Talk:iPhone/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

coming soon in Tunisia

iPhone is coming soon in Tunisia, so can you please change the map of availability and change the colour of Tunisia's map. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.226.218.91 (talk) 15:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a source? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Phone reference

Shouldn't the reference to the Apple iPhone be just "Apple iPhone"? Now it is just "iPhone", thus iPhone is not a own company and more than Apple has the brand iPhone. So I suggest that the "iPhone" page turns to be a branching page to "Apple iPhone" and "Cisco iphone"... Äggmackan (talk) 14:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

No. This has all been discussed before. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 16:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:PRIME is the justification for keeping the article as it is. -- Atama頭 17:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Lack of public Issue tracking

Could you add this text?

iPhone being a closed platform does not have a public issue tracker, unlike open platforms like Android. Making much harder the decision to buy an iPhone for power users.

--

Sorry, but this is ridiculous and sounds like it's pandering to the Android fan crowd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.31.106.35 (talk) 18:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course this is ridiculous for you but wikipedia is an objective information source and information like this is quite important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.25.79.174 (talk) 21:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

size limit over 3G "Furthermore, files downloaded over cellular networks must be smaller than 10 MB."

This was changed to 20mb

http://appadvice.com/appnn/2010/02/apple-pushes-the-app-over-3g-download-limit-to-20mb-prepares-for-the-ipad/

(there are literally hundreds of news sources reporting this) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.91.173.36 (talk) 18:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}}

Maybe without the "Making much harder the decision to buy an iPhone for power users" part?  fetchcomms☛ 22:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The template was added by some other IP. Celestra (talk) 23:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Map Update

In the iPhone's never ending quest for world domination, another couple of countries now have it available. Can someone please add Armenia and Vietnam? [1] Thanks.

Oh and P.S. - does the map really have to be that miniature? At the moment the key is as large as the map itself, and it looks (almost) comically small... - Bernerd (talk) 23:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Chreriksen, 12 April 2010

Please add some of these shots to the iPhone page. It shows a common users problem with the glass breaking.

The images can be found at http://www.flickr.com/photos/chreriksen/sets/72157621337668310/

I agree with the usage of my shots on Wikipedia.

Best Regards,

Chris

Chreriksen (talk) 15:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

So it's a "common problem" for people to run over their iPhones with trucks? I don't think so. Cool pictures, but they don't have any value in this article. -- Atama頭 17:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

interesting Ive dropped mine many many many times from shoulder high and never had my screen crack -Tracer9999 (talk) 19:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Came here to echo Atama and Tracer. This is not "common" in any use of the word. Viriditas (talk) 02:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Likewise; anything will break if you impact it hard enough. That's not a design flaw, that's physics. If you have a source confirming the iPhone screen is particularly fragile, then by alls means let's discuss it. Otherwise, it's just not notable. Aawood (talk) 11:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

LOL. Preserving the explanatory comment here in case it is deleted from Flickr. "Chreriksen says: It droppet out of my colleague's pocket, and at the very same moment a big truck drove by. Being that big and noisy, it did not recognize the poor little thing lying on the ground. Haha Posted 8 months ago."

Perhaps this should be added to the article. "A common criticism of the iPhone is that the screen breaks when it is run over by a big truck." :) AlistairMcMillan (talk) 19:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I caught that right away when he made the request. What I interpreted from this request was, "My phone broke but at least I got some cool pictures, maybe they'd look neat on Wikipedia." -- Atama頭 20:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Either way, these images aren't suitable for use on Wikipedia because they are copyrighted. Click on "detail" and it says "All rights reserved". ~NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ message • changes) 20:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

New SDK License prohibits porting and/or middleware

The license agreement for the new iPhone SDK prohibits the use of any middleware, and requires you to only use the programming languages that Apple specify. Here is the text in full:

Applications must be originally written in Objective-C, C, C++, or JavaScript as executed by the iPhone OS WebKit engine, and only code written in C, C++, and Objective-C may compile and directly link against the Documented APIs (e.g., Applications that link to Documented APIs through an intermediary translation or compatibility layer or tool are prohibited).

And here are some references that I found on a cursory glance:

http://daringfireball.net/2010/04/iphone_agreement_bans_flash_compiler

http://www.pcworld.com/article/193916/apples_new_iphone_app_rules_unreasonable_and_unjustifiable.html?tk=twt_pcw

This is notable because of the wide variety of apps which use middleware. I have it on good authority that the NY Times app demonstrated on the iPad was made in Flash, and many games use the Unity middleware engine. All this will be retroactively removed from the app store should Apple follow through with the new agreement.

I reckon it's a job of someone greater than I to add this properly into the article. -Skorpus McGee (talk) 11:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, it should be in the article. But you should be Bold and do it yourself :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

And if you could provide that "good authority" for the NYTimes app being developed in Flash that would be great. Also a reliable source that says that this will have any effect on things like Unity would be great, because they don't even seem to be sure themselves.[2] AlistairMcMillan (talk) 16:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Bold? Me? Is not possible. D: I'll give it a go and see if I can word something out, but I won't be able to finish it by myself.

Though I will say that I'm not surprised that Unity are unsure as to their fate. We won't know what Apple's policy will be in practice until OS 4 hits in July, and they start rejecting apps. They may only target Flash, or they may target everybody who uses middleware. Apple make the rules, and choose when and where to enforce them. It's a bit difficult to write an encyclopaedia section on something which is clear to nobody, and you can bet that Apple will be stupendously obtuse on the matter until they start removing apps. This is why I didn't want to start adding things in - it's all rather wishy-washy and theoretical, even though the potential implications are deeply troubling.

As for that "good authority", I seem to have misplaced that link. It may have been another newspaper altogether; my memory isn't very reliable. -Skorpus McGee (talk) 19:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

For the record, the updated license agreement absolutely does not prevent the use of any middleware, only of middleware 1) not written in the approved programming languages, or 2) allowing you to write the application in a non-approved programming language, or 3) allowing cross-compilation. In practice, you can still use C, C++ or Obj-C libraries in your project of course. SwissPol (talk) 17:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Introduction seem wordy to anyone else?

Just read it through and it seems pretty wordy, and throwing out a lot of later-repeated info into an intoduction section. Should we maybe trim it down a bit? Max.inglis (talk) 21:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Isn't repeating info that's mentioned later the whole point of having an intro? WP:LEAD states that the introduction should summarize what's in the rest of the article, and that does seem to be the standard used in most articles. As the guideline states, "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." By design there will be some repetition.

As for size, it doesn't seem that long to me; the entire lead section isn't much bigger than the lead in today's Featured Article, and about half the size of yesterday's Featured Article, so I really doubt that the size is a problem. If there's something specific that should be trimmed, you can suggest it, or just fix it yourself (though it might be reverted if the lead suffers from the removal of information). -- Atama頭 22:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think the lead is too long. ~NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ message • changes) 02:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Page title uppercase or lowercase?

I've noticed that the title of this page (as displayed on the page, not the URL) is switching pretty regularly between IPhone and iPhone. For example, this revison is uppercase: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=IPhone&oldid=361538209 while this revision is lowercase: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=IPhone&oldid=361537997. Browsing the history yields a number of examples in quick succession. The thing is, I don't see anything obvious in the wiki text to explain the changes. Can anyone enlighten me as to why it gets changed? 63.229.31.77 (talk) 22:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC) Jeremy 5/11/2010

See here. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 23:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request - INTRO- HSPA reference

Requesting edit of this sentence.

"The iPhone 3GS has improved performance, a camera with higher resolution and video capability, voice control,[22] and support for 7.2 Mbps HSDPA downloading (but remains limited to 384 Kbps uploading as Apple has not implemented the HSPA protocol)"

It should read "Apple has not implemented the HSUPA protocol"

as it has semi-implemented the HSPA protocol in the Download side.

Imalek0 (talk) 17:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC) Mike H.

Sounds reasonable, but I really don't know the difference between all of these protocols. Is there a reference somewhere to cite? HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 01:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

 DoneThis is important as the iphone DOES have HSPA, just not HSUPA. Alek2407 (talk) 05:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Tmuller2, 16 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} In the Internet section- the file download limit is out of date. It has been upped to 20MB. http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/apple-raises-iphone-download-limit-to-20mb/19365036/. Also the download speed is dated too. It's closer to 3.2Mbs and in some areas 7.2Mbs for those with 3GS modelsTmuller2 (talk) 06:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Tmuller2 (talk) 06:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done, also the data speed - regardless of whether the US supports 7.2mbps yet I think even South Sudan has 7.2mbps 3G network these days. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

One more item-- In the "Sim Unlocking" section-- the information about AT&T selling iPhone with out a contract commitment isn't totally accurate. The non-commitment pricing is $499/599/699 (8GB,16GB, 32GB) compared to $99/$199/$299. Hence, $400 more. The reason is AT&T subsidizes handset cost in turn for a 2-year commitment. If the contract is terminated then a prorated ETF is charged to recover the up-front subsidy. AT&T recovers the subsidy plus "then some" over the life of the two-year contract from monthly fees. The part that is inaccurate is that Apple lose deferred income. That's incorrect. Apple doesn't receive any of the monthly service revenue. So that needs to be removed. I think the explanation for why non-commitment iPhones are so much more expensive should be that there is no guarantee that it would recover the subsidy due to no contract agreement as well as doesn't provide AT&T the right to charge ETF to recover subsidy if terminated.Tmuller2 (talk) 10:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I was under the impression that AT&T discontinued selling out-of-contract phones, and Apple did receive revenue - but that's just my vague recollection. If you can provide reliable sources, I'll be more than happy to add the information. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 13:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

iPhone 3GS iceland

the iPhone 3GS is listed of buy in vodafone iceland website http://www.vodafone.is/simtaekin/um/Apple%20iPhone%203GS%2016GB but it is weird as iceland is not on the list of country that have the iPhone 3GS Available http://www.apple.com/iphone/countries/ Andri12 (talk) 11:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

on censorship

wikipedia is not supposed to be censored. if there are notable problems that are noted by notable officers of a notable company, and reported on by notable news sources by notable reporters, and you leave it out of your encyclopedia, then your encyclopedia loses credibility. many media outlets have reported that an worker at an iphone factory committed suicide and claimed he was beaten and interrogated because he lost an iPhone prototype. Apple itself has commented on the situation with its laborers. Leaving this out of the article is not representative of the spirit of wikipedia and i believe it is in violation of several policies. Decora (talk) 22:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

oh and i was trying to come back here and add to the article a notice that it had been copy/pasted from the Criticism of Apple Inc article and wasnt written by me... of course since the section has been deleted now i guess its kind of a moot point. Decora (talk) 22:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:V is a core policy; reliable sources must be presented, especially when critical. Also, note WP:NPOV.--mono 00:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't this be more relevant in Apple Inc. as workers' practice, the here? Might be worth mentioning, perhaps. But as far as crying "censorship" - seems a lot like WP:POINT. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 03:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I say that this is irrelevant to the topic at hand. The iphone here is not the problem, just apple/foxcon. We are not instituting censorship, just this content should be somewhere else (as it is on the apple article, and it has its own article). Which policies do you believe are being violated?

