NorthernThunder (talk) 23:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Most countries are releasing July 11. --staka (T ・C) 02:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Official apps not ONLY distributed by App Store

Information about officially distributing apps ONLY by app store is no longer accurate, "ad hoc" method mentioned by Steve Jobs during keynote.

see http://db.tidbits.com/article/9646 "A new distribution method, Ad Hoc, requires developers to register for a certificate that enables them to seed software on up to 100 iPhones. As an example, Jobs cited a computer science professor who could distribute an application to students."

brandon.macuser (talk) 01:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The App Store only statement still holds true. Each of the 100 iPhones still need to connect to the App Store to get the application. The certificate is stored at the store. Groink (talk) 02:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I was under the impression that they could be mailed back and forth in email attachments. That may or may not be right.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 02:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The iphone can display "full" web pages

• There should be a reliable reference for this statement - both that the iphone can do this, and that many similarly priced phones can't.
• What does full versus simplified mean? A reference would help explain this, of course.
• What mobile phones are lacking this functionality? Again, I would expect a reference to provide this information (e.g., a comparison of smartphones).

Lastly, please discuss this rather than simply reverting everytime without comment. Nor should a request for citations be referred to as "stupid" - please see Wikipedia:Civility. Mdwh (talk) 01:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of the iPhone article, all we need to do is address point #2 which would be to make a distinction between a WAP web browser and a "full" web browser. Most people define full or "real" as being able to fully render a non-WAP web page. Most phones still do only WAP, as stated in this article where in August 2007, less than 10-percent of all phones are able to render real web pages. As for #1, Steve Jobs mentions "real web" pages or browser support on the iPhone several times in his presentation in June 2007 - the iPhone introduction. And, web pages such as this one brings it up as well. As for #3, that is beyond the scope of validating a statement. We don't have to use the iPhone article to validate what other phones can or cannot do. Groink (talk) 02:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Only dumbphones can only handle WAP, and Apple isn't competing with them. Every smartphone can render "full"/HTML pages. However, many have lower resolution screens than the iPhone 3G or worse browsers. JCDenton2052 (talk) 11:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Now we have the slightly different, but even more POV statement: Unlike almost every other mobile device, the web browser displays complete web pages similar to a desktop web browser and supports zooming by double-tapping the screen.

Almost every other? Regarding the above comments, whilst it may be true that most phones in circulation still only do WAP, the statement would be read as implying it has something that hardly any other phone on the market has. The statement is equivalent to "The Iphone has a feature which old cheap phones don't" - which obviously no longer sounds worth stating.

Consider: would it be okay to say the Iphone has vastly more memory than any other phone, on the basis that the sample includes all phones most of which still only have small amounts of memory? Of course not - these sorts of statements could be made of any new phone. The reader is going to be interesting in how the Iphone compares to other phones on the market, especially similarly priced ones, and does not want to be mislead by comparisons against all the old phones still in circulation.

And I'm not sure what in the reference supports the claim about how the web browser differs from "almost every other mobile device"? Mdwh (talk) 21:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's rather pointless to compare the iPhone to dumbphones. That leaves smartphones, such as those running Blackberry OS, Palm OS, Symbian, or Windows Mobile. I mainly follow Windows Mobile. Most current Windows Mobile phones that compete with the first generation iPhone have smaller screens (usually 320x240) and browsers that aren't as good as Safari Mobile. However, they do render "full" HTML pages and have two advantages over the first generation iPhone: Flash support and 3G (browsing on EDGE is painfully slow). Upcoming Windows Mobile phones that will compete with the iPhone 3G have larger screens (640x480 and 800x480) and better browsers--IE Mobile 6.1, Netfront 3.5, Opera 9.5, and two ports of WebKit. So, that statement is ludicrous. JCDenton2052 (talk) 23:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not ludicrous, it's accurate. It's just irrelevant. You can also say the iPhone lets you browse the Web better than almost every toaster, and it's true, but who cares? -- Atama^chat 23:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Series vs. one unit

There were a few reverts between JCDenton2052 and KelleyCook about ten minutes ago. The former advocates defining the iPhone as a series of phones; the latter says it's just a phone. I have a hunch the JCDenton2052 is coming from a background of cell phones while KelleyCook is thinking of iPods. I have my own opinion, but I'd like to see you resolve, or at least discuss, this issue peacefully here rather than in warring edit summaries.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 18:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It's disingenuous to label two separate models as the same. All other cell phone models are correctly treated separately, even if they are less notable or less differentiated than the iPhone series. As far as portable media players, iPods seem to be the exception to the rule on Wikipedia. For example, the first sentence of Zune is "Zune is a brand of digital music products and services sold by Microsoft." and there are separate articles for separate models. JCDenton2052 (talk) 18:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It is worthy to point out that so far no one from WikiProject Macintosh has either chimed in or has been approached for further advice on the categorization matter. According to the top of this very talk page, the iPhone article belongs to this WikiProject, and is of top-priority to the project. Although some editors feel the iPhone is just a phone, many members of WikiProject Macintosh would more like have a differing opinion. Groink (talk) 18:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It would have been nice if KelleyCook had allowed members from that project time to comment on the discussion about merging iPhone 3G with iPhone before unilaterally turning iPhone 3G into a redirect to iPhone. JCDenton2052 (talk) 18:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, User:Groink, the Macintosh project people consider the iPhone to not be a Macintosh. After all, they're not "Project Apple", right? - Denimadept (talk) 18:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

