Talk:iPhone/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

Lawsuit

something about the lawsuit against ATT/Apple should be in the article. The lawsuit in california... Apple iPhone lawsuit —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.253.128.163 (talk) 02:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

If you can show us that this is verifiable, you cite us only reliable sources (more than one is highly preferred), can word it in a neutral point of view, can word at an appropriate length so as not to give it undue weight, then post it here, and one of the established editors can add it to the article. When determining what to write, keep in mind that Wikipedia is only an encyclopedia, and not a newspaper.

Be aware that the only reason this is necessary is that this specific article is semi-protected in an effort to stop frequent vandalism. I hope this helps. Let me know if there is anything else I can help you with. --Brianreading (talk) 03:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice summary, and feel free to write it up, though I don't think that any individual class action at this point will be deemed notable. Corporations like Apple get sued several hundred times per week — 99.999% of the time the suits are simply not notable and would constitute serious undue weight of a distinct minority. Just a warning. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Typo

3rd April 2009 Available sizes is shown as 4, 8 and 168 GB - Should be 16GB

Search for 168 to find quickly!!

Thanks for pointing that out! I fixed it. -- Atama^chat 15:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Oops, sorry about that. Previously it did not reference the 4GB original.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 16:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:VG notice

Reuters has reported the iPhone as emerging as a game platform. ([1]). Should this article perhaps be given a WP:VG notice? I'll add one sometime within the next few days if there is no response. --haha169 (talk) 23:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Eh, I dunno... It's just one article, and it was from April Fool's Day... Atama^chat 04:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think it's a legitimate article, but the idea is contentious, therefore it needs tons of legitimate sources for it to be assumed verifiable. Brianreading (talk) 04:52, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Reuters isn't known for making April Fools day jokes. In any case, I'll try and find more citations about this topic, but isn't it starting to become a bit obvious already that the iPhone is being used for serious gaming? --haha169 (talk) 05:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

[2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. --haha169 (talk) 05:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

And, to back that up, Apple's iPod Touch app portal describes itself as a list of iPod/iPhone "games and applications", and shows that a lot of the best-selling paid apps are games. At this point, it's pretty clear that it isn't a joke. Zetawoof_(ζ) 06:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I would agree that it's becoming a game platform, a Metal Gear Solid game was just released for it, for instance. That being said, it's not solely a game platform, so I don't think it falls under the scope of WP:VG. Microsoft Windows is in the same boat. Games made for the iPhone would definitely be in the WP:VG scope. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 07:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

(Remove indent) The project's scope is very wide indeed and the iPhone is a gaming platform, so I'd just tag and move onto the next thing. Every time I turn on the television there's an iPhone advert exclusively showing video games, it's hardly something they're downplaying. Someoneanother 11:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay so I've had some more time to think about this. I personally agree that the iPhone and iPod touch is already a serious gaming platform, but the previous poster is correct in stating that it's in the same boat as Windows in relation to video games. The reason why it seems so unusual to us is because iPhone OS is the first general purpose mobile computing OS to achieve a gaming user base. It's akin to the PC gaming world back in the late 80's and early 90's. Even if we were to include this in the scope of video games, it would be more appropriate in the iPhone OS article, as this is the real platform that the games run on. After all, the iPhone and iPod touch are simply hardware specifications, not the actual platform for games.

However, technically speaking, the scope of iPhone gaming belongs in the Handheld video game article. My idea is that the advent of iPhone OS gaming should be expanded upon in this article, and if the amount of information exceeds an appropriate length for a top-level section there, then it should be split into a separate article entitled "iPhone OS game" (In accordance with gaming conventions used with the Personal computer game article or even the iPod game article). I believe it meets notability requirements to warrant that. A section might also be added to the App Store and iPhone OS articles, but without adding these articles to the Video games WikiProject. What do you guys think about this reasoning? — Brianreading (talk) 11:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

