Talk:iPhone/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Reception/Criticisms

Why does something this widespread have NO criticisms section of any kind? The iPhone is NOT perfect and this page can't possibly be bconsidered neutral if it doesn't cover any crticisms of the phone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.30.238.67 (talk) 05:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Because a well-written article doesn't have one. See WP:STRUCTURE as to why, or just read the FAQ on this page that I'm guessing you skipped before posting. -- Atama頭 05:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I can see why many people expect a criticism section. This is the way people are taught how to write in school today. Whenever a class on term paper writing is taught, the teacher requires separation of pros and cons. I've always believed they teach this style to make it easier for the teacher to grade, as teachers are looking for a balance of pros and cons, and grouping the ideas likes make for easier reading. But students don't realize that beyond school, this is NOT the way to write. As Atama pointed out, a properly written article blends the pros and cons throughout the article. I really hate it when lazy readers want to bring bad writing style into Wikipedia just to make it easier for them to eyeball the article for components they're interested in. Groink (talk) 08:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I also think it comes from those who don't understand the goal of Wikipedia. Since it is an encyclopedia, and not a buyer's guide, the main goal is not to make a stand about what is "right" and "wrong" about the product. This is for reviewers and journalists, but not for encyclopedias. Brian Reading (talk) 17:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

It's incredibly naive to suggest that people don't use Wikipedia as a "buyer's guide", and furthermore, avoiding a criticism section on this page and not on the pages of other similar products is an incredible double standard. So unless you're going to all the other pages for cell phones and getting rid of the criticism sections, I don't think you can make that argument. To avoid the double standard, I have changed the name of the section. I am in the process of trying to get rid of the criticism section in the page for one of the iphone's competitors, Android.

Here's another fact for you: the OS X page also does not have a criticism section; there is an entire article of criticism for Windows. Style and formatting are not the problems; the problem is one of bias. I have tried to lobby for the deletion of the ciriticism pages, but I was shot down multiple times. So clearly, criticism sections are here to stay and you can't crusade against them only on subjects you like --Unknownwarrior33 (talk) 16:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not a double standard. Articles have criticism sections as a crutch, the articles that have them should be improved by having the criticisms integrated throughout the article. If following Wikipedia policies and guidelines is incredibly naive, then by all means, call me naive. -- Atama頭 16:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

What's incredibly naïve is to suggest that Wikipedia should serve as a buyer's guide without knowing the official policy of the project. Read up, Wikipedia is an encylopedia, not an end-all resource of information. This is the case, whether users WANT to use it for that or not. Brian Reading (talk) 17:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Unless you push for the same thing on other pages, it most certainly IS a double standard, and you have yet to show me any evidence of the contrary. Surely you have time to pop by the Android or Windows Mobile pages and get rid of the Criticism sections, as I have been trying to do. But I guess I'm talking to myself at this point; regardless of what you and I say, Apple fanboys will never allow criticism of Apple products on Wikipedia. Am I really the only person who sees this, and thinks it should change? --Unknownwarrior33 (talk) 17:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Unknownwarrior33, this article has undergone years of work. It took me hours to initially integrate the criticisms from the criticisms section to the rest of the article (yes, this article did have such a section at one time). It's not something anyone can just "pop over" and do. It takes time to figure out exactly where each criticism should go into the narrative of the article, how to keep it from ruining the flow of text, how to avoid non sequiturs, etc. That's why we have criticism sections in some articles, it's just easier. And it's tolerated because it's better to have a criticism section than to have no criticisms at all. But to integrate the criticisms means to make an article better, this is part of the WP:NPOV policy. When you start tossing around insults like "Apple fanboys", though, it's clear that you're not here to reason or improve the article. -- Atama頭 17:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