First of all, don't let the word "Macintosh" fool you. If you study the project, there are many non-Macintosh hardware and software articles. The reason why I agree with KelleyCook's direction is that the organization has precedence. It is along the same organizational structure as other Apple-related hardware, such as:

* iPod

* iMac

* Mac Pro

* Apple II, etc.

As for comparing Apple equipment to other vendors (Microsoft, etc.), I wouldn't say that any one organization is an exception to Wikipedia standards. The fact of the matter is that there are no Wikipedia standards when it comes to organization of this nature. That is why they set up WikiProjects - to handle articles that encompass a common idea - in this case merchandise developed by Apple Inc.

In contrast, telephones do not have a WikiProject - especially cell phones. I checked several phones just now - including the Motorola Razr (the phone I use), and they weren't a part of any project. So one cannot say that all phones manufactured by Motorola should fall under one article because no one has taken the due diligence to create a WikiProject and manage it. That's where articles related to Apple have an advantage over others. Groink (talk) 19:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It probably should be WikiProject Apple but the Mac name is too entrenched. (Speaking of it, I'm considering writing a guideline for Apple product launches, since they seem to be the most secretive yet most speculated-on in the industry.) I'll also preemptively refute anything based on Macintosh or iPod, both of which define their subjects as a brand name of a line of computers or mp3 players. The key difference between a line and a product is that multiple iPods and Macs have been and are available concurrently. Such, because the only variations available concurrently are/will be storage capacity and color, which are trivial, we should refer to the iPhone in the singular. A definite pronoun (the) is to be used unless referring to a specific unit, when an indefinite pronoun (an) is to be used.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 19:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It is best to have two seperate entries for the iphone. So far the only real change has been addition of 3g to enable fast data transfers nothing else really, so a common article may suffice. But when sufficiently diversified models comes a single article will be confusing, and its better to have seperate articles now.Kerr avon (talk) 02:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

How about we wait until there a sufficiently different model to create a new page. As you have stressed before, the iPhone 3G is pretty much just the previous year's iPhone with an upgrade to HSDPA speed added. -- KelleyCook (talk) 13:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, we don't know that. In order to support UMTS, HSDPA, and AGPS, the iPhone must have a completely new chipset. This could mean a faster processor, more RAM, etc. Until the phone is released and people get their hands on it, we won't know how much it has changed internally. JCDenton2052 (talk) 14:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

That can all be delineated under specifications; I think the common, original, and 3G subheadings do a fine job. However, the end user experience is the same. So it might find your location more accurately with GPS, download faster and make clearer calls, but it doesn't do anything significantly different from an original iPhone running iPhone OS 2.0.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 17:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Straw Poll

Lets get down to the nitty gritty:

The article was recently changed[1] to convert the article to refer to the iPhone series instead of an iPhone.

Singular: The second generation iPhone 3G is not being sold along side with the first iPhone which (in the U.S. at least) is no longer available. There really is only one iPhone with some slightly different featuresets. Apples still uses the same url for their website: http://www.apple.com/iphone/specs.html and doesn't have a page for the superceded model. For a mindset issue, I don't come from an iPod background, nor do I even own an iPhone. I actually come from the mindset that the iPhone is much more than a phone, it is a mobile communications/internet device. What makes users of iPhone rave has nothing to do with technical specs, it has everything to do with how it has actually changed the way they perform their daily routines. Therefore an iPhone is an iPhone is an iPhone. -- KelleyCook (talk) 14:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Other new cell phones (with their own articles) are not sold along with previous models, so that argument doesn't hold water. The differences between the first generation iPhone and iPhone 3G aren't completely known yet, but are at least as great as the differences between other cell phone models that have different articles. I think you're trying to define smartphone. Several current and upcoming smartphones meet or exceed the iPhone's capabilities, but they aren't all in one article. JCDenton2052 (talk) 14:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

JCDenton2052: See the comment bellow about OSE and precedents. KellyCook: An iPhone (to me) refers to a specific iPhone unit; iPhones refers to multiple units, and the iPhone refers to the product as a whole.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 17:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