Next time before adding such a bold subject to the article, receive consensuses on the talk page. And make sure to get really good sources before alleging conspires that Apple kills its employees.

Alek2407 (talk) 06:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The Foxconn thing shouldn't be included, see this on the iPad talk page. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Recent Rash Of Suicides at Iphone manufacturer Foxconn

Something should be mentioned of the 10 or so suicides at iphone manufacturer Foxconn. Foxconn has also made all employees sign a letter promising not to kill themselves. requires 60+ hours a week of overtime and employees make $120 a month, yes a month. Apple has stepped up somewhat offering to give up .7 percent of their profit on the iphone so the employees could get a 20% raise and stop killing themselves (total 3% of profit will go to labor after the increase). That would make them being paid 144 / mo . Not that Im saying all of this is apples fault mind you, but Foxconn is the only firm building the iphone and apple does continue to do business with them so it should be mentioned here as it generating quite a bit of press lately . Any Ideas on where we put it? -Tracer9999 (talk) 03:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

See here (and directly above). Airplaneman ✈ 03:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Prototypes

An editor removed the entire section, claiming that it was no longer notable. I disagree, but would like to bring it here for further discussion. There should be at least a mention of them in the article, I think. Any input would be appreciated. Thanks, Airplaneman ✈ 22:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

People want to learn about the iphone, not some scandal about prototypes. You can make it a separate article and have a link here. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 22:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I do believe this is about the iPhone. Airplaneman ✈ 01:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe it is notable, as it got significant coverage by reliable sources and usefullness is never a good argument. mono 01:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

It will need to be scaled back as we add the official info into the article, but it should still remain. Perhaps some content can be moved to the history daughter article. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 02:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Added to history daughter article. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 02:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

iPhone 4 Capacity

The iPhone 4 is listed as having 32GB and 64GB capacities available, while the announcement confirmed that only 16GB and 32GB versions will be available. http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-20006980-37.html?tag=contentMain;contentBody If someone would mind editing this, that would be great as I don't have an account. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.184.92.145 (talk) 23:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done I just reviewed the article and it has been corrected, though I made no changes myself. Epheterson (talk) 05:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Poor picture choice or caption choice

The picture captioned "The photo display application supports both portrait and landscape orientations" doesn't very well depict what it's talking about, as the photo application is not in landscape mode, but is displaying a landscape image. It's misleading to how the phone functions. Epheterson (talk) 05:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Sonicadvance1, 8 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

The RAM in the new iPhone 4 hasn't been confirmed by anyone, rumored to have 512MB. Shouldn't be posted as 256MB if not confirmed. Sonicadvance1 (talk) 07:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Not done: I think this is the other way around -- if it's only "rumored" to have 512MB of RAM, then 512MB shouldn't be listed unless that figure can be confirmed. Tim Pierce (talk) 13:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

From what I see, the Models section just has a LOT of incorrect information. It should be refreshed from the "List of iPhone Models" page. Particularly, the unconfirmed data on iPhone 4, the available sizes on the original iphone, and the available sizes on the iphone 3g. The list of iphone models page appears to be mostly correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Opticron (talk • contribs) 19:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Comparisons

Does anyone else think it worth adding comparisons with other current competing devices? The iPhone does not exist in a bubble independently of the rest of the world. A couple of examples are:

• The 2007 Nokia N95 had a 5M pixel camera - just released on the new iPhone
• Many rival designs of phones can run independent third party software - such as Maemo and Android

Reading the article, this context is not immediately obvious. Stephen B Streater (talk) 08:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree   :-)   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 15:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

+2, where should the change be made? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I suggest a section above "See also", called "Context". By here, all the ideas will have been covered from the iPhone perspective, so it will involve the minimum repetition. Stephen B Streater (talk) 04:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

iTunes is not compatible with Windows XP 64 bit

I run XP 64bit on a number of computers because it has a lightweight footprint. One of the most frustrating things is Apple's lack of support for iTunes in XP 64 bit. There are a number of hacks which will help install it inside of XP 64 bit but most of the features do not work including the ability to sync with the iPhone or iPod. Please update this in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.213.209.31 (talk) 21:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Its possibly worthy of mentioning on the iTunes article, but as Vista/7 64 bit work with iTunes I'm not convinced its significant. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Release date is wrong in the chart, also 4GB model missing

The chart showing each version of the iPhone and the release dates fails to mention the 4GB, also it says they were released on sept5, 2007, when in fact they came out june5, 2007 (as the article says in other places). I'd edit it, but I don't have an account. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.82.33.11 (talk) 23:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

iPhone 4 Battery

The battery is a 5.25 Whr one, which is 1.419 mAh (5.25WHr / 3.7V). This has been confirmed in several teardown pictures of the iphone 4 - http://www.iphoneheat.com/2010/04/iphone-4g-hd-teardown/ , and the teardown has been confirmed within the WWDC 2010 Keynote by Steve Jobs. In one slide, he revealed drawings of the inner components and it was identical to the teardown site. Therefore, this info re the battery should be incorporated into the "Power" section on the right hand side.

--203.219.65.107 (talk) 02:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

iPhone 4G

This setion has nothing more to add to the article for obvious reasons
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Gizmodo got their hands on the 4G iPhone. We need to add this info in! UPDATE: Me Again, iPhone Confirmed, Res and Cam Data is fact —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.82.187.49 (talk) 19:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC) There's a ton of speculation about the supposed prototype, but I'm reluctant to add what is essentially gossip to this article, even if it is backed up by sources (and there are plenty out there). Wikipedia isn't a news site, and it's not essential that we keep each article updated "as news breaks" so there's no rush to add the info. I'd personally prefer to wait until a reaction from Apple (if it comes) but if someone can find a good way to work it into the article I wouldn't object. -- Atama頭 20:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC) Well Apple has confirmed its existence with a letter asking for it back, so maybe you can update it now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.61.88.74 (talk) 06:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC) Apple sent a letter to Gizmodo's editors asking for the prototype back, so it's pretty much real. Plus, either way, it's received significant media coverage. It's worth noting. --.:Alex:. 08:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC) The letter simply states that Gizmodo is in possession of a "device" that belongs to Apple and asks for it's return - they never reference the term "iPhone", "prototype" or even "phone". That letter doesn't confirm that it's a new iPhone prototype, it's just a letter asking for their property back. It is certainly reasonable to infer that the "Device" that Apple refers to *is* the prototype that Gizmodo have been showing off. However, given that the letter could be faked, as could the whole incident, I don't think it's worth including at this point. Until Apple comes out and actually confirms a new model of iPhone, this is all speculation. Even though it's pretty much guaranteed that this is a real prototype, and that Apple have released a new model every year for the last 3 years (from which you could reasonably infer that there will be a new model this year), it's still all speculation. Certainly newsworthy, but I don't think it's worthy of an encyclopaedia yet. Blcollier (talk) 14:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC) I think we can be certain that the letter is referring to the iPhone. Gizmodo stated that they had been in contact with Apple about the device, and that the letter is merely a formality in retrieving the phone (hence the lack of any specifics). It's very unlikely that this is a hoax, as it would have to be an extremely elaborate one at that (and therefore notable). If this turns out to be an elaborate marketing stunt, then that too is definitely notable. The fact that Apple lost possession of a prototype iPhone is in itself notable. I'm not saying that we need to specify the details of the device, but merely include the story behind this. --.:Alex:. 17:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC) +1, it seems pretty implausible at this point that its a giant hoax. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC) It has been officially confirmed that the iPhone 4G was legitimate. Someone needs to add this information into the article! Jsehrett (talk) 19:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)jsehrett, Apr 20 2010 Which section should it be added to? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC) Honestly, this might be better for History of the iPhone than this article. This article mostly describes the device itself, while the history article talks about incidents and controversies surrounding the releases of the various models and critical reception of the devices. -- Atama頭 20:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC) Agreed. Dmarquard (talk) 18:15, 21 April 2010 (UTC) I would like to point out that technically its name should be the iPhone 4, not the iPhone 4G, as it (or at least the prototype) uses 3G technology. The decision by them to use 3G technology instead of 4G technology was logical because very few companies have 4G technology at this moment, and most of those companies only have it in select areas. According to wikipedia's 4G article, the only companies to have 4G technology active at this moment are Sprint in the U.S., Telus and Bell in Canada, and O2 in England. Charwinger21 (talk) 18:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC) A valid point, but luckily the misnomer is only on this talk page and not in the article. If you have sources for the limitation of 4G networks, they might be usable in the article. HereToHelp (talk to me) 20:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC) The 4G used in this case does not necessarily refer to the technology used but rather refers to being the fourth-generation iPhone. This is the case with the iPod Touch 2G, which refers to being the second-generation iPod Touch. HereToHelp (talk to me) Should a brand new Article on just the iPhone 4 be created? Much of what the current article shows does nto pertain to the new Phone. I see that car models often place generation after generation of the same named car, but it gets a little ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.237.168.204 (talk) 23:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC) I've previously been frustrated trying to come here to find information the iPhone 3GS as it takes longer to decipher here than most other mobile phones. I agree that the phones should be broken out into separate articles, even if this article remains here in its current form.Alovell83 11:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alovell83 (talk • contribs)

iPhone 4 Operating System

The iPhone 4 does run iOS, but the section states that it run "iOS version 3.1.3" There is no such thing. The iPhone 4 runs iOS 4.

attma92 06:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Attma92 (talk • contribs)

Models

The information for the 3G and 3GS models are actually for the 2nd and 3rd generation of iPod Touches. The iPhone 3G did not have a chrome back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.191.53.41 (talk) 17:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Quad-Band?

What bands/frequencies is the iPhone sold in the US and also on Telstra's Next G network? Tri400 (talk) 04:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit Request

Where is lists all 4 iphone models, the information for the Iphone 3g is incorrect. All this information was stuff added to the second generation ipod touch. the 3G did not have nike+ ipod. and every iphone has had a built in speaker. and the iphone 3g doesn't have a silver back. I have one and i promise you, it doesn't. L2 Iphone please.