By the way, just some disclosure, I'm far from an Apple fanboy and especially not an iPhone fanboy. I owned an original iPhone and had no end of problems with it. The sound on the device finally died and the Apple Store refused to fix or replace it. I use a Windows Mobile device now, and am much happier. If Wikipedia didn't have a policy against original research I'd complain about Safari crashing all the time, and the Apple updates wiping out the phone info, the backups not working, etc. But since those are only my experiences I can't do that. If you know of any criticisms or problems with the iPhone that are notable, and that can be properly referenced, that are currently missing in the article please let them be known. We have a number of problems already discussed and it would be great to add more. -- Atama頭 17:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I was not calling you an apple fanboy; I was simply stating that apple fanboys are a real issue that Wikipedia needs to deal with. As for this specific issue, the problem is not the lack of a criticism section, but a lack of criticism altogether. There were notable examples here at some point; all of them have been either removed or reframed to sound like they're not criticisms. My focus right now is balancing the Android page, but I'm concerned about this one too. I'm not trying to make personal attacks. --Unknownwarrior33 (talk) 18:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Great! Then I'm glad you're here. :) When you have time go ahead and add them or bring them to the talk page here, if they are notable that's awesome. We've had problems in the past with editors who have a grudge against Apple and post complaints cited to blogs or other unreliable sources that weren't necessary. Calling any editor who disagrees with them a "fanboy" is a characteristic of such editors so I apologize for reacting strongly to your words. I'd like to see this article get to GA status if possible. -- Atama頭 18:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I can see why that would be a problem. I guess the question is, how does one cite such things? I'll start by looking through some respected sites that I know of, but if anyone knows of anything else, please let me know. In the meantime, I apologize for getting so carried away with this. I shouldn't even have time to edit Wikipedia; I'm just upset about the prevalent pro-Apple/anti-Microsoft bias that seems to be common around here. As I mentioned, I don't think Wikipedia should have any pages specifically devoted towards criticism, but that's a fight for another day (and one I tried in the past). Sometimes I edit before I think about what I'm getting myself into; I don't care nearly as much as I may seem to. I do want to fix some stuff, though, so I'll see what I can do to this one, but for now I'm going to try to better integrate the criticism on the Android page.--132.161.197.161 (talk) 19:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

This article is full of examples, I'll just pick the battery as one example. Notice how the second sentence of the battery section says, "Like an iPod but unlike most other cell phones, the battery is not user-replaceable." Then it cites a review at Cnet, and a review at MobileBurn. Later on, in the third paragraph of the section, it specifically mentions that several technology journalists have criticized the battery, and cites 4 different reviews. It then specifically mentions a poor rating at J. D. Power and Associates (with references). In the next paragraph, a complaint is mentioned by a consumer advocate group with a citation to the San Francisco Chronicle.

This method of integrating the criticisms into the natural discussion of device features is far more elegant than a criticism section but really difficult to do properly. Someone coming to the article to find complaints about the iPhone will have trouble doing so, which is by design. Wikipedia tries to avoid "this is why it sucks" statements. But anyone who reads the article will see criticisms everywhere. In the example of the battery, an editor who wants to find info about the iPhone battery will come away knowing that there are problems with it. That's how it should be. I hope this gives you ideas on how something like that can be done at the Android page. If you want some advice I might be able to help, like I said I was the main person who moved the criticisms throughout the article (though at this point most of the criticisms that exist were added later by other editors). -- Atama頭 19:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Apple's iPhone infringes Nokia patents

http://www.nokia.com/press/press-releases/showpressrelease?newsid=1349562 Nokia sues Apple in Delaware District Court for infringement of Nokia GSM, UMTS and WLAN patent

Nokia announced that it has today filed a complaint against Apple with the Federal District Court in Delaware, alleging that Apple's iPhone infringes Nokia patents for GSM, UMTS and wireless LAN (WLAN) standards.