And that's where I disagree. iPhone - much like iMac, Macintosh Pro, iWork, Apple II, etc. are all trademark of product families. There are actually individual articles for each Apple II or Macintosh model, but there lies an umbrella of sorts article that encompasses and tracks all of them. There should be an iPhone article, just like the iPod article, that tracks all models of iPod. Groink (talk) 21:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Singular: The argument that other stuff exists is not valid. Forget imitating what editors have done in other articles and focus on doing this one correctly. Comparing the 3G iPhone and the older one, there are so few differences that having two articles is going to result in either one of them being a stub, or a large duplication of information. The 3G should have a section in the iPhone article, not its own article. -- Atama^chat 15:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

KelleyCook already decided that there should be one article. What we're debating is whether the iPhone should be referred to as a series of phones, or whether it should be referred to as one model, now that a new model exists. JCDenton2052 (talk) 16:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Atama. It's not about what has been done--absolute consistency in an encyclopedia, especially a gigantic one like this, is a losing battle--but about what will best serve the readers in this particular instance.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 17:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Remember that what we do doesn't have to be set in stone, if 6 months from now the 3G section is somehow too large it can have a spin-off article of its own. I just don't see that happening now and probably not ever. As to whether or not to call it a "series" or not, I would defer to Apple. What nomenclature are they using? -- Atama^chat 19:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Apple doesn't use any article, rather just "iPhone 3G puts even more features at your fingertips," and so forth.[2] They do this with iPods, too, but non-Apple usage almost never follows that; "the iPod" is most common as spoken. That's what we use for iPod nano.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 19:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Singular (Cingular?): What User:Atama said. - Denimadept (talk) 16:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Plural Singular is just too confusing for readers since there are two distinct models. JCDenton2052 (talk) 16:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be more confusing to have duplicate information that makes it difficult to find the differences among the (much larger number of) similarities.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 17:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Singular as roughly 90-percent of both iPhone models are the same. Seriously - it won't end up being huge article, or confusing to the reader. As I've mentioned before, use the iPhone OS article to cover the software aspects, and that should leave the iPhone article less bloated. Groink (talk) 21:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Battery capacity

"When the battery reaches only 80 percent capacity, based on the original estimates, it would be rated for approximately 5.6 hours of video, 4.8 hours of web browsing, 6.4 hours of talk time, or 19.2 hours of music playing, depending on configuration." Does anyone have a source for this? I doubt the accuracy of the calculation. With 80 percent capacity it doesn't necessarily mean that it would be able to do 80% of what a 100 percent capacity battery could do. As far as I know, you need at least a certain percentage of energy in the battery to be able to do anything at all. That is, a battery may be useless below, say, 40 percent capacity. The ratio would be 3:2 instead of 5:4 in this assumption. 202.40.139.170 (talk) 14:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Removed as it was clear WP:OR and, as you mentioned, wrong too. -- KelleyCook (talk) 14:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Bluetooth

The article lists 'bluetooth 2.0 + EDR' as a feature of the phone. That is correct. On the other hand, it doesn't mention the profiles supported. I think the list of profiles is noteworthy because it is very unusual: the original iPhone only supports HSP and HFP. I'm not saying this is good or bad - but there is no other phone like this so it is worth noting.

When we find out what profiles the iPhone3G supports this information should be added to the article. I would add it now but I don't have this information yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwavel (talk • contribs) 18:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Picture Quality

Alright, notwithstanding the discussion about the copyright status of the pictures, the current banner picture is nowhere near the quality that we need to be leading off an article like this. I don't mean to offend, but really, we should still maintain a reasonable standard for these things.

I'm not uploading a replacement and getting thrust into the copyright debate (again), as I have had at least 2 get deleted and replaced with much poorer substitutes already, but come on folks, we've got to do better than this. – ɜɿøɾɪɹℲ _{( тɐʟк • ¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs )} 18:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to chime in with the old request (see multiple archives where this is repeated) that the image be a real picture. As I am writing this, the image does look like a real picture of the iPhone and not a fake one, but often in the past people would replace the image with a "better quality" one that is basically a Photoshopped iPhone with an impossibly-clear interface (similar to what you would see on Apple's Web site, for example). -- Atama^chat 21:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