What about the 7th-gen video game article? --haha169 (talk) 16:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, well your posting of that article made me think a bit more. Now I think I may be leaning more toward the other direction. Something that really got me thinking was how the iPhone OS/App Store is similar to the current iteration of the N-Gage, which most people have no complaints about calling THAT a game platform. Regardless, I think that article's talk section is a better place for us to discuss this. There was a previously written section regarding the inclusion of the iPod Touch there, but I created a new section focused on the iPhone OS here. Let's continue this there. Brianreading (talk) 20:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I think this article receives plenty enough attention without a tangentially related project banner. The article isn't gaming-centric enough to target WPVG specifically. You could start with more general computing projects. I think there is one for Apple, which would be a better fit. Ham Pastrami (talk) 00:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, it should be noted that the purpose of placing an article in the scope of a WikiProject is not to divert attention.Brianreading (talk) 10:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be better decided over at WP:VG? Yes, the iPhone can run games, but that's only one of many functions it performs. Does every device that can run games deserve to be under the scope of the VG project? My TI-85 could play games but there's no way WP:VG would consider it a gaming platform. One obvious difference is that there are commercial games being developed specifically for the iPhone, which could make it qualify, but even the cheapest Nokia phones have Tetris clones that you can purchase and download. Where do you draw the line? I'm sure the VG project has standards they go by, and if anyone is serious about getting this article considered for that project they should move the discussion over there. -- Atama^chat 15:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

proper nouns

now I'm not a grammar expert but I believe that trademarked product names can be considered proper nouns. Even if they aren't considered to be so, I don't see why every mention of the product name needs to be preceded by a definite article. this is encroaching on lame edit war territory riffic (talk) 08:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't have anything to do with proper nouns. This was discussed before in this link. In short, Wikipedia does not follow the use of articles used by the manufacturers' marketing schemes. Apple uses phrases such as "Welcome to iPhone" in its marketing, as if "iPhone" was a concept rather than an object. Wikipedia, however treats the iPhone as an object, and therefore the use of definite articles such as "the iPhone" when appropriate is required for proper English. Groink (talk) 21:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

THANK YOU GROINK. I wanted to link that discussion but couldn't find it in the archives, I know we'd already discussed the matter and reached prior consensus. The other thing to note (which I'm sure is in that discussion) is that nowhere outside of Apple's advertising do you see anyone calling it "iPhone"; the rest of the world calls it "the iPhone". -- Atama^chat 23:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Further agreed. That, and if we omit the article it will look like we are too favorable to Apple instead of adopting the lingo used by every other third party. We should not just regurgitate what you can find on apple.com. Perhaps it needs more about jailbreaking to that effect...--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 23:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

copyright —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.113.198 (talk) 17:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Section on violation of international laws?

How come there isn't a large section at the top of the article about the FACT that the phone's software update-and-refresh relocking program violates international laws, regulations, and treaties? Especially considering how many users may read this article before purchasing an iPhone, it should include notice that the purchase of the phone enslaves you to illegal and/or illicit regulations that violate the buyers rights and freedoms in the vast majority of the world, including the EU and United States. How about the fact that using the phone in such an illicitly locked fashion while on holiday in another country may be cause for criminal precedings against the user for violating that countries consumer protection laws? Lostinlodos (talk) 23:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:POINT - Wikipedia is not the place to vent. If you can find sources, you can add this information to the restrictions section.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 23:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with HereToHelp. Also be aware that Wikipedia is not a guidebook nor a soapbox, but simply an encyclopedia. Brianreading (talk) 01:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete tech specs?

Hi, I noticed that most of the technical specifications in the article are repeated in the infobox. After merging in what wasn't already there, I'd like to propose deleting this clunky and redundant section. Just thought I'd ask for opinions before I'm bold…--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 23:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Go for it. It's not like the body of the article is light enough that it needs the extra padding of those specs. -- Atama^chat 17:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Gone. Everything is now in the infobox.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 22:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Worth mentioning?

Looks like the University of Missouri is going to require students to get iPhones next semester. Is this worth mentioning?--Kross^Talk 23:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Potentially, although I'd prefer a more reputable (mainstream) source. And I don't know were it would fit. But potentially...--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 01:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

This would probably be one of those "trivia" like tidbits. That's why it doesn't fit anywhere in this article. I suspect the university constructed one or more iPhone apps, and require students to use them. Many schools around the world require a specific OS, and no Wikipedia article I've seen has treated this as something worth mentioning. For example, Punahou School (Obama's alma mater) issue iBooks to all of their students. University of Texas was also once known as an all-Mac OS school. But there's no mention of these things on Wikipedia. Maybe someone should construct an article called "iPhone use in education" and add this information there. Groink (talk) 01:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I've read about this. Basically it's a financial trick; by making it mandatory to have an iPhone or iPod Touch, students are able to use financial aid to buy one. I don't know if it's worth mentioning honestly. If there was an "impact on culture" or "popularity" section, or something talking about the iPhone's impact, it might be worth a sentence among other examples of how ubiquitous and/or popular the device has become. I don't see where it would go in the current article, or even History of the iPhone. -- Atama^chat 17:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe as part of reception or public reaction? Or not--if credible journalists aren't talking about it, it's not a big deal.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 20:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