Should this be included in the section about intellectual property of iphone? --Quest for Truth (talk) 04:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

definatly belongs.. added it and your ref to article.. feel free to expand on it -Tracer9999 (talk) 14:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Good find! :) -- Atama頭 05:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Introduction

{{editsemiprotected}}

The introduction says that the iPhone is in its second generation. It is actually in its third generation. Would someone please fix? 68.35.20.151 (talk) 13:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

 Not done. The editsemiprotected request needs to be clarified as "please change X to Y". This was not done in this instance. However, I have removed the statement that the iPone is in its second generation, as there is already a description of the 3 generations in the lead. Please feel free to message me if you feel this is not adequate. DigitalC (talk) 14:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that was a good call. The last thing an article of this size needs is redundancy. -- Atama頭 15:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}}

Could someone please edit "and can render 262,144 colours" to "and uses 18-bit colour (can render 262,144 colours)." It just means that slightly more technical information is available without having to sit and work it out with a calculator.

Moisture criticism

I think the article ought to mention the external moisture sensors and outrage about it. --TMC1221 (talk) 18:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It needs to be sourced but I've heard of this too and it would be a good thing to add. I'm looking for sources now, I found a Wired article but I'm still trying to find some real coverage of the "outrage". -- Atama頭 18:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I found some sources, Cnet and CNN. I think that'll be enough to merit inclusion. I'll work on the best way to include the info (maybe under Restrictions). -- Atama頭 19:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I've added the info, I hope that works for you. :) -- Atama頭 20:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Virtual keyboard

Surely the link in the first paragraph should be to virtual keyobaord not virtual keyboard as it currently is.--Confusedmiked (talk) 15:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Has been  Done already. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Bias?

Compared to other smart phone articles this one looks far too much like an advertisement, or at least an article about smart phones in general. This should be only about the Iphone and not about the whole kind of phones. Also the Ipod references,they are making this look like an advert that says 'Hey, look this is just like the good old Ipod, so you'll find it easy to use! You can even use the same charger!'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.152.70.202 (talk) 17:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The article also says that the iPhone has numerous problems, "just like the good old iPod", like a battery that is difficult to replace. There have been efforts to include a lot of drawbacks that the device has, which keeps this from being an advertisement. -- Atama頭 18:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

This entire article reads like a brochure from Apple to make them money.It does not discuss comparative features available on mobile phones, but instead focuses on the new echnology that is available on the iphone.To accept that the iphone is only a brilliant breakthrough technology is below the objective standards of wikipedia, and denigrates the efforts made to keep neutral point of view in articles. For example; on the iphone there is no incoming call list, and call tracking is a standard feature of mobile phone technology. Business people like to find who has called them, when and what number. To leave this feature off a "mobile phone" is stupid.The iphone dazzles people with its features, but has left a basic function unavailable. Is wikipedia just a weak willed kind of techno-porn publication that strokes the egos of the all powerful Apple ? I'm sure the protection on the article will alert the servants of Apple to delete my irreverant edit.Ern Malleyscrub (talk) 06:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The iPhone does have a list of incoming and outgoing calls; in the phone section, select the "Recent" tab. If you have any other qualms about "missing" features, you may wish to research it, as you may find other such features are there, but you are simply not aware of them. I'll say no more on the subject however, as Wikipedia is not a forum for helping with finding features. Aawood (talk) 11:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia. Not a blog. Your opinion about the phone is irrelevant. Based on your edit to this article, I don't think you have a very good grasp on either objectivity or a neutral point of view. -- Atama頭 16:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Or the content matter, as Aawood points out. Just another troll guys, move along.... HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 21:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit Request

{{editsemiprotected}} The page should include the following information: "In Brazil, the carriers Claro, Vivo and Tim offer a Authorized SIM Unlocking <Here should be the reference> ."