It's real, which is why it doesn't look perfect. And I took it pretty early in the morning. Won't say it's my best work. The fair use rationale is pretty bulletproof for anyone who'd like to contribute an alternate (better) photo and fend off the legal arguments. Mattnad (talk) 03:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a fantastic picture. My statement was aimed towards those who want to get a "better" picture (not necessarily Frijole either). In the past we used to get a lot of fake iPhone pictures up and I think it's better to have a real example. Though if Frijole or someone else finds a better-quality legitimate photo I'm all for it. -- Atama^chat 04:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The current picture of the iPhone really needs to be replaced in my opinion. It really does not uphold to Wikipedia standards. I really think it should be reverted to a clearer picture, like the one before it. Dennin (talk) 19:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It's lousy but we can't use this picture. Because it's fake. That's not a picture of an iPhone, it's an artist's concept of what an iPhone should look like. We need a good, REAL image of an iPhone. -- Atama^chat 19:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I replaced it with a good image I in an article online. We will use it for educational purposes so it should be alright. It is the actual iPhone, not a fake, prototype or artists concept. Dennin (talk) 20:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The current one is heavily post-processed, if not completely rendered, and is likely roundabout from apple.com, and not under a free license. – ɜɿøɾɪɹℲ _{( тɐʟк • ¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs )} 01:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

(Unident) There is no way that is a real iPhone image, Dennin. We need a photo so people know what an iPhone actually looks like. -- Atama^chat 20:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for a better photograph, but the version on there was explicitly taken from Apple's site and fails Wikipedia's fair use rules. I've reverted the image to the real, albeit imperfect, photographMattnad (talk) 13:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that the hardware, while patented, is not copyrighted. You can take a picture of hardware and you'll be fine. Software is copyrighted, and is always copyrighted, therefore it is impossible to create a free-use screenshot of copyrighted software. However, Apple's photos are copyrighted, both hardware and software. So the hardware in an Apple photo is copyrighted, when it's possible to create a non-copyrighted version. The software isn't more copyrighted, though, just because Apple took a picture of something the hold the license for. Can we stitch a software screenshot from Apple with Wikipedian-created hardware?--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 13:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

While we can never get a free use image (which is suitable for the Wikimedia Commons), we are allowed under U.S. fair use to show a photo of the iPhone and its interface for an article dedicated to the topic. Check the rationale for the image. It's fine for the US Wikipedia article. Now with the legal distinction made, personally, I have no problem with someone developing a derivative work like that suggested by HereToHelp. Some others might for other reasons, but it's OK in the US under fair use. Mattnad (talk) 13:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to go back to this picture, it was a decent-quality picture showing a REAL iPhone, not an artist's concept of the iPhone as we have now. It was only abandoned when the whole "we can't show the iPhone interface" controversy started, and it was a great representation. -- Atama^chat 23:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

That is excellent. I'd do it, but I'm doing 3 or 4 other things at once. I like that one, though. – ɜɿøɾɪɹℲ _{( тɐʟк • ¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs )} 00:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Under U.S. law, this is a perfectly fine application of fair use, for reasons I've tried to outline at {{Apple fair use}} (feel free to edit it). However, WP:NFC maintains that Wikipedia maintains a standard higher than U.S. law. Quite frankly, though, it's in Apple's best interest to have their products depicted cleanly, as their photos do, rather than these third-hand not-so-good shots.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 02:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

HereToHelp, Apple doesn't have "photos" on their web site. The main image you reverted isn't a photo. It's a fake representation that falsely shows what an iPhone looks like. I wish I had a perfect, glare-free screen with exactly perfect colors on my iPhone, but I don't and neither does anyone else. On a biographical page would you revert a decent photograph of a person with a stylish painting? I'm of course comparing a fake image with a Black BG.JPG real image. If the photo was an awful one I'd agree to use the fake one, but it looks like a very decent photo. The fair use claim is totally invalid, fair use is for when you don't have a free alternative. We do have one. To say "well I just like the fair use image better" doesn't seem to satisfy a fair use claim, and I'll again repeat that free image is a superior image because it's real. -- Atama^chat 22:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright, alright. I suppose this energy could more productively channeled into creating a better free-content image? Part of the reason I don't like the best free image is that the composition isn't straight-on. The background is distracting, too. Whatever. Fine.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 22:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll retract what I said about Fair Use. The photograph does include the iPhone interface and has a Fair Use claim because of that. Let's just let others have a say about this in the new section below. -- Atama^chat 23:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup required

This article requires some serious cleanup. I'd do it myself, but someone decided to lock it like it was a controversial issue. Is it? It's not exactly great either.

The opening paragraph states:

The iPhone was initially introduced in the United States on June 29, 2007 followed by numerous other countries.

That's not very wikipedish. What "other countries"? Why numerous? Are they really numerous? The provided map of availability claims it's available in 6 (six) countries and announced in just above 30 others (out of over 200 countries there are). This is anything but numerous.

The Features section starts with a stupid sentence:

The iPhone allows (blah, blah) and integration with other cellular network features and iPhone functions.

iPhone has features compatilble with iPhone's features. Shocking.
The same section includes another nice sentence:

A ringtone feature was introduced in the United States on September 5, 2007, but is not yet available in all countries where the iPhone has been released.