• There is another incorrect bit in the models section, the original iPhone does not have a 32GB model. It had a 4GB, 8GB and 16GB, the 16GB being released in February 2008, not the non-existant 32GB. This should be fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BRTD (talk • contribs) 02:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I just edited it.... I'm a beginner though I've only managed to make one whole article in Wikipedia so far it's the myTouch 3G Slide article but anyways..... I think someone copied the iPod touch models chart..... Cause it said tapered chrome back ,featured Nike+ support, and OS 2.0 as standard (all the things the 2nd generation iPod touch features), and also the 3GS's description was Upgraded internals of CPU, GPU, and RAM to ones similar to the iPhone 3GS.

Justin Reyes (talk) 09:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Jackbauersd, 12 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Please change "All-glass front and back panels with a stainless steel antenna band around the sides." to add "aluminosilicate" because that is the material that Apple used to build the front and the back display. Source is here: http://www.apple.com/iphone/design/. Jackbauersd (talk) 07:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Done, thank you! {{Sonia|ping|enlist}} 10:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

iPhone 3GS capacity

The iPhone 3GS originally comes in 16GB and 32GB, but Apple has made an 8GB model of the 3GS for $99. Be sure to add this information to the infobox; keep 3GS and 4 separate. 69.255.16.132 (talk) 03:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Info has been added. Thanks.--Jojhutton (talk) 22:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Split → iPhone 4

iPhone 4 related information → iPhone 4 — As per WP:SPLIT. – Edson.ajj (talk) 02:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I think that this article has grown to be to big, it comes particularly to my attention the attempt to deal with every model of the phone on every section. I came here today to see if I could add anything in regard to the iPhone 4, but instead when reading it became apparent to me that what it needs the most is a change in the way the information is ordered. I propose that the article be separated either into sections covering each model or that information about the iPhone 3G be removed, thus providing info about the original and currently available models. The information regarding the history could be re-ordered into a timeline such as the one found in Timeline of Apple Inc. products and details left only for the original iPhone announcement and the newest model.
Edson.ajj (talk) 02:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Support: I agree that the article needs to be broken up, but the best method of doing so is not clear. I would suggest an introduction to devices that run iOS on the iOS page including the iPhone series, the iPad, and the iPod Touch series and the details of each model broken out into its own page. Having information about 4 separate devices on the same page is making it a bit unwieldy to maintain. A good time for this break out would probably be before the launch occurs and a flood of new information comes in. There is a large amount of information that doesn't pertain directly to any one device, so a more generic "IPhone Series" page may also be warranted. Opticron (talk) 03:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Support: Agreed this article is truly confusing right now and may confuse many people reading it. There needs to be a new page for each hardware model and I like the idea of an iOS "hub" page for all the devices. Maybe there should be a "History of iPhone" page with all the anecdotes etc. and the individual pages for the devices should concentrate mainly on the hardware and model specific facts. How would you proceed with such a breaking up of the article?

Frenchgizmo (talk) 14:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Support: Nokia N95, Nokia N96, Nokia N97 have their own pages....why not iPhone 4 and iPhone 3GS?

Tri400 (talk) 08:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Its because there are many iphone haters out there who want to use whatever power they have to bring the iphone down. Its like USA bashing, only in the cell phone world. Hate the best love the rest.--Jojhutton (talk) 22:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Considering the fact that the iPhone 3GS and 3G are just refined versions of the original iPhone, and that the iPhone 4 is at least a brand-new form factor, I can see a valid reason to have an iPhone 4 article, but perhaps not for the older models. Just my two cents. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Support: I think the iPhone 4 should receive its own page as it is considerable different from the previous three generations. The article is over 100 KB – it is 108 KB – and should "almost certainly should be divided" as per WP:SPLIT.

Scott Bywater (talk) 15:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Support You have my support for its own article. Each of these phones should have an article, since each has different features and capabilities.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Support YES!!! PLEEEASSEE SPLIT IT UP!.--Zander46 (talk) 10:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Support: I came looking for information specific for iPhone 4. There's too much 'other' stuff here. Dgen (talk) 05:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Support: You have my support too for this. Now that there are four different models, there should be separated. I'll start making a draft later. I find that this article is too stuffed with information. One thing is each phone should have each of their own page to keep it neutral. Also another reason is the iPhone 4 is just different from how the older generation were.... Like the screen use to be all the same and they followed an order, now it's a better one (btw I think Apple gave in to what Android was offering and tried a new design). Either way I also find that it may be required to keep this article partially to represent the iPhone series like how it is with the iPod but I just don't know what the original iPhone's article's name will be if we do that. justinxtreme (talk) 05:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justinxtreme (talk • contribs)

Support: The different models in the PlayStation line for example have their own articles because they are different machines. ArtistScientist (talk) 10:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose For information of specific models, see List_of_iOS_devices#iPhone. There is a lot of information here, most of which would wind up duplicated. Please, trust our editorial experience and our knowledge of what Wikipedia is as is not.HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 12:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Similar to iPod. The iPhone article could be about the series of phone, while we have separate articles for iPhone 3G, iPhone 3GS, and iPhone 4. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐) 15:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Support - This article is way too cluttered. Please Split into iPhone 4, iPhone, and iPhone 3G[S] for better organization and optimization of information. SUPPORT. --Johnfernandogentile(talk) 07:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Support: There is not nearly enough information specific to each model of phone, yet adding more information to this page would be too much.Pianoman320 (talk) 05:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Support: I read the article to find information regarding the iPhone 4, but it's so segmented because of the different models. We need to split this up by phone model. There may be some repeated information, but each article should improve up on the last and expand on new features. SUPPORT! 12.130.197.128 (talk) 19:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose. If this article is getting too long, it's because of our failure to summarize. We need to let go of the OCD tendency to keep every bit of trivia about past models in the article. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 11:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Support: According to WP:SPLIT, this discussion is not required to split a page, and that anyone can split the page, the only thing stopping anyone from doing this is that the iPhone 4 article page has been locked, so could an administrator please unlock the iPhone 4 page please? The iPhone article should be primarily about the iPhone line, with separate articles for the iPhone (Original), iPhone 3G, iPhone 3GS, and iPhone 4 – the same way that the iPod, iMac, and other articles are organised.
86.129.192.49 (talk) 18:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Done See here. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 04:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Support, and also agree that every model should have its own page. There is plenty of precedent on Wikipedia that we have separate articles for individual models, (e.g., different Macintosh models, or different Nokia phone models). Doing so also helps avoid confusion of whether "Iphone" refers to the original Iphone model, or the Iphone line (e.g., can we say things like whether the Iphone supports multitasking - the answer depends on which we are referring to). As time goes on, the difference between different models is only going to increase. Also see Pentium versus Original Intel Pentium (P5 microarchitecture). Mdwh (talk) 15:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

First with Wi-Fi?

The article states "First phone with Wi-Fi and a Multi-Touch interface." There were other phones with Wi-Fi interface before iPhone (July 2007), just to mention SonyEricsson P990 (August 2006). --79.122.23.22 (talk) 19:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

That's right. The multi-touch is not question, but it was definitely NOT the first Wi-Fi phone. Could somebody remove it from the table? I'm not allowed to do that... --195.228.53.101 (talk) 08:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

This edit appears to have been done? Owen :-P 02:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djapa84 (talk • contribs)

iPhone 4 Connectivity

The iphone 4 is quad band with 900MHz also supported now. And also it supports Wi-Fi 802.11b/g/n. They both need to be included. Oh, and it now has HSUPA too. These all ned to be added. (All confirmed on the iPhone tech specs page) Hdk94 (talk) 12:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

You're autoconfirmed, so be WP:BOLD and add it yourself :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe the iPhone 4 is actually a pentaband device. I was under the impression that all previous models were quad band but the tech specs that are currently available from apple's site state that both the 3gs and 4 support a combination of 850, 900, 1800, 1900 and 2100 MHz on either UMTS or GSM. Dancer160889 (talk) 09:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Connectivity under the iPhone 3G under Models needs to be changed from "Tri-band UMTS/HSDPA (850, 1900, 2100 MHz)" to "Quad-band UMTS/HSDPA (800, 850, 1900, 2100 MHz)." Sans the period of course. -- 208.54.85.76 (talk) 20:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

A few corrections needed

Theres a few things that need to be corrected in the article.

1. the touchscreen is a 320x460 at 163dpi blah blah blah, um but the iPhone 4 has a 960x640 resolution at 326dpi

2. picture of original iphone representing audio says audio is i think left and mic is right but on the 4 they switched it.

since this article has to have a neutral point-of-view and this ARTICLE IS A MAIN PAGE OF ALL THE IPHONES i think it should center on all four iphones. but the iPhone 4 breaks from the design older iphones used so you can't center them in one sentence like oh the touchscreen is a 320x460..... that use to work but now its different —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.119.111.193 (talk) 06:48, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Bottom of iPhone image (File:IPhone-bottom.jpg)

Could somebody please update this image to the 3G/3GS model so that a more recent image can be on the article (it is currently in the hardware section) - I would do so myself but I have no camera and I can obviously not use my iPhone to take a picture of itself  :) thanks! 86.179.91.153 (talk) 18:24, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Make it a picture of an iPhone 4 now. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Photoguy2801 (talk • contribs) 03:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 77.250.155.249, 14 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Hello,

in the article about the iPhone, the table with the models shows various battery lifes... Only the battery life from the iPhone 3G isn't correct. iPhone 3G should be able to play for up to 36 hour of music or 6 hours of video. The iPhone 3GS for 30 hours of music and 8 hours of video...