GA nom

Once again, I'm putting this article at the mercy of the GA reviewers. I think that it has substantially improved since the last nomination (clearer language, more citations, better organization) and warrants the GA distinction. There are still a few minor things to be done, but considering that it takes 2-4 weeks to begin a review, I wanted to get our foot in the door. Does anyone see anything that needs to be done during that grace period? (Because, as I learned the hard way, it's very difficult to make changes during the review.)--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 00:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Headphones

The article says that some newer models of headphones have volume control. The only headphones that I have found with volume control have this feature UNAVAILABLE for the iPhone. I think none exist yet with volume control for iPhone, but I don't have the ability to edit the article yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidme123 (talk • contribs) 19:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'll be: turns out those volume headsets] aren't compatible with the iPhone after all. Thanks for catching that.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 20:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Screen

"Holding a finger over a section of text brings up a magnifying glass, allowing users to place the cursor in the middle of existing text."

Does this mean you don't have to actually touch the screen? If so, this should be added to the Input section. If not, rewording is necessary. ✍ (talk) 18:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how to change it without making it unnecessarily awkward. You should know from context that since it is a touch screen that yes, you have to touch it. Taking the sentence completely out of context makes it ambiguous but a reasonable reader shouldn't have that problem. What else would you say, "maintainting finger contact with the surface of the iPhone for an extended period of time at the area where text is displayed enables a magnification feature"? I think it's fine as-is. -- Atama^chat 19:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it could just be reworded to change "over" with "on". Brianreading (talk) 19:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, although I think that it's clear from context.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 20:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought about that as well. But that's just poor writing. You don't hold something "on" something else, you hold it "over" or "against" it, or perhaps "beneath" it. It would require a significant change to the sentence and there isn't really a reason for it. -- Atama^chat 00:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, "on" sounded off, excuse the pun, to me too. I like "Holding a finger against a section of text..." though.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 01:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Usually, "against" is used when the two objects are vertically aligned with one another, such as the broom and the wall, as in the broom is leaning against the wall. But, if the broom fell onto the floor, then we would say the broom is lying on the floor, and not "against" the floor. As for a finger and the iPhone, I think the context should be on the level of the iPhone sitting on a desktop, or being held with the glass surface facing up. Of course, the phone could be held vertically, but I doubt people would have that vision in mind when reading this article. Hope that helps. groink 02:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I never said it was an ideal solution. Is over so bad by comparison?--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 02:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The "Capacitive" section on Touchscreen says "These sensors work on proximity, and do not have to be directly touched to be triggered.", so I think "on" is least ambiguous.✍ (talk) 03:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Except that "on" is awful grammar and bad English, as we've agreed. Fortunately I fixed it. It's not very helpful to begin a discussion and then go ahead and unilaterally make a change that is against consensus. -- Atama^chat 06:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Eh, I disagree of course, but the current fix looks good to me also. Brianreading (talk) 08:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay so it was MOSTLY a consensus. :p -- Atama^chat 15:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Availability Map

Just a quick heads-up that the map needs updating. Bulgaria can now be coloured, and Malaysia and Indonesia need to be changed green-->blue, per [7]. I would do it myself, but unfortunately I only know how to do PNGs not SVGs. Thanks, Bernerd (talk) 01:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Taken to the graphics lab. Thanks!--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 02:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I never knew about that part of Wikipedia. Thanks for the heads-up. Brianreading (talk) 02:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Back of iPhones

"The back of the original iPhone was made of aluminum with a black plastic accent. The iPhone 3G features a full plastic back to increase GSM signal strength.[39] The plastic is black for the 8 GB model, but the 16 GB version is also available in white."

Hi. I just wanted to provide some input but wasn't sure where to direct it to. I apologize if this isn't the place for it.