A major showstopper for me. ;-) Please, have anyone ever heard about a phone, let alone a mobile phone, without a rigntone?

The Multimedia subsection contains a recurring phrase "previous iPods" in reference to iPhone. As the opening section suggests, iPhone is not an iPod, but a mobile phone with iPod functionality.

The Others subsection has on opening sentence that is unreadable. It would greatly benefit from rephrasing into something like that:

The iPhone features a built in 2.0 megapixel camera located on the back for still digital photos. It has no optical zoom, flash or autofocus, and does not support video recording.

The Battery subsection states:

Apple's site says that the battery life "is designed to retain up to 80% of its original capacity after 400 full charge and discharge cycles", which turns out to be the same as for the iPod batteries.

According to the first part of the sentence, it does not "turn out to be" but rather "is supposed to be".

I'm sure there are other blunders, so please read it and post any suggestions you might have.
-- Llewelyn MT (talk) 14:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The article is not locked, just semi-protected, which means you as an established user can WP:Be Bold. My only comment is to not go and list the other countries in the opening sentence -- that was real unwieldy. -- KelleyCook (talk) 14:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Ooops, I must have been logged out when I've seen the padlock and didn't checked it after. Sorry. :-] Must be beginners bad luck. -- Llewelyn MT (talk) 11:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the infobox is pretty unwieldy with all of those countries, even when collapsed. How about "five other countries"? The majority of the data should be in the history and availability section, but Apple's list of countries doesn't provide much more than just names. Let's keep them in the infobox and not duplicate them elsewhere.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 12:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

iPhone 3G

Should there be a new article for this or somehow incorporated into this? I personally believe it should be a new article. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 18:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd say not for now, it can be split out when the section gets too big. BJ^Talk 18:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

There is currently a version at AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3g iphone. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 18:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

That page is at 3G iPhone. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 18:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Voted to hold, we'll see how it turns out. For now I'd say build on that article, it can always be merged. BJ^Talk 18:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

That was my impression. I figure it is a different enough phone (not just a software change) that it may deserve its own article. I am sure we will see as things develop. I am keeping my eyes open for the first reilabe sources that surface. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 18:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Honestly I'd say just start writing, we know it will be backed up en masse shortly. BJ^Talk 18:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I just stuck a temporary CNN.com link there of the on-going event. It should do to start. - Denimadept (talk) 18:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The 2G and 3G should stay as one article. If the consensus goes otherwise, I will unprotect iPhone 3G but it's really just a mess that asks for redundancy and confusion.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 19:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the 2G and 3G should remain as one article. Right now, there are not too many differences between these two models of iPhone. Besides, the older iPhone is not going to be sold in parallel with the 3G version. So, there is essentially still going to be only one model of the iPhone available for purchase. 71.146.5.104 (talk) 19:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The fact that they will not be sold in parallel further supports separate articles. As updats and breakthroughs occurs for the 3G, the historic information on the 2g has great potential to be lost, over written or mixed up confused with the two. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 19:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

←I strongly disagree with your protection of that article and ask that you unprotect it. I am unsure of how your protection fits in you our protection policy. Let consensus determine then sort it out from there. I dont want to wheel war so I kindly ask that you unprotect it. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 19:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the original reason as well, apple.com isn't our burden of proof, sorry. BJ^Talk 19:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I want to have time for a consensus to emerge. Besides, Apple seems to be using iPhone 3G, not 3G iPhone; if I unprotect one, it will be the former. However, I believe that having two articles will cause much of the basic information to be duplicated, causing redundancy and confusion. iPod nano seems to work fine, and the nanos are more different from each other than the 2 iPhones. A "Versions" header in iPhone with subsections for 2G and 3G is more appropriate. (The iPhone 3G exists; now that Apple has confirmed it that's not under debate. This is now a categorization and classification issue.)--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 19:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not agreeing or disagreeing with the baove statement, My objection was to the principle of protecting a page to prevent creation when there was no consensus for or against it. By default, as I understand the wiki, we are supposed to create articles, put content. Later, if stuff needs to be merged, merge it, fix it up. However dont close the door till the community agrees. Perhaps I am not rogue enough? Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 19:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, iPhone 3G is unprotected. I'll let the editing take its course and come back in a few days to clean up and sort out everything. My objective is to create the most well-organized, accessible, actual, and sourced information I (we) can. Totally separate articles will lead to much confusion and duplication of information. I support a section in iPhone outlining the differences or a separate iPhone versions article, which will focus on the distinctions but let iPhone handle to commonalities, not to mention social and economic effects.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 19:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you but trying to control the chaos during the first 24 hours is an exercise in futility. ;) BJ^Talk 19:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Chrislk02. By blocking pages you are not allowing consensus, you are forcing it.82.229.209.33 (talk) 19:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I got a little hasty with protections against rumors (before apple.com was updated I consider that justified) but once announced, "trying to control the chaos during the first 24 hours is an exercise in futility". Let's let the anons have their fun and in a few hours we'll try to carve an encyclopedia out of this mess.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 19:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