The battery life of the iPhone 3G (by music) isn't 30 hours, but 24 hours (like said earlier in the text) to check: http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_iphone/family/iphone?mco=OTY2ODA2OQ

77.250.155.249 (talk) 07:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Done -- /DeltaQuad|Notify Me\ 21:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

What's with the Monopoly talk/text

I propose a change to the following: Other carriers such as Verizon Wireless have been forced by the AT&T monopoly to focus on other types of smart phones such as those based on the Android (operating system).[207]

AT&T does not have a MONOPOLY on the iPhone, they have an exclusive distribution deal in the United States. There is no monopoly. Also Verizon is not "FORCED" to "focus" on anything else. They jsut offer differnt products. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.7.87.91 (talk) 10:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd eliminate the word "monopoly" while being somewhat tempted to but still say something along the lines of: Due to premiums commanded by smartphones that require data-plans Verizon (optional) and other carriers without access to the iPhone have turned to other smartphone platforms in order to compete in the more lucrative and faster growing market of smartphones (there are plenty of sources abound as references to these practices and typically how the carriers that Apple support have grown much faster in the smartphone niche). Also, noteworthy here is how more OEMs are focusing on the production of smartphones and how they expect to lose marketshare to both Apple and those who ride the smartphone wave, as this market is gradually crowding out the feature-phone market. Alovell83 06:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alovell83 (talk • contribs)

Feedback please

I have updated the image on regarding the SIM locking etc to File:Iphonesimcard.JPG. I hope there is no objection as the previous photo was of an earlier discontinued model. If someone has a newer device and could update the article further this would be great. Thanks Luke2511 (talk) 20:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Divide the iPhone Models in pages

I believe that the iPhone Wikipedia page has become to bloated. Is it possible to explain what the iPhone is in a nutshell on the main page and branch the models off into different pages. These phones have more than a small few features. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ev5unleash (talk • contribs) 20:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Support They all have different specifications. The iPhone 4 especially. It was essentially redesigned. I don't know if we really need to split the 3G and the 3GS though. They are rather similar. Maddie ^talk 06:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Support: Just like the discussion a few rows up. We need more information specific to individual models. 98.210.104.178 (talk) 15:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Done See here. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 04:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

iPhone 4 image

Apple has a section on there website where you can download images of their products and are aloud to be used to illustrate their products. Here's the link for the iPhone 4 image: http://www.apple.com/pr/products/iphone/iphone4_frontside_agreement.html

Could someone please check if the image is permitted to be used on Wikipedia, and if so, upload it please? 86.129.192.49 (talk) 20:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Splitting to articles by model

Hi, I'm that administrator who protected the pages for articles on each model. The consensus, when I checked before the iPhone 4 announcement, was to use one article. My impression of the newly changed consensus is a lot of you are new to Wikipedia and are bursting at the seams with enthusiasm and ideas. My job is to temper that enthusiasm and create something orderly, informative, neutral, and cited out of that, which is a balancing act to say the least. My impression, though, is that I've gone from guiding the Wiki Process to blocking it. I have now unprotected:

• iPhone (original)
• iPhone 3G
• iPhone 3GS
• iPhone 4

I'm going to start with a very hands-off approach, and let the river of pent-up editing energy take its course. I won't even delete the redirects, for fear of "contaminating" the "experiment". If/when the activity stops, we'll see what we have and whether the subarticles are really the best idea, depending on the state of those subarticles. They may get merged into List of iOS devices or History of the iPhone. In the mean time, have at it. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 23:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support—I like the idea. Doing so will help this article stay at a reasonable size (as long as we use summary style). Airplaneman ✈ 19:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support Very good idea, yet iphone 4 still links to the ambiguous iphone page, and the iphone 4 redirect page is still protected, dispite the overwelling consensus on this and other threads to create a new page.--Jojhutton (talk) 15:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment that has been fixed. Also support as above. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair use image in infobox

An icon for an iPhone, made in the style of the Tango iPod Icons.

I've noticed some edit warring in regards to the image at the top of the article. The previous consensus (read that) was that showing a blank screen failed to properly identify the iPhone because the screen is so integral to the product and there is so little hardware. For full disclosure, I agree with that sentiment and reverted once myself. But I don't like seeing people revert each other with no more than pithy edit summaries. So please,, let's discuss this in more detail. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 04:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

There's just no way the image passes WP:NFCC. It is completely replaceable. Even if people agree that it is necessary to show a photo of the screen, using a copyrighted photo of the screen can't be justified.—Kww(talk) 04:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that showing the screen may be acceptable, just not in an image made by Apple, i.e. like this? HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 05:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm saying that you have two separate battles, one that you may win and one that is unwinnable. First, you would need to demonstrate that showing the OS generated screen is necessary. That's an argument that at least has merit, and I think it may be possible to get a consensus for that. It's controversial enough that you would probably need to have an RFC on the issue. To use the press-kit image, you would then have to show that the copyrighted image of the copyrighted screen was essential, and that you couldn't just take a picture of the screen yourself: that's unwinnable.—Kww(talk) 14:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's so simple. To the extent the screen display is copyrighted, whether a photo taken of the screen has a separate copyright doesn't matter much, particularly if the copyright owner is the same. On the other hand, the Apple image comes with a fairly broad license to use that screen shot, while a photo taken by a Wikipedian of the screen display would enjoy no such license. Apple's PR license is likely broad enough to cover our fair use, so in that sense the Apple press-kit image is arguably irreplaceable. --agr (talk) 16:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

As linked to by an oddly helpful anon above, Apple's license says we must use the image "for editorial use by press and/or industry analysts". Do we meet that criteria? Are we qualified to judge if we meet that criteria? Furthermore, Apple does not allow one to modify the image (would that include resizing?), meaning that they are less likely to take offense at using their image than something we cooked up. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 16:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter whether we meet the criteria: the question is whether everyone that could reuse Wikipedia content does, and the answer to that is clearly "no".—Kww(talk) 19:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

That goes for all fair use images. The question is, can we find an image other than the Apple rendering that conveys the essence of the iPhone? Because if we can't, the fair use claim applies for reusers. (I'd be more amicable to using a photograph with the phone turned on if someone could make one that was as simple and straightforward as the rendering.) HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 01:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• What about a picture of the iPhone displaying icons that aren't copyrighted? –xeno^talk 18:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this seems good. Above I've posted a potential option. —mono 00:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but no. That stylized drawing is recognizable only if you already know what an iPhone looks like. I furthermore feel that showing non-default, third party app icons is an opportunity for undue promotion and misrepresents the generic and pristine idea (ideal?) of the device, for the same reason a screenshot with the clock showing 00:00 is more professional than 8:27. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 01:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I liked Xeno's suggestion upon reading it, but I have to agree with HTH on the matter - the third-party app icons could misrepresent the device and could come under as promotional. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

While I still prefer a shot of the interface, I had an idea that allows us to at least photograph the device powered on. I created File:IPhone free desktop.png, File:IPhone free desktop (retina).png, and File:IPad free desktop.png. They use either the same or a very similar image of earth on a black background as Apple, but without the UI or an attempted mockup. Next time someone does an iPhone photo shoot, they just have it on that image. (I couldn't do it for the iPhone 4 set I took today because we're having trouble getting it activated - long story.) But let me emphasize: the interface is preferred from an encyclopedic standpoint, if it acceptable from a copyright standpoint.HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 05:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Criticisms

Why does this article not list the criticisms of the iPhone 4 ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.202.71.113 (talk) 11:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I was kinda wondering that myself.

It isn't that I think every article needs a 'criticisms' section, but between the increased restrictions on permissible programming languages, and the recent (widely publicized) defect in the 4th generation's antenna (Apple's stance in a nutshell: 'If you are left-handed, then we can sell you something to get around the problem!'), I would've thought there'd be something here. 209.90.134.121 (talk) 18:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

(Edit: I see that the antenna defect is minimally covered specifcially in the iPhone 4 article, but I would've thought that such a problem, as well as the 3GS's overheating problem, as well as the previously mentioned software restrictions would all be pertinent to an article about the iPhone line) 209.90.134.121 (talk) 18:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Part of it is that we're an encyclopedia, not a product guide. We do not necessarily organize as pro/con lists; see Wikipedia:Criticism. You two seem like tech enthusiasts or developers with a bone to pick, and you want to vent your frustration to the world - and I'm here to stop you. If, however, you can provide a reliable source instead of pushing POV, I'll see what I can do. (See also IOS_(Apple)#Unsupported_technologies.) HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 19:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

—mono 20:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

First things first: WP:AGF and WP:NPA are not optional. You have no business hurling personal attacks like that.

If you choose to not participate in a civil fashion, do not participate at all. I have no 'bone to pick'. I'm not 'venting'. Talk pages are for improving articles, not for trolling or ridiculing contributers.

You want sources? Fine. (I won't bother with the 3GS's overheating problem, since that's already included in the 3GS article. Go there if you're really interested)

• Here is the first BBC article addressing the antenna problem
• Here's their followup, wherein they actually use the word 'flaw' (It also includes a note about the problem being particularly bad for left-handed users, and includes Apple's suggestion to buy a 'rubber bumper')
• For the sake of listing multiple sources, here is one from gizmodo.

(If you want more, I'm sure you'd have no problem finding them, but this is easily enough to verify that it's received notable coverage)

• here is an engadget article talking about the lockdown, widely-believed (and suggested in the article) to be their way of killing off flash development on the iPhone.
• here is another article mentioning it; this time including Adobe's perspective.
• For that matter, this one considers what the decision will mean in the longterm, considering the rising popularity of Android.

(Again, you could find numerous more references. This was a particularly well-publicized scandal, for lack of a better word)

Keep in mind that I made no attempt to actually include it myself, nor did I even directly request it. I merely expressed confusion and surprise that such things wouldn't be present in the article.

If you have a constructive comment this time, feel free to make it. However, know that any further assumptions of bad faith, or any more personal attacks would not be advisable. Comment on the content, not the contributer. 209.90.134.121 (talk) 21:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I'm sorry.

Since this problem is unique to the iPhone 4, it should be included in that article. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 21:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Apology gladly accepted. :)

Anyhoo, the only reason I thought it was strange that it wasn't here was simply because there seems to be a lot of widely-reported concerns with iPhones as each generation is released (of course, this is naturally accompanied by widely-reported praise, but that's neither here nor there). It would have seemed logical (to me) to include all such coverage in a single article, rather than forcing readers to scrounge over each generation's separate articles.

For that matter, the issue with developers (mostly) only being able to write software in C, C++, or Objective C is really relevant to the entire series, isn't it?

In any event, I'll leave it up to you guys whether or not it's warranted. I was merely expressing surprise. :) 209.90.134.121 (talk) 21:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Programming languages: more than the whole series, it's iPod Touches and iPads too, right? Therefore that information is at IOS_(Apple)#Unsupported_technologies. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 22:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, the part you linked isn't quite the same thing. That section says that Flash and Java aren't supported. What I was talking about was a special restriction included in the SDK user agreement that, yes, was likely mostly to kill flash, but has also raised the concerns of developers who would like to be able to use cross-platform libraries, Lua, etc.