I have an iPhone 3G and I discovered there are two cracks on it - one at the mute button and the other at the earphone jack. I Wiki-ed this and as you guys would know, there aren't any info on this (as written above).

I later Googled this and found several forum discussions and reports that cracks on iPhones are common.

So, my input is basically, shouldn't this info be provided on Wikipedia? Thanks. - Axtlan78 (Axtlan78 (talk) 17:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC))

There'd need to be some reliable sources on this. Forum discussions don't count. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

It also needs to be frequently discussed as a widespread issue. Several reliable sources are required to illustrate this. Brianreading (talk) 18:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, anyone can post in a forum or comment box. Especially for critical information (as opposed to facts), we need actual journalists ([macworld.com], [cnet.com]) or at least a lot of bloggers. (Within the blogsphere, avoid blogs run by only one person.) I'm hoping to provide a more detailed explanation soon at WikiProject Apple Inc..--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 20:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

"I Wiki-ed this and as you guys would know, there aren't any info on this (as written above)." That's the problem, this is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Wikipedia isn't and should never be the source for information. Wikipedia is a collection of already-known and verifiable information. -- Atama^chat 15:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

On the iPhone 3G Ss, the back of the 16GB and 32GB phones are availabel in black and white. Please update the last sentacne to reflect this change (iPhone 3Gs had black only for 8GB and Black and White for 16GBs) Solarguy17 (talk) 13:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thanks you.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 15:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Battery

I am almost 100% sure the iphone 3g has a 1150mAh battery as opposed to the 1400mah mentioned in the specs list?

Does anyone else agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.116.126 (talk) 03:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

You are correct. Even the reference provided in the infobox[8] agrees with you. Also, the main body of the article states that the 3G iPhone has a different battery than previous models. I'm updating the infobox now, thanks for pointing this out. -- Atama^chat 15:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

3.4 Internet Connectivity - Source has changed

under 3.4 it says:

The iPhone 3G has a maximum download rate of 1.4 Mbps in the United States.[94]

First the source for [94] is indirect, it's a blog of a article on macnn that doesn't even exist anymore. Also, the source has corrected the blog saying that it is only an observed limit.

While what's in there now may be true, perhaps it should be changed to reference the press release from at&t or some other primary document.

here's the press release from at&t: iPhone 3g Press Release —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.221.240.193 (talk) 12:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Excellent! I'll add that in right now.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 16:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Aspect ratio

It's 2:3 (upright), not 3:2 as listed in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.138.137.233 (talk) 19:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

My research conflicts, but I'll go ahead and change it. You are certainly right, portrait is the primary viewing mode.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 23:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

From Talk:iPhone 3G S

For archival purposes. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 19:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal

This page should redirect to the iPhone article, as the iPhone 3G article does. Expand the iPhone article to include information on the iPhone 3G S. 72.192.22.3 (talk) 19:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I think we should just leave it as a separate page while the launch is current, and then merge it in to the main page. Since there are rapid developments, it's best to have a separate page. --Scott (talk) 19:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Why isn't this page included in the iPhone page? The 3G is part of the iPhone page, why should the iPhone 3GS be separate? Dual64bit (talk) 19:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC) Cellomaster1000 (talk) 19:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Merge! It's just that simple. Bentoman (talk) 19:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I think iPhone article needs a major revamp, everything is like cluttered together. Webbyboy (talk) 19:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's continue this merge discussion over at User:Scottcampb/Merging:iPhone_3G_S --Scott (talk) 19:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Why? Dancter (talk) 19:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

From the other page:

Merge Almost all coverage will be duplicate, such as the interface, history, sales, and some of the hardware. Keeping everything together allows us to highlight the (few) differences instead of them getting lost in identical details. Scott has a point, though. In the short term (say, until the keynote is posted), we should keep it here.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 20:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Merge per much of above. 3G already redirects to iPhone, there's no reason this shouldn't - there's no significant difference between the first generation iPhone and the 3GS. Bsimmons666 (talk) 21:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Dancter (talk) 21:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Keep it separate while this is current. People will be rapidly searching for just the iphone3GS and do not want to search through the whole iphone page to find the information.MegaZega93 (talk) 20:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