←BTW, there appears to be the emergence (albeit early to judge completley) of a consensus for separate articles atWikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/3g_iphone. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 19:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anybody will be able to tell until we see how much text gets written and how different the phones really are. I don't much care where the 3G prose is written as long as it is in one place. (can always be split or merged later) BJ^Talk 19:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The article iPhone 3G is unprotected and available for editing. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 19:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I strongly support Heretohelp, there shouldn't be a seperate article for iPhone 3g. It's only a successor of iPhone (EDGE). We don't have seperate articles iPod Shuffle 1G, iPod Shuffle 2G etc., Instead a table showing clearly how the iPhone progressed over the generations would be better.

GPS support (ticked in 3G model, unticked in old model) and so on... Mugunth^{(ping me!!!,contribs)} 09:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I was considering a table, which might highlight the differences between the two models, or if really necessary having these differences in a separate article (as distinct from a separate article for each version.) This works well in iPod#Models, but there might be a general consensus away from tables and towards prose, I don't remember.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 11:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Does no one else know that the iPhone 3G is a different product to the iPhone? We (wikipedia) have a different page for every iteration of the iPods and Macs. Keep inline with the rest of your articles please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.198.175.206 (talk) 16:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Not so: iPod nano iPod shuffle. (Does anyone else suspect that the above could possibly be a sockpuppet?--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 19:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not me. whois says that that IP belongs to a UK ISP; I'm in the US. Feel free to check though. Anyway, I was trying to argue that it should be treated the way cell phones are treated. I know that iPods and Macs don't have individual articles. JCDenton2052 (talk) 19:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It was just a guess, and I'm certainly not accusing anyone. Oh well.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 21:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Merged from Talk:iPhone 3G

AFD

3G iPhone is official now: see the apple store. I think the question now is, do we want a new 3G page, or do we merge it in with the current [iPhone] article? Darkmeerkat (talk) 19:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, now it's official. I'm making an executive decision to add everything to iPhone.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 19:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Please see the discussion at iPhone's talk page as well as the AFD linked to the top of this page. There is no consensus for HereToHelp's executive decision, and it should be ok to write the article here. It may later get merged or sorted out but as of now, this page is a go. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 19:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this article should be kept separate and written accordingly for the iPhone 3G and they should be referenced from an appropriate disambiguation page. --Kariudosan (talk) 20:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I think there should be a iPhone 1 and an iphone 2 page --142.177.155.169 (talk) 20:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)--142.177.155.169 (talk) 20:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Price?

Why don't we show the price, it is a very important reason why the new iphone is being so talked about.Camilo Sanchez (talk) 20:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

As the summary says, go read WP:CATALOG. -- KelleyCook (talk) 21:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

For this product, the price is very complicated. Not only do you have to consider the plans, but there are also a lot of hidden costs. For example, firmware upgrades have a cost, which is very unusual. So, either cover it fully, or don't get into it at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwavel (talk • contribs) 18:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Improvements??

I wouldn't call "a thicker body, a black plastic back (instead of silver) or white option with a 16Gb iPhone" improvements.84.66.51.191 (talk) 21:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thicker

The iPhone is 11.6mm thick. The iPhone 3G is 12.3mm thick. Thank you. JCDenton2052 (talk) 21:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk about spliting hairs, 0.7mm diffrence! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.102.146.38 (talk) 19:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not a big deal to me, but lots of people were vandalizing the iPhone 3G article by claiming that the iPhone 3G was thinner. JCDenton2052 (talk) 21:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Cool new features

this kind of writing is not very wikipedia-like. --neolandes 22:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Neither is second person ("you"). So fix it.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 22:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Come on guys, they seem to be posting in good faith and are just unaware of WP:MoS. JCDenton2052 (talk) 22:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Balanced view point on the Iphones gross defeciencies

The apples hyped 3g iphone does not support 3g features which are standard and which people expect such as 3g video calls, video recording. It is important to state that the Iphone despite its hype and high price tag does not support such features for the benefit of the reader, as otherwise a notneutral point of view is given.

The main people who remove the lack of standard 3g features of the iphone are Appples fanboys probably and I request them to leave the unsupported features there.