This info can be verified at (this is the reference) Apple Official Support Website under the "Latin America and Caribbean" link, to which can't be hot linked since it is made in javascript. --Luxiel (talk) 23:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

 Not done I have, however, cleaned up that section to be more coherent and fair. We can't just laundry list all the countries. I have given the UK and Australia special mention because of the English speakers there. Sorry. (Although anyone else is welcome to chime in.) HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 01:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with HereToHelp in spirit. I've actually said the same thing on other articles. But, I've been told by editors that there are English speakers all over the world, and that focusing on countries with large populations of English speakers is not fair. What I would do instead is this: Create articles for the iPhone focusing on a specific area, such as "iPhone in Brazil" or "iPhone in Europe". There's probably enough information to make articles like these worthwhile. Either that, or this iPhone article can once again grow much much too large. Groink (talk) 05:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I would stick with English speaking countries to be honest, so Malaysia and India could certainly be included on the list as well, but other countries probably not. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think country specific articles is a viable idea; maybe sections in a single article. However, I think it will probably devolve into a list of carriers and unlocking statistics; a mirror of Apple's table cited in the article. I have tried to provide a section of carriers and countries that represent the larger portions of reader demographics, or that are otherwise significant and noteworthy. Naturally, that is a subjective and ongoing process. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 20:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about my idea, but I though Wikipedia was about gathering worldwide information and letting the world knows about it. If you guys don't care about people from non-English speaking countries. I beg your pardon. Just to let you guys know, too many people (including me) rather use English/US Wikipedia than the portuguese one, since articles here may have more info, since English is used by many more people around the globe than my mother language and no one cared about translating ALL info to other languages. Just some words, I'm no admin or moderator to make decisions here, where knowledge should be free to share... Luxiel (talk) 02:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The thing is you can make that argument about English being a global language to apply to almost every country - not just Brazil, and it would clutter this page up to have 100 odd countries listed and what their carriers views on unlocking were. However if you think there is a purpose for an article listing every country maybe you should start one. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

SIM unlocking

"While the iPhone was initially sold on the AT&T network only with a SIM lock in place, various hackers have found methods to "unlock" the phone from a specific network."

This quote from the SIM Unlocking section of the article is relevant only to users in the U.S., but does not make mention of such a fact. I would request that this be changed, as both the iPhone and Wikipedia are available worldwide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.236.98 (talk) 03:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done, check to confirm it looks OK now. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.173.81.143 (talk) 08:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

New Main image

Am I the only one who feels the image could show the home screen instead of being a turned off iPhone? --EssentialParadox (talk) 15:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

There are copyright issues with showing the home screen it seems. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

As long as there is a good fair use rational I don't see why we can just use a publicity photo showing the home screen. As soon as we include the home screen of the photo copyrights enter into the picture regardless of the status of the rest of the photo as a whole. At least that is how I understand it. PaleAqua (talk) 17:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Wish me luck File:IPhone 3GS with home screen.jpg Hopefully the fair use rational is enough. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair use only applies when there's no free alternative. Clearly there is. Please be careful about reinserting copyright violations (that same image was removed days ago), I know that you meant it in good faith but this is the kind of thing that can lead to blocks. Showing the home screen is one thing, ripping off Apple's web site is another. Not to mention, it's much better to have a real picture of an iPhone, not a fake artist's rendering. -- Atama頭 22:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

How is there clearly a free alternative? I'm happy to crop the image to just show the iPhone home screen if that is what is necessary. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

There's a free alternative to showing an iPhone. It's in the article now, and was in there before. You don't need an image that shows the home screen to show what an iPhone looks like. Please see WP:NFC#Policy, where the very first criterion is, "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." If it's possible for someone to take a picture of an iPhone and upload it to Wikipedia with permissions then we can't claim fair use. Clearly, we can, after all the existing picture is one where someone did exactly that. You can only replace a free image with another free image. -- Atama頭 22:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

By the way, just to be clear, the home screen's inclusion isn't in question. After all, this picture is already in the article showing what the home screen looks like. If you want to take a better picture of an iPhone than the one already being used, be my guest; in fact, I think an image showing the home screen would be more informative. But it has to be a free image per policy. -- Atama頭 23:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that, besides the real/fake thing, ALL of Apple's publicity photos are copyrighted. Every last pixel. Whereas with a non-blanked image like we had a week ago, only the software screenshot was copyrighted; the hardware and background were free. I think a valid fair use claim can and was made on Pardthemonster's image, and that Fastily acted unilaterally by not consulting us first. (No hard feelings now that Pard has uploaded the original and self-reverted.) I would like to come to a consensus that Pard's original image (perhaps darkened, but not obscured) qualifies as fair use. Otherwise, though, I would like to add a template to the image page asking people to notify other users (whoever volunteers) before changing the image. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 00:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Pardthemonster's original image with the home screen removed should be alright IMO. The home screen is not necessary for the infobox, and we will not run into copyright issues if we use it. It was also recently moved to Commons. NerdyScienceDude :) (✉ click to talk • my edits • sign) 01:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