Of course, even that does indeed also apply to iPod Touches and iPads, so I can still see your point. The only catch is that the sources seem to have a very iPhone-centric take on it. (In particular, sources talking about how developers may choose to develop for Android phones rather than iPhones don't entirely belong in a topic that also covers iPads or iPods) 209.90.134.121 (talk) 23:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Reading the article, it is surprising how little there is that is critical of iPhone. The antenna issue has not been adequately described. Yeah, it's an iPhone 4 issue but it should be described here. There has also been a lot of criticism from developers over Apple's policies, which are not covered here. I'd like to see more criticism in this article, or it just becomes a sales brochure.--Lester 14:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Use 'models' instead of 'generations', 1 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} All other mobile phone manufacturers Motorola, Nokia, Sony Ericsson and HTC describe their different phones as 'models'. iPhone models are for some reason called 'generations' See for instance Nokia_N900. Definition of Generation. Generations used in the context of technical development are normally associated with a major shift in the technology. A common example could be that tape cassettes is one generations and CD records next generation. I suspect that this is marketing language that found its way here.

I submit that in all iPhone references to 'generations' is replaced by 'model'.

Kindly B.

BroodingBear (talk) 13:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I've been using the terms interchangeably; as a writer, it helps to have synonyms to keep things from getting too repetitive. I've seen the second generation iPod Touch called 2G, which makes for a lot of confusion with the iPhone 3G; it's the cellular technology that's third generation, not the phone. We should go with the established literature appropriate to the topic. Now if anyone can determine what that is... HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 13:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the use of variation, but I think the use in these articles is more due the closeness to the marketing language of the product than. A 'new model' is the standard description and 'new generation' should be the alternative.

The definition of 'generation'.

Google ... the definition of generation, see bullet point 4

Merriam webster dictionary—Preceding unsigned comment added by BrooderingBear (talk • contribs) 13:48, 1 July 2010

In line with the appreciations for variation in the text. I change my suggestion to:

I submit that almost all uses of the word 'generation' is changed to 'model' in the iPhone article and sub articles.—Preceding unsigned comment added by BrooderingBear (talk • contribs) 3:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I think those sources are too general. I had something like trade magazines in mind. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 20:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Procedural comment: As this matter clearly requires some discussion to demonstrate consensus, I have removed the {{editsemiprotected}} above, for now. Please reinstate if there is a clear consensus to make the change (and if it is not done by other editors). Thanks,  Chzz  ►  11:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Consensus requires more than two editors, and preferably around five, minimum.....but no one else wants to comment. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 12:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Mic and Speaker swap

In the Audio and output section it mentions that on the bottom of the phone, the speaker is on the left and the mic on the right. On my iPhone 4, they are swapped. Can any other iPhone 4 owners confirm this? Kgarr (talk) 20:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

It's flipped. This is going to be such a headache to explain.... HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 20:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Or not. Apple publishes two versions of tech specs: the pretty one and the technical one, and only the latter is kept forever, but it doesn't have the picture we need. So I archived the pretty page. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 20:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

ODP

The Open Directory Project (DMOZ) should not be plugged by this article. The directory is weak, and contains only a few (mostly irrelevant) links regarding the iPhone. I propose that it is removed from the links altogether because it does not provide extra information, and does not add to the critical caliber of the Wiki page in general. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.89.87.123 (talk) 08:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Djapa84, 4 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} This article does not mention processor type or speed of the iPhone models, after some searching I found it at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_iOS_devices#iPhone. Should this information not be in the main article since it is a significant specification on a device like this? Owen :-P 06:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Owen :-P 06:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

You should have been here two weeks ago, when everything was in one article. The List of iOS devices article is about a year old, but original iPhone, iPhone 3G, iPhone 3GS, and iPhone 4 articles are brand new. This article covers everything that is the same between all (or most) models; the individual articles cover the differences.Perhaps this layout should be made more clear. More specifically, specific processor specs are not even linked to. Thank you for raising the issue; it's very easy to miss things like that when you're close to the text. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 13:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I copy-pasted the table from the iOS article. It's a pretty comprehensive list, let me know if you want to cut it down some or if it's good. SpigotMap 12:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

HD-videos with fron-camera?

Hi, am I right, that the front-camera has no hd-capturing possibility? greets, --Andreas -horn- Hornig (talk) 16:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I will see if that is clearly stated, and if not, make it so. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 18:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

This page is AWFUL to read

This page is WAY too big its discusting to read even on my new desktop. Its too big!!!

I'm sorry, but it looks fine to me. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 17:48, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 24.189.15.187, 23 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Existing text: "Like the iPod, the iPhone is managed with iTunes. The earliest versions of the OS required version 7.3 or later, which is compatible with Mac OS X version 10.4.10 Tiger or later, and 32-bit or 64-bit Windows XP or Vista.[97] The release of iTunes 7.6 expanded this support to include 64-bit versions of XP and Vista,[98] and a workaround has been discovered for previous 64-bit Windows operating systems.[99]"

This is incorrect, as a (frustrated) owner of a Windows XP 64 bit OS I can assure you that iTunes does not support this system. This is confirmed here: http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1426?viewlocale=en_US

Revised text: "Like the iPod, the iPhone is managed with iTunes. The earliest versions of the OS required version 7.3 or later, which is compatible with Mac OS X version 10.4.10 Tiger or later and 32-bit Windows XP and later.[97] The release of iTunes 7.6 expanded this support to include 64-bit versions of Windows starting with Vista[98] and there are some approaches for trying to install iTunes on Windows XP 64-bit.[99]"

24.189.15.187 (talk) 03:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 05:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

iPhone 4 graphics

The A4 is listed as both the processor and graphics for the iPhone 4, but it is divided among other models. The comment given for this is "iPhone 4 graphics included under processor". This is basically a misconception of how ARM devices work. What people often call Processors are System on Chips, the A4 is one of them, so is something like a Snapdragon used on many other popular smartphones. They both have a similar 1GHz Cortex-A8 CPU, which is designed by ARM the company. The GPU, among other things, are built into the SoCs as well; the A4 using a PowerVR 535, and the Snapdragon using an Adreno 200. Unless anyone has a problem with it, I will fix it soon TMV943 (talk) 04:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

no info about processor in Hardware section

I think it's weird that the Hardware section has no information about the processor and other things that are available further down the page. --82.171.70.54 (talk) 13:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Johnmackay13, 10 September 2010

"Internet access is available when the iPhone is connected to a local area Wi-Fi or a wide area GSM or EDGE network, both second-generation (2G) wireless data standards. The iPhone 3G introduced support for third-generation UMTS and HSDPA 3.6,[118] but not HSUPA networks, and only the iPhone 3GS supports HSDPA 7.2.[119] AT&T introduced 3G in July 2004,[120] but as late as 2007 Steve Jobs stated that it was still not widespread enough in the US, and the chipsets not energy efficient enough, to be included in the iPhone.[22][121] Support for 802.1X, an authentication system commonly used by university and corporate Wi-Fi networks, was added in the 2.0 version update.[122]" (from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iphone) should now read:

Internet access is available when the iPhone is connected to a local area Wi-Fi, a wide area GSM or EDGE network, which are second-generation (2G) wireless data standards, or a HSDPA or UMTS third-generation (3G) network.. The iPhone 3G introduced support for third-generation UMTS and HSDPA 3.6,[118] and the iPhone 4 introduced support for HSUPA networks. Both the iPhone 3GS and iPhone 4 support HSDPA 7.2.[119] AT&T introduced 3G in July 2004,[120] but as late as 2007 Steve Jobs stated that it was still not widespread enough in the US, and the chipsets not energy efficient enough, to be included in the iPhone.[22][121] Support for 802.1X, an authentication system commonly used by university and corporate Wi-Fi networks, was added in the 2.0 version update.[122] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnmackay13 (talk • contribs) 00:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Denialism by omission over counterfeits?

While it seems that there used to be a "Counterfeit iPhones" section back in 2008, it seems to border on denial not even acknowledging the phenomenon on the current page. Reliable press reports (e.g. [3], [4]) suggest this is a significant and ongoing issue, so why aren't we even mentioning it? Nick Cooper (talk) 12:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I guess because there are counterfeits of pretty much everything and it isn't really notable. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 12:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Quite. It's not exactly surprising that the Chinese can make counterfeit iPhones. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The 'couterfeit' copies I have seen are marked as "Phone 3GS" not iPhone. I also agree couterfeiting is nothing special or specific to iPhones and so is not comment worthy. Owen 13:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djapa84 (talk • contribs)

iPhone 4 soon in Tunisia

according to the official website of orange (http://www.orange.tn/orange-tunisie/cid1468-jeu-concours.html) the iPhone 4 is coming soon (click on the "grand jeu iPhone" tab) can you please update the world map and make Tunisia green? thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.226.244.198 (talk) 23:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The iPhone 4 is now officially available in Tunisia..map needs an update —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.230.135.45 (talk) 22:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Apps - App-Store - App Developement

I think this article should cover or reference the Apps ecosystem and development environment. It might be worth mentioning app development only being allowed on Apple computers and only after purchasing a license. I might be worth mentioning app-approval controversy and potential anti-competitive behavior by Apple. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GregorLarson (talk • contribs) 00:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Aus

The article mentions that the iPhone can be sim-unlocked in Australia. It should also mention it's sold completely unlocked by apple and its resellers (always - there is no carrier-tied version sold by Apple anywhere in Aus). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.48.18 (talk) 07:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Source? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 15:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Common sense and/or Apple Store would probably suffice http://store.apple.com/au/browse/home/shop_iphone/family/iphone?mco=OTY2ODA2OQ Bernerd (talk) 11:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what common sense means in this context but okay. I'm just worried about the article becoming a list of availability in every country, which would be quite bloated. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 02:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Verizon iPhone apparently confirmed (baseless confirmation)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20101006/ts_nm/us_apple_verizon

This should be added somewhere on the page, I think. Mellophonius (talk) 20:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

From your updated wiki article: "The Wall Street Journal stated on October 6, 2010 that a CDMA version of the iPhone 4 would be released 1st quarter 2011 for release to Verizon Wireless."