I live in Sri Lanka, A poor third world country, I use the cheapest 3g phone the LG KU250, which is about 100 US$. But it supports 3g video calls, video recording, MMS, A2DP etc. People should know that the much hyped iphone 3g, just is a plain iphone with added 3g support for faster data rates and with not much 3g features in it.Kerr avon (talk) 03:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Um no your definition of both 3G features and WP:NPOV is misconstrued. Furthermore, all of this is already in the article. Again, please go read WP:CRITICISM before adding it yet again. -- KelleyCook (talk) 14:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Umm, when you say a phone is 3g, it is expected to support 3g video calls, otherwise its not playing it fair. It is sad to see americans are able to be fooled to easily. All apple has to do is to take the old iphone, just add 3g data transfer support and the entire USA falls to their feat in amazement as if it is the second coming of christ! There is no mention of the lack of MMS support, lack of video calls, lack of video recordings, things which have been on the cheapest 3g phones for years. And any attempt to highlight the deficiencies on wikipedia is immediately censored.

We from Sri Lanka are a dirt poor third world country, but we have been using 3g phones for years making video calls, sending MMS's, using 3g blackberrys, so it is sad when we see years old technologies, technologies we have been using for years and have been taken for granted, been marketed just purely on hype and sold of to your countries unsuspecting people. Even a public beggar here knows that when a phone has 3g on it, that it supports video calls and has a front side camera!Kerr avon (talk) 02:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

We do need to cover these things. That's what separates Wikipedia from Apple's advertising. To that end, we should use Apple sources for facts and features but third party sources for criticisms.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 13:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Lead image.

Sort of continuing on some of the ideas of Talk:IPhone#Picture Quality.

Could we decide as to what our lead image will be? Will we use:

• IPhone Black BG.JPG
• IPhone Home.png, or
• other..?

Currently at Flickr there are posts about getting a free image for this article. [3][4] If that succeeds then we should have a pretty good image to head the article up.

Otherwise, if we are going to use a non-free image why don't we use the best quality image that we are able to obtain -- one directly from Apple. No offence to Aido2002, but the IPhone Home.png is a better photo.

Thanks, Monkeyblue 22:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm of course advocating the first image, but it's incorrect that the second image is a "better photo", it is not a photo. It's a CGI mockup. If a large number of people say "let's go for an artist's rendering of an iPhone instead of a real picture" then I will go along with consensus, sure. -- Atama^chat 22:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Addendum - you're never going to get a free image. We've had free images before, but if you try to use a free image (which means it doesn't show the iPhone software) then it will be removed because it's not representative enough of the iPhone, that's never going to happen. -- Atama^chat 23:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Any picture that shows the software of the iPhone is fair-use. I'm not sure why you say that they are artists renderings, perhaps they have been 'touched-up' by Apple but they are still representative of the iPhone.

When I say a free image of the iPhone, I mean a photo that has the iPhone turned off. Simple, just the hardware. I don't think that a photo with the interface blurred works. Thanks, Monkeyblue 23:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that English Wikipedia's "non-free" policy is MORE RESTRICTIVE than U.S. law (i.e. fair use, etc.) Please read WP:NFC. Groink (talk) 23:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

One other thing about an un-powered iPhone... If the phone had nice physically clickable buttons, a company logo and such, then yes the phone would be photo-friendly. However, the problem with the iPhone is that it looks like a rectangular black bar. That's the challenge we have here! It would be like tearing off a piece of black electrical tape and taking a photo of it, versus taking a photo of the roll itself. I have faith - a creative person with expertise in photography can come up with a good quality photo of an un-powered iPhone. Groink (talk) 23:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

"I'm not sure why you say that they are artists renderings, perhaps they have been 'touched-up' by Apple but they are still representative of the iPhone." They are fake. For example, this is an artist's representation of a Big Mac, while this is a photograph. The Apple.com CGI version of an iPhone has an impossibly clear screen with perfect colors, etc. It's not what a real iPhone looks like. In absence of a real image I'd say that at least the fake picture gives an idea of what an iPhone looks like, but why not use a real photo? -- Atama^chat 01:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

First, I do favor Apple's CGI; I'm fine with the "not a photograph" thing but the legal issues are a mess. Let me play devil's advocate: while the interface will always be copyright, the hardware in Apple's renderings is also copyright. So a free image of the phone turned on is "free-er" than Apple's imagery, despite still having a fair use interface. (By the way, I think the need to show the interface in the infobox, method aside, complies with U.S. law and Wikip(m)edia policy.) Anyway, I think we have a valid fair use claim for Apple's imagery as I have outlined at {{apple fair use}}. It doesn't much matter to U.S. law about the possibility of a free-er, but not free, image. However, that does matter to Wikip(m)edia. And so we're forced into the lovely world of different parts of an image having different licenses. Part of the problem is that--as someone who follows WP:FPC--I haven't found any free iPhone image that gets anywhere near something Apple would. The closest thing I've seen used to be at iPod, until it was deleted. I'm investigating. Anyway, I'd love to use Apple's images, but they don't really comply with WP:NFC. I'd love to use the free images, but frankly, they suck.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 02:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no such thing as free-er, just free and non-free. Wikimedia would like all images to be able to be licensed under a free image license. As soon as we notice that we are unable to obtain a free image for an article and it's necessary (already noted) then we aim to use the best image available to us. That image is the one directly from Apple.