* Agreed --Scott (talk) 20:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

This should be separate for the time being. There should be a link over on the iPhone page to redirect users to the separate one, especially if a major overhaul of the main iphone page is planned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.127.253.85 (talk) 21:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• There isn't. In fact I almost had it to GA and then this mess splattered in our laps. I advise keeping it separate long enough to let the anons and fanatics add their two cents. In a couple days the editors can wade through and find what needs to be added. (Is that still going to work after six product cycles?) HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 21:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• I'm going to have to agree with this, but I think that what could be done is having small sections on each product on the main iPhone article, but with links to the expanded pages with more information. Opinions? --Scott (talk) 22:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Keep it like it is now at least for another month. People want info on this and they will have hard time finding it. 208.111.228.185 (talk) 22:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

A month? I would hardly say a day. If we had to we could make Comparison of iPhone models. We let the fuss die down and then integrate into iPhone. If they want to find info, anon, why not from Apple? What we provide, uniquely, is long-range comparison and analysis. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 00:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Merge. If there is an issue with users searching for iPhone 3G S, create a redirect. Problem solved. Brianreading (talk) 03:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Merge. If people are worried about lazy people getting annoyed with having to actually read things instead of being spoon-fed everything they want, use #REDIRECT[[iPhone#iPhone_3GS]] --Veratien (talk) 09:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't Merge! There is a significant difference between the iPhone 3G and the iPhone 3G S. When the iPhone 3G came out the iPhone was discontinued and thus it became the new iPhone, replacing the previous generation. However, Apple Inc. has announced that they still will be manufacturing iPhone 3G (8gb), thus this is not an iPhone which replaces the previous generation and so deserves a page of its own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.78.84.236 (talk) 09:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

But there are hardly any differences, besides a few hardware improvements. I don't see why 3G S deserves an own article when all other information about the iPhone is collected at iPhone. Just include those new features into the existing article and redirect this lemma.

Merge--Totie (talk) 10:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe that all/almost all of the don't merge votes have been cast by anons, who have minimal suffrage (if any). I think the consensus is clear and that we should start to act on it. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 11:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Full ack. Some of the information is already present in iPhone.--Totie (talk) 12:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I had assumed that there wouldn't be much to merge at all, and that most of the contributors to the iPhone article were editing as if there wasn't a separate 3G S article. Dancter (talk) 15:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Good. So can we turn this into a redirect yet? HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 16:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I checked the article as well, announcement, new camera and digital compass are included. We could enhance the article if necessary, but at least this one can be deleted/redirected.--Totie (talk) 17:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. Now on the the combined article...--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 17:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Merge per much of above. 3G already redirects to iPhone, there's no reason this shouldn't - there's no significant difference between the first iPhone 3G and the new 3G S. However I really think the page should have separate sections for the 3 models giving breakdowns on the improvements, alterations and so forth that happened on each one (1st model > 3G model > 3G S model), as well as outlining timeframes when certain things happened in a timeline somehow (model release dates, OS update dates, announcement of release dates – like 3G S being first mentioned and OS 3.0 second mentioned, both at WWDC on Mon.8.Jun.2009). Jimthing (talk) 23:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Worldwide view tag

Added globalise tag as only geographically-static and US-specific information is given, with no explanation or discussion of the iPhone 3G S outside of the USA. Ged3000 (talk) 00:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and it violates WP:NOPRICES, too. What a mess.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 02:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the prices since they add nothing to the article whatsoever. I also support the merge proposed above, since this is just a revision of a previous model, not a new product. The sum total of revolutionary content in this model wouldn't fill one of Che Guevara's socks. --Veratien (talk) 08:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Only US info is verifiable at this point I believe. Rogers and Fido reps are stating it will be launched in Canada on June 19th as well but no official announcement has been made as far as I can find except that Fido will be getting it at some point (fido.ca - new iphone coming soon). 156.34.209.156 (talk) 07:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)S

Software Section

For the caption on the first picture of the default home screen on the iPhone with the caption "The default Home screen of the iPhone shows most of the applications provided by Apple. Users can download additional applications from the App store, create Web Clips, and rearrange the icons."

Shouldn't the caption be

The default Home screen of the iPhone 3GS shows most of the applications provided by Apple. Users can download additional applications from the App store, create Web Clips, and rearrange the icons.

If you look through the icons you will see the "Compass" icon and the original iPhone didn't have the Compass feature.

Thanks, Audi152 (talk) 05:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. --NerdyScienceDude :) ^{(click here to talk to me)} 22:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)