This is still speculation, as is clear by the quotes from Apple and Verizon.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ifVjJ1mLw3KdrxlXv6zxncyyG82wD9IO9PO01?docId=D9IO9PO01

Despite the tail wagging the dog headlines in the NYT and WSJ, there has been no formal announcement from either Apple or Verizon, so as yet, this is still unconfirmed and simply speculation. Agave Anejo (talk) 14:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Here is further proof that a Verizon iPhone is not possible at this time regardless of the Wall Street Journal's "confirmed" sources. There is a 5 year exclusivity deal between AT&T (Cingular) and Apple that was made in 2007.

http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/10/confirmed-apple-and-atandt-signed-five-year-iphone-exclusivity-de/

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/wireless/2007-05-21-at&t-iphone_N.htm

There have been rumors of a Verizon iPhone for years, why does this one all of a sudden deserve credence? I'd remove it myself, but every time I do something like that, I get backlash and a note on my user page about editing stuff --FiveIron (talk) 22:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I ended up making the edit because there seemed to be no objections for over a week. The evidence against (5-year contract with AT&T, no data and voice at the same time) a CDMA iPhone is stronger than for ("reliable sources"), and this has been speculated

since the original iPhone, and has yet to come to fruition. WP:NEWSORG states "Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors.", even if WSJ is reputable (not disputed). While a mere sentence about an unreleased product is not covered by it, I believe it goes against the spirit of WP:CRYSTAL --FiveIron (talk) 02:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't call this speculation, yet It can't be stated as fact. There have been numerous news outlets that have confirmed VZ iPhone from sources (WSJ, NYT, Bloomberg, and Fortune). In addition, there have been confirmation from Asian suppliers. Apple and VZ of course don't comment on unofficial news releases. I disagree that the 5-year agreement is stronger evidence. Those agreements aren't written in stone, and in fact have many clauses and stipulations. On a conference call, Apple management stated that it wasn't married to any one carrier and that it could change at anytime. However, they stated Apple chooses to enter exclusive agreements in particular situations where they make the most sense. The original agreement is 4 years old and it's likely that is have been modified multiple times sense. When asked at the D8 conference last summer "if it would make sense to open iPhone to more carriers in the US" Steve Jobs replied along the lines of "maybe" or "it could" ""it might" (can't remember exactly) however this was a stark departure from previous comments from Apple management which defended the decision of exclusivity due to the cooperation if afforded by AT&T to allow visual voicemail, iTunes downloads, App store etc. I think the reports are credible and shouldn't be dismissed but also shouldn't be treated as indisputable fact. I know there have been rumors of VZ iPhone for years, however none of those sources were credible just speculation from pundits and analysts. In contrast, these recent reports originate from highly reputable new organizations that have multiple sources which they have vetted. I follow Apple and the industry very closely being a top-ranked independent analyst and in my opinion it's a done deal. I think it deserves attention. I believe there should be mention of all the reputable news organizations that have independently confirmed the deal. That is pertinent.Tmuller2 (talk) 17:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

You wouldn't by chance be Turley Muller, the analyst? Being an analyst who may have a financial interest in this information moving forward, it would so much disqualify you from editing Wikipedia, or even have an opinion on the content. Regardless, mentioning Verizon/Apple without an official announcement - even if Apple is currently manufacturing a CDMA phone in Zimbabwe and 1,000 people at the factory can testify on that, does not serve the purpose of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a magazine for people to obtain speculation information based on 100 different pieces of information from across the Internet, put together to form what you'd think is a "fact". That would be an attempt to manufacturer a fact. This style of projecting future happenings on a blog may be good for your clients, but this form of practice isn't allowed on Wikipedia. Groink (talk) 21:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I am Turley Muller, analyst, but you have made some assumptions about me. I have no clients, I have NO financial interest in whether something is written/not written on Wikipedia or anywhere else for that matter. My mission is to share analysis and insight to counter what is being passed off as "research" that is actually propaganda in some form. I don't know if you really read what I wrote AT ALL- I clearly stated that an imminent VZ iPhone was NOT a fact and should not be treated as such. I However, it is a fact that WSJ, NYT, Bloomberg, and Fortune- the most reputable news organizations have all independently confirmed it. That did it happen, that is a fact. Those organizations are putting their reputations on the line. Now can we say it's a fact that there will be a VZ iPhone? Of course not. I wasn't trying to lobby that it should be. I agree with your position completely since there hasn't been official confirmation from VZ or Apple. I was just thinking that the mass of VZ speculation that has gone on since day one is a pertinent part of the iPhone's history, the fact that people have been hoping and waiting.... and waiting.... unsubstantiated reports one after another continued to prove to be false, to the point where now that we have finally got some credible reports, many are quick to dismiss it since they have been hearing that forever already. It doesn't really matter now, we will know in a few weeks for certain, one way or another. Tmuller2 (talk) 09:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

A section of the iPhone article should mention the recent news activity surrounding the possible release of an iPhone on Verizon. It doesn't matter if there is an actual release but the large amount of news activity surrounding this is news/history. It seems reasonable to mention major hypes leading to or not leading to a new release. Huper Phuff ^(talk2me) 12:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think any recent hype is important; it's speculation that feeds on itself. One pundit revives the issue on a whim, another outlet thinks he knows something, and soon the entire media is reporting on something based on nothing. I find it odd and disconcerting that a moment after saying that we've "been hearing that forever" you seem so confident they'll be an announcement in "the next few weeks," which we've heard for years. I also think that the technical details of different networks may impede the transfer even after the contract has expired, but I could be wrong. (Wikipedians, unlike pundits, admit their fallibility.) It is perhaps noteable to say that the speculation exists in general, but nothing official has surfaced. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 13:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

You are conflating the gold standard of news reporting with everything that is not. (WSJ, NYT, Bloomberg, and Fortune) each having independently confirmed that VZ arrival early next year (2011). These are old media reporters, not the quasi-media, blogs, pundits, and analysts who were fueling rumors for years. Do you believe the WSJ is reporting something based on nothing? NYT? And I am referring to the news journalists (print edition types) not to be confused with their blogs other content from their website. I am not arguing it's 100% fact, they rarely wrong. Being involved on Wiki, you should try to see that distinction. Have to consider the source. just trying to help. Just as I said three weeks ago.... I am pretty sure there will be an announcement in "the next few weeks." Hot of the press- WSJ & NYT confirm VZ announcement will be 1/11/2011. The speculation finally ends.Tmuller2 (talk) 02:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

{{Edit semi-protected}} The line that reads, "Voice control, available only on the iPhone 3GS," should be "Voice control, available on the iPhone 3GS and iPhone 4,". Thomas Aylesworth (talk) 20:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Done Stickee (talk) 22:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

iPhone CF

Information about the iPhone CF (Conflict Free) should be added, which is functional as the "normal" iPhone but in contrast to the standard model does not use materials from conflict regions and thereby does not support child soldiers. 128.40.82.38 (talk) 03:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Source? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

As mentioned correctly on the List of iOS devices page, the iPhone 4 supports 802.11n wifi on the 2.4ghz band. This could be added to the 'connectivity' part. TumbleCow (talk) 17:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a source? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Straight from Apple. Although it's already been added. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 01:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

iOS move discussion

There is a discussion about a proposal to move iOS (Apple) to iOS. SeeTalk:IOS_(Apple)#Requested_Move. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Criticism of iPhone

I think that the criticism of the iPhone should be included in this article. E.g. have a look at the German article:

• the poor working conditions of the guys who built the hardware
• environmental pollution of the production
• security of the software
• restrictions in the App Store (you can't bring other applications to the iphone except you use the app store, which is highly regulated/censored by apple) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.204.52.201 (talk) 17:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

If you can bring some sources to the table for these points and can suggest some suitable content that sounds fine. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Your bias is showing. The battery section is already full of less than notable criticisms unsuitable for an encyclopaedia. Erik Veland (talk) 06:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking about this too, and if you're going to write one, the lack of control over the dictionary (namely swear words) is definitely worth a mention. DanielDPeterson (talk) 02:19, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, I believe the tracking controversy would be worthy of being in this article.66.71.87.182 (talk) 04:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I notice that DESPITE Apple using their iPhone market dominance to censor and sue everyone else. There is no section that deals with this treading! Just mention the top of the censorship iceberg: expertreviews.co.uk/tablet-pcs/278896/apple-censors-james-joyces-ulysses-on-the-ipad

• James Joyce's novel Ulysses as comic book adaptation - Refused
• Satirical political cartoons - Refused

wired.com/epicenter/2010/04/apple-bans-satire/

• The yearly 100 USD fine to program your own phone.
• E-book reading application for Project Gutenberg could be used to read a free version of the Kama Sutra - Banned
• Using programs that translate apps into multiple platforms - Banned
• The F-word in a book for publishing - Refused
• Automatic censoring of text messages - Patented
• Slave labour to make iPhones causing the Foxconn suicides
• Disguised tracking of your movement - Factory installed

Electron9 (talk) 13:56, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Those would be criticisms of Apple, not the iPhone. In fact, none of those complaints really have anything to do with the phone itself. PS, Wikipedia is not a soap box, this isn't the place to air your grievances about Apple (or for someone else to profess their love for it either), it's an encyclopedia. -- Atama頭 18:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

It certainly applies to iPhone/iPad etc, as that's where the high-handed decisions are implemented. Asfaik, I can use whatever software and media I want on a OS X computer which can't be said about the mobile devices. Regarding encyclopedic value, to clearify that the products are subject to a highly high-handed decision process is the point. Should the censorship in say.. Burma be handled in the same way by labeling them as personal grievances and WP:SOAP too? The cleaness of any critism smells whitewash all the way. Electron9 (talk) 23:13, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Again, this is an article about the iPhone. Not the iPad/iPhone/App Store/etc. Your complaints about no criticism in the article are unfounded, the article is full of such criticisms, but handled properly per our WP:NPOV policy (in other words, not singled out in one place to bash on the article subject). Your concerns might have a place in another article, such as App Store (iOS). Except for "slave labour" which would probably be better included in an article about working conditions in PRC, and the $100 fine which might have a place in this article if you can find a reliable source for it. I'm not interested in whitewashing (I've included a number of criticisms in this article myself, including the "Liquid contact indicators" section that I added long ago) but I am interested in having a relevant, balanced, informative article about the iPhone. -- Atama頭 23:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The thing is Apple's software and hardware design decisions for the IPhone aren't "high-handed" at all, that is if you mean "they used power or authority [in designing their products] without considering the feelings of others". By that token any manufacturer of any product who doesn't consult any particular individual first could be called "high-handed". The IPhone isn't a build to order product, it may not be for everyone. That doesn't require malicious intent by any means. The benefits of standardization in mass production are that it reduces costs in volume. Apple does seem to take user feelings and even ergonomics into consideration in the design of their products. It could be claimed that some users do not want to have to manually manage inter-application security settings, or the security or privacy of their data, or verify themselves that every author of every piece of software they run is who they claim to be, or even use manual process killing/battery management on their phone. The IPhone seems to cater to that section of the market that values those things. Apple is free to decide the policies of their operating system software for what they consider will make a good product based on experience, as is Nokia, as is Google, as is even Amazon with the Kindle. There are always other phones that may match better with the needs of people who value different particular design trade-offs. Apple seems to act to please the market, and the market votes with their euros, or dollars, etc. Also, a person can open any webpage, and can run or build any web application for the IPhone, at anytime. In fact they could make a multi-platform mobile application that way. There are multiple development kits available both free and paid. As a contrast, not just anyone with a keyboard can release official software for Nintendo or Sony's consoles, but they are doing ok, and there's a thriving homebrew games scene. Whitebox (talk) 07:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