As an aside Image:IPhone Black BG.JPG cannot be licensed under CC-BY-* because it contains non-free portions, which means the image as a whole is non-free. This image is no more free than our alternative.Monkeyblue 06:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a lawyer, rather I was only repeating what I've gathered from similar discussions. Wikipedia:No legal threats doesn't give any links to say, legal consulting on such issues. If Monkeyblu is right am I'm wrong, the only reason against using Apple's renderings it that they're, well, renderings. I'm okay with that; Atama is not. Moreover, we need to confirm exactly what the licensing is.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 11:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I just want to point out that a while back, I spent 3 or 4 hours one night setting up and taking a bunch of pictures of my iPhone, expressly to get a good one to use here on Wikipedia. Arguments like these led to its being tagged as fair use, then it was orphaned for a horribly ugly one of a powered off phone, and it was deleted. You can rest assured that I won't put that sort of effort into this or any article again. Its something you might want to keep in mine while you argue back and forth about copyright minutiae (such as the interface being included preventing the image from being licenses as the photographer wishes, never heard of that before drama on this article) that none of us are really qualified to pass judgements on. – ɜɿøɾɪɹℲ _{( тɐʟк • ¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs )} 18:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm really sorry Frijole...would you happen to have a copy on your computer still?--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 19:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I wasted a lot of time in these debates earlier. I've made reference to the "hard-core" types who will not allow anything they deem as copyvio even if there's no clear legal expertise at work. I've pulled back from editing here for the same reasons.Mattnad (talk) 00:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice to be able to not deal with copyright issues but we have to. I think what this comes down to is:

Must we use a photo?

I think you know my answer. Even if we decide that we must then there are better photos out there ([5] for example) than the image that is currently leading the iPhone article.

"licenses as the photographer wishes", the reason that we have fair use is because we are unable to license our images of copyright material the way we wish. Thanks, Monkeyblue 13:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I think a photo is preferred when a decent one is available. But if I'm in the minority then I won't make a stink about it. The image from Apple isn't bad, it gives an idea of what an iPhone looks like, but it's almost like having a picture of Bugs Bunny in the lead of the Rabbit article. (Okay it's not that extreme but you get the idea.) It's not a big deal it's just my opinion. -- Atama^chat 18:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh I forgot to add, Monkeyblue that Flickr photo you linked in your comment just above mine is fantastic. -- Atama^chat 18:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I like this photo of the un-powered iPhone even better. It shows two of them - one docked while the other lies on the table. Groink (talk) 20:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I also like the photo of the unpowered iPhone but its screen has the cover on it. I think that the image from William Hook [3] is high quality and it's photo :). A problem might be that it a moded home screen. Photoshop? Otherwise I think we might have found our solution. Monkeyblue 07:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I just uploaded IPhone in dock.jpg. Needs a better crop and some skill with photo manipulation software to get it right -- something I have no skill in :) Monkeyblue 13:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Well your photo didn't last long. Deleted before we could look at it. Again the "non-free" fascists strike again. See why Wikipedia is starting to suck.Mattnad (talk) 14:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Wait a minute... I5 for CSD which was stated for the reason for deleting the image specifically states that the image is to be tagged for 7 days before deletion. I think that deletion should be undone. -- Atama^chat 15:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Change Main Image

For the main image is it really necessary to show 3 iPhones right next to each other? There's no differences easily noticeable and the quality is terrible. Google displays the iPhone wiki page first in a simple "iPhone" search and I think it would be a good idea to show the user an image that displays the phone clearer. An example of this is Blackberry's image for their Storm. Pardthemonster (talk) 20:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with a change, in theory, but I don't see any good replacements. It would have to be something clear, with a good screenshot. Perhaps [6] or [7]? HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 02:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd have to disagree with the images that were just mentioned as possible replacements. They show jailbroken phones. The images should show the default homescreen, if possible. --NerdyScienceDude ^{(talk to me)} 02:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. You can start to see why we're using the image we are. (Does the Apple store let you take photographs? Or [8]? [9]?)HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 02:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I really dislike the image but we don't have a better one. :( We tried to include one from Commons not that long ago, but it was deleted before we implemented a change. -- Atama頭 16:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks like Pardthemonster did us a favor. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 04:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Fantastic picture. -- Atama頭 23:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)