And I would say that without the home screen it looks like an unidentifiable black brick. It is, of course, subjective, but I feel that an image without the home screen is insufficient to inform readers that they have reached the correct article, and what the device looks like. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 01:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with HereToHelp. Showing an iPhone with the screen off is like showing a closed jack-in-the-box; sure, it's a real picture of the actual item, but you can't see what really distinguishes it. I don't think the home screen will have copyright issues, not if the screenshot later on in the article isn't a problem. -- Atama頭 02:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Also agree that we need to show the home screen with the main infobox. The screenshot below is allowed because it is covered by fair use. How about using File:IPhone 3G box contents.jpg? The image of the screen is small enough relative to the rest of that image that it shouldn't have the copyright issues compared to a picture where the home screen takes up the nearly the full image. PaleAqua (talk) 03:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

That image would be acceptable for use in the article because the home screen is covered by de minimis. The problem with the image is that it is of an older generation. NerdyScienceDude :) (✉ click to talk • my edits • sign) 04:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

And its really rather too big. You want something like the image used on the iPod touch article (File:IPod Touch 2.0.png). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

PS while having a long discussion here is very exciting does no-one feel strongly enough to ask for the image in question (File:IPhone 3GS with home screen.jpg) to be deleted? I would but I'm not convinced by the arguments presented here that it should be deleted. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Striking the above comment. I've found a definite shot from the press pack, from Engadget which just shows a single iPhone 3GS. I'm uploading that over my image from yesterday. Still if people still don't feel it is fair use can a deletion request be made? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

It's unfortunate, but I think we have this same conversation about the main image every other month. The problem is that as soon as we find a good-quality, free image that shows the latest model/OS, Apple releases a new version of the phone or OS and we start all over again trying to get a new image. It's almost as regular as the seasons. -- Atama頭 17:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Can we use the PR shot in the meantime or is it really definitely possible to find a free image? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

PS If all that's needed is a shot of someones iPhone 3GS home screen I can probably get someone to upload one. EDIT: If so what licence would be required? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Honestly I'm not great with copyrights, as least as far as submitting your own images to Wikipedia is concerned. I believe the guidelines for this are at WP:ICTIC. Generally, it can be submitted as GFDL, Creative Commons, Atribution, or release it into the public domain. Whatever the uploader chooses determines how they allow others to reuse the image. But any of those methods will allow both commercial use, and allow derivative works, which are what Wikipedia requires in order for an image to be considered "free". The image that is currently in the article was released under Creative Commons, as cc-by-3.0, which means that people can reuse the picture however they want as long as they give credit to Pardthemonster when doing so. Also, it was uploaded to Wikimedia Commons rather than Wikipedia (that's a great place to store free images). -- Atama頭 18:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

But as the home screen is copyrighted software doesn't it have to be released under some sort of "fair-use" licence? My plan was to ask on a forum for someone to take a photo and the licences are clearly confusing and I guess I can't go and change the licence later if I don't upload the image (and I don't have a 3GS). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but the rest of the image needs to be free. That's why Pard's image is more acceptable than File:IPhone 3GS with home screen.jpg (although I'd be happy to let sleeping dogs lie...). The out of the box image doesn't work because the real iPhone is off and the one that is on is a drawing. I would also recommend getting an image straight from Apple, rather than through engadget, which unnecessarily complicates things. I think I'll do that now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 21:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I only found Apple's PR website after I'd found it on Engadget but I would get it from there next time :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)