That's getting pretty close to WP:NOTFORUM talk, if it isn't already. We're not here to talk about Apple or the iPhone, but to talk about the article, that's the one and only purpose of this talk page. -- Atama頭 19:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Map Update - edit request

Armenia, Tunisia, Vietnam and Costa Rica need to be added to the map per the individual iPhone pages off http://www.apple.com/choose-your-country/. I would do it, but the file is a bloody svg not a png, so I don't know how... Thanks Bernerd (talk) 12:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Grammatical inaccuracy

The article says "Apple created the device during a secretive and unprecedented collaboration with AT&T Mobility—Cingular Wireless at the time—at an estimated development cost of US$150 million over thirty months.[6] Apple rejected the "design by committee" approach that had yielded the Motorola ROKR E1" What I'm wondering is which one is it? Was collaborating with a cell phone company when designing the phone "unprecedented", or had a different phone, "the Motorola ROKR E1", already been created through the same process? 99.255.58.85 (talk) 20:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

It took me awhile to get what you're saying, but it's a good point. I guess what we're trying to say is that the secrecy was unprecedented perhaps, or the collaboration with AT&T and Apple was unprecedented...hmm. The first isn't really true; most of Apple's stuff is secretive. As for the second, yes the two companies had never worked together, but is there a better way to phrase that? Thanks for bring it to our attention, HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 21:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem, happy to help :) BTW, I did a bit of research and it appears that it was referring to it being the first time that they collaborated with AT&T (which is only a first for them, not for the industry). It might be best to simply take out the word "unprecedented". (then again, I'm not the most experienced editor out there, which is why I posted here instead of being bold and changing it myself) 99.255.58.85 (talk) 22:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I was thinking about that too. I'll go ahead and do it.

I have an issue with the non-capitalization

I have an issue with the non-capitalization of the "i" in iPhone, on the page heading. According to what I have learned from all of the people who have reverted my edits on Japanese song titles (I put them with the unusual capitalization and all, but they change them back to capital first letter, and lowercase the rest) that use alternating caps, or unusual lower or uppercase styles for song titles (such as the woman who has two songs, one called Joy, and one called joy, for example), the 'iPhone' title needs to be spelled 'Iphone.' I've had lengthy discussions about this topic with others on wiki, so there needs to be a final say-so on this issue that I can cite as I go around correcting song titles... or, change the iPhone titles to Iphone. Is unusual capitalization, such as with 'iPhone' allowed or not? -- NatsukiGirl\^talk 17:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see what one has to do with the other. Just use the standard or most commonly used capitalization. For this page, it's definitely iPhone. For song titles, use your best judgement on a case-by-case basis. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 17:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Right, but when I do, people change it and say "it doesn't matter if that's how it's written on the CD and on the music charts, it's sub-standard, so we have to write it the proper way... blah blah" So since they aren't doing the same to THIS article, they are related. Wiki is supposed to have standards, and I would like to know what they are. 69.237.62.254 (talk) 17:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment NatsukiGirl should read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks), as iPhone is explicitly given as an example. Its says to use the lowercase format, if the second letter is capitalized.--JOJ ^Hutton 12:19, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

iPhone Tracking controversy

In lieu of the recent facts, I propose that a new section based on iPhone controversies should be made. It could contains sections from intellectual property and restrictions. And not to conflict with WP:CRYSTAL, but I sincerely doubt this is going to be the last of the controversies from Apple. Expecially given the fact that they want to use fingerprint ID and facial recognition features in the future. AGiorgio08 ^talk 09:34, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree, but we need enough material to justify a new section, lest it be zapped by Apple zealots. Meanwhile, an editor made several changes to my addition to try and "soften" the syntax in sort of a WP:Civil POV pushing manner, and here is my response:

1. Your source, which is a blog, seems to have been edited several times, therefore its date reliability cannot be confirmed; all the other sources point to April 20, 2011.
2. Quoting from one of the other sources: "iPhone tracks your every move". If you want to challenge it, better prove otherwise.
3. According to the source that described the encryption procedure, it encrypts the file on the phone.
4. The file is not an outside app and does not require an outside EULA (will clarify the wording in the article) and do not specifically notify the user that there is an actual database of their movement – unlike Google's "Latitude". Compare and contrast, another feature that's welcome on Wikipedia and does not constitute original research.
5. You removed a reliable source that said "[f]or some phones, there could be almost a year's worth of data stored" and called this "guesswork". Please explain yourself.

Hearfourmewesique (talk) 21:51, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd rather integrate all the controversy with the article than isolate it in an unnecessary section. Marcus Qwertyus 02:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Unnecessary meaning...? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 02:08, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, please read WP:CIVIL and avoid describing people as zealots. Let's take this one at a time.

You seriously believe that an option called "Encrypt iPod Backup" enabled encryption of the backup AND the original? This I'm going to revert to my version which is actually factually correct. If you seriously want me to back this up with multiple independent sources I am more than happy to waste both of our time doing so. Just let me know. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 15:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I've removed "and its storage capacity is almost one year's worth". Do I really need to explain why this is wrong??? Most of the discussion of this file is taking place in April 2011. The earliest the file could have possibly been created is June 2010 (when iOS 4 was released to the general public). From June to April is ten months. Ten months is "almost one year". Hence someone here said "storage capacity is almost one year's worth". If this file was being discussed in September 2010 (when the file was originally being discussed people would be seeing three months of data in the file and saying "storage capacity is about three month's worth". Do you understand or should I get out my crayons? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 15:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like your just trying to downplay the severity of the entire incident. "Hear" has valid sources explaining what he was doing. Also it's amazing that you just mentions WP:CIVILITY and then said "Do you understand or should I get out my crayons?" Thats not very civil. Wikipedia is about neutralizing facts, not just leaning such incidents in favour of what the general public would want to hear. AGiorgio08 ^talk 16:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Really? Please enlighten me, how does saying that the "encryption" option doesn't encrypt the file on an iOS device is downplaying the severity? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 16:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

AGiorgio08 referred to several points, but you have chosen the most mismatched one to try and portray his answer as incompetent. Do not try these juvenile games here. Let's see:

1. Speaking of encryption, I have provided a source stating that the file on the phone can be encrypted, while you are negating this with nothing to back you up.
2. "Zealots" was referring to a possible edit war in the future. That's all.
3. You keep bringing a single blog that keeps editing its posts, and now you are trying to showcase a post dated from April 2011 that simply tells us that the author posted his thoughts on consolidated.db back in September. Maybe the file was discussed in an obscure blog that was read by a very limited audience, but it's hardly a "made known to the public" case!
4. You have still failed to address my question as for the blatant removal of my source to undermine a key point, therefore, downplaying the severity of the incident.

Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I have to confess I think I'm wrong about the encrypt issue. The source you posted is a talking head, so I just assumed he was wrong. I'd seen other sources that said it was just the backup copy that was encrypted and I trusted them more. But I just found a much more reliable source that says enabling encryption of backups, also enables encryption on the device, so... on that one, sorry I believe I was wrong.

About the blog, all the author of that blog is doing is adding comments at the top pointing to newer posts. The file was also discussed in a widely available book published in December 2010 called "iOS Forensic Analysis". Is that enough to convince you that this isn't a new discovery? How about another blog post by the authors of the iPhoneTracker tool that points to the existing research? http://radar.oreilly.com/2011/04/iphone-tracking-followup.html

The reason for the removal of your source is that it isn't a good one. We are supposed to cite sources that are known for fact-checking. Chen at Wired is not known for his fact-checking and the heading is obvious link-bait. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 18:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

"constantly"??? How often is that? I'd love to see a reliable source that actually tells us how often. I couldn't find one. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 19:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

"Talking head"? Sorry, but the only Google results for Christopher Vance (apart from his blog, which is a dubious primary source) are the actor from "Prison Break" or the politician, is your Christoper Vance known for fact-checking? Check yourself before challenging other editors' sources that at least have a Wikipedia article to back up their existence. Link-bait? Just another POV-pushing expression. Finally, please explain how come although the geotracking was "common knowledge", it hit the net like a bucket of $#!+ on April 20, 2011. Yes, as I stated earlier, it was known to some, but truly wide recognition has only come within the past few days. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Since when has the existence of a Wikipedia article been a requirement for judging sources? And this whole issue is obvious link-bait because no-one is even clear yet on what the data in consolidated.db actually refers to. There are obvious questions that should be asked but everyone is content to just regurgitate content from the original post by Allan and Warden without a hint of research. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 19:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

From the source I cited (which was written by Alasdair Allan and Peter Warden, the people who created the iPhoneTracker app): "Intriguingly, their work also has some support for Will Clarke's idea that the locations are associated with cell towers. Peter's data shows a cluster around Mile High Stadium, which he hasn't visited recently but which does have a lot of cell infrastructure." How does this not support my recent edit, which you just reverted (while making yet another accusation about my motivation in editing)? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 19:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

BTW Jason X. Chen, Peter Warden and Alasdair Allan don't have Wikipedia articles. Should we just remove the entire paragraph until the do? If that is the rule for judging whether someone is a reliable source. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 19:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I didn't cite their private blog, but a reliable secondary source which does have a Wikipedia article, again – stop the games please. I've edited the appropriate sentence to make all points clear. The main idea that I'm trying to convey here is that the reader must clearly understand what this means in layman's terms.

Oh, and by the way placing your response before my response that came afterwards isn't very civil as well. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 20:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I've listed this at Wikipedia:Third opinion. You haven't made it clear, you've edited again to say that the file contains user locations. When the two authors of the iPhoneTracker application actually say on their blog that they aren't clear. "Intriguingly, their work also has some support for Will Clarke's idea that the locations are associated with cell towers. Peter's data shows a cluster around Mile High Stadium, which he hasn't visited recently but which does have a lot of cell infrastructure. Sean has another map that overlays actual tower locations with his points, and it's clear they don't coincide, but could well be triangulated from multiple towers. Sean's observation fits with our initial hypothesis that the locations are the result of sometimes-inaccurate triangulation from towers, but Peter's is evidence that there's a bias in the data to clustering around tower positions." And suggesting that we don't reference blogs is a bit of a problem when all the research on this still unclear issue is being done on blogs. Perhaps we should just remove the section entirely and wait until we actually have a clear picture what is happening here, instead of reporting on an issue that is ongoing and unclear. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 20:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

And I don't know what you mean by "placing your response before my response that came afterwards isn't very civil". Which response? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 20:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not exactly an uninvolved editor, since I've edited the iPhone article for years, but I can provide a third opinion. Frankly I'm wondering what the particular issue is. Is it regarding the inclusion of a controversies section, or the particular controversy itself? The proposal to add a section about controversies or criticisms has come up time and again in this article, to the extent that it was addressed in the FAQ at the top of this talk page. As a short explanation, such sections are discouraged both for neutrality purposes and because it makes for better article writing. As to the specific information, we need to be absolutely certain that the information is verifiable. If that's the dispute I can take a look and weigh in. I'm certainly not opposed to adding negative information to the article that is noteworthy, I was the person who originally added the information about the liquid contact indicators being triggered through routine use. -- Atama頭 18:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Atama appears to be weighing in as a third party, so I'm removing this from 3O. If this doesn't work, perhaps list it at requests for comment. — e. ripley\^talk 18:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The request for a 3O was about whether the article should say that the consolidated.db file "constantly stores the iPhone user's movement", when the authors of the iPhoneTracker app (who I'm assuming you know kicked off this recent media frenzy) are now saying on their blog that it isn't clear whether the records in the file are estimated user locations or cell tower locations. "Intriguingly, their work also has some support for Will Clarke's idea that the locations are associated with cell towers. Peter's data shows a cluster around Mile High Stadium, which he hasn't visited recently but which does have a lot of cell infrastructure. Sean has another map that overlays actual tower locations with his points, and it's clear they don't coincide, but could well be triangulated from multiple towers. Sean's observation fits with our initial hypothesis that the locations are the result of sometimes-inaccurate triangulation from towers, but Peter's is evidence that there's a bias in the data to clustering around tower positions." http://radar.oreilly.com/2011/04/more-iphone-tracking-research.html AlistairMcMillan (talk) 18:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The article doesn't have to draw conclusions, in fact, it should certainly not draw conclusions unless you have a reliable source drawing that conclusion. Otherwise it's original research, or at best synthesis. If you have a reliable sources saying one thing, then another, or multiple reliable sources that conflict, you should include what they're saying. After all, we want an informative, accurate, and interesting article. We shouldn't include all we can at the expense of brevity, of course. -- Atama頭 18:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. We are stating in the article that we know what this file does. But at this point, it doesn't appear that anyone (aside from Apple who aren't talking) really knows for sure. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 20:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me while I interrupt this delightful display of demagogy, but wouldn't it be weird of Apple to collect the location of cellular towers, which they built, regardless of a certain user being nearby them? Each and every one of the sources agrees that this is overall used to track movement of users, just not sure how accurate it is because of some towers projecting stronger signals than others, thus obscuring the weaker signals by inadvertently overriding them. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 22:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

What? Apple builds cell towers now? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 23:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Hearfourmewesique, you might want to moderate your tone; accusing editors of "demagogy" falls very close to violating WP:NPA. Wikipedia isn't your blog and it's not a place to speculate about what's "weird". I'm inclined to support some or all of your suggestions but it's really difficult to do so when you spit in my face. -- Atama頭 00:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

So to help me out, since I haven't been around Wikipedia for months (or seen the intermediary edits to this article), what are the specific problems we need to resolve? I see a number of reversions between Hear and Alistair going back to the 23rd, are these the points of contention or is there something else in the article or edits that occurred before that date that are in dispute? -- Atama頭 00:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The edits from April 23rd onwards are the points of contention. The issue is pretty much reduced to just do we say the file "constantly stores the iPhone user's movement" or do we say the file stored timestamped locations and there is ongoing debate about what these actually refer to. On a side-note, can I say for the record, Apple do not build cell phone towers. If someone wants to prove otherwise with a reliable source, please do. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 01:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, I don't see the difference. Movement is nothing but a change in position over time. If there is a file that stores locations of the phone with a timestamp, isn't that movement? That's not synthesis, that's literally the definition of movement. (Also, on another side note, do you mind indenting your replies? That's a common convention and I find it hard to follow discussions without sequential indentations. Sorry.) -- Atama頭 01:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry the debate is whether the phone is recording the user's position or recording the position of nearby cell towers. See http://www.willclarke.net/?p=247 as an example. And yes that is a blog, but it is a blog pointed to by the two guys that started this whole controversy. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 01:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Here is, in my opinion, another good source on what the data in this file actually represents. http://geothought.blogspot.com/2011/04/scoop-apples-iphone-is-not-storing-your.html AlistairMcMillan (talk) 01:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

So what we have, from what I've been able to determine, is a case where the major news outlets are saying that the iPhone is tracking your every movement. I see this on web sites run by the major TV news networks and newspapers alike. Countering that are a handful of blogs that suggest otherwise. Blogs are generally not reliable sources, not unless a blog is written by a professional journalist or a professional in the field that the blog covers, and the blog is hosted by a news network, and the blog is subject to the same editorial oversight as the rest of the news web site. Unless those conditions are met, the blog is not a reliable source for anything other than the person who wrote it. Unfortunately, we can't simply write "the truth" in the article, only what we can glean from reliable sources. -- Atama頭 17:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The best I could come up with was Apple responding to the controversy at their own web site here. Of course, it's only reliable as a source for what Apple claims. -- Atama頭 17:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

...And on the other side, the article as it is now is chock full of dubious sources where it currently discusses the controversy. Seriously, Wordpress?! That's as reliable as on old Geocities web page. Does nobody have any better sources for this information? -- Atama頭 17:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

That is probably an argument for stuff like this not to be in the article while the media frenzy is in full flow. A few weeks from now we'll probably have no problem finding reliable sources that meet the criteria you mentioned above, until then all we have are "professional"s writing about things they don't really understand (basically just regurgitating soundbites) and the only actual investigation done by "unreliable" bloggers. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 18:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah... That's valid. There is something of a WP:NOTNEWS issue with this subject. However, it is controversial, and it is receiving wide coverage. So I personally wouldn't favor removing all mention to it. I have a proposed compromise, and I'd really like Hear's opinion on this too. Since there seems to be little-to-no verifiable information on exactly what is being stored, and how it is being stored, and what the purpose of this is, why don't we cover just the controversy itself (what the media is saying) and Apple's reaction to it? I think that would be a balanced take and it would avoid allegations of whitewashing (removing all mention of something the media has extensively covered that's potentially damaging to Apple would justifiably provoke that reaction). And we can use reliable sources to do all of that. This also avoids the whole question of whether or not the file tracks the phone's location or just nearby cell towers, because really it's not up to us to analyze that anyway. -- Atama頭 18:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Worksforme. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 21:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I can't find the controversy mentioned in the article. Wikipedia doesn't search for the truth, but instead, it just describes the facts. And this controversy is quite a remarkable fact. Both sides of the story worth to be mentioned - the claims that iPhone records the data - and the denial of such thing from Apple. —  Ark25  (talk) 20:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what may have happened, it has been 4 months and at some point I think a lot of info in the article was removed because the article was too long (it might still be too long actually even though the tags stating as much are gone). I haven't kept track because I don't edit the article very often anymore. I don't think anyone here advocated removing all mention of the controversy completely, just the poorly-sourced speculation being attributed to blogs. If there was a good way to reintegrate the information, with proper sourcing, I don't think it would be a bad thing, as long as it was kept relatively brief. -- Atama頭 21:01, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

No section On Designer?

Jonathan Ive, the designer behind all the modern Apple devices hasn't been mentioned in any one of the articles associated with the Apple devices he created, you could argue that Ive is the reason Apple is so famous today, I can only assume it's either due to ignorance or deliberate. Twobells (talk)

He's already mentioned in History of the iPhone, in fact he is in the lead of that article. See the tag at the top of this article, there are already complaints about its length, adding yet more information already covered elsewhere isn't helpful. - Atama頭 17:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, it's not good form to post the same accusatory message on six talk pages. It comes off as POINTY and POVish. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 19:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

It also illustrates how silly the request is, do we need to mention him on every since article for every product he helped design? -- Atama頭 19:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Let me answer your question with another question; do we need to mention Michael Jackson on every since article for every song he helped write? P.S. the answer is yes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.95.8.43 (talk) 10:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Some of the above messages indicate a serial pov themselves, why on earth WOULDN'T an article mention the designer? And to state that suggesting it is incorporated is somehow pov is incredulous. Also why wouldn't editors create talk sections across each of the products he designed if it is missing? It is his very absence that can only be construed as deliberate.Twobells (talk) 10:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Did you just ignore what I'd said before? I answered your question. Repeating the question and ignoring the answer isn't going to help matters, and is a sign of tendentious editing on your part. -- Atama頭 17:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

It is wiki best practice to name the designer of any product in the first paragraph, no more need to be said.Twobells (talk) 11:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure you'll be able to cite the guideline for that authoritative statement. -- Atama頭 19:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

"Jesus phone"? Can someone please explain this?

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Jesus_phone&redirect=no — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.100.174.136 (talk) 00:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_January_29#Jesus_phone_.E2.86.92_iPhone :P — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diegovb (talk • contribs) 22:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

What's to explain? The RfD discussion was pretty clear. It's a noted nickname for the iPhone. It's a name I've never heard or read, but notable examples were found, and redirects are cheap. -- Atama頭 22:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I've never heard of it either but I just found this article published just a couple days ago.[5] Perhaps this is a British thing? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

You might be right, The Register has an article that uses it also. -- Atama頭 23:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion here. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 17:45, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Apple store in possession of stolen iPhone, refuses to return to owner

An Apple store in Canada has appeared in local news because it allowed a thief to replace a stolen iPhone4 without verifying their identity, and when the legal owner found out the store is in possession of the stolen phone, the store refused to release the phone despite police involvement.[6][7] The following appeared as part of an editorial in the news: "Why would they do this, you might ask? Setting up a transfer-of-ownership system would cost Apple millions of dollars, and take up thousands of hours of time from support staff and sales clerks at stores. Time that could be spent resolving technical issues, or selling Apple's pricey fare. And guess what an iPhone4 owner will do when his/heriPhone is stolen? That's right, they'll buy a new one."

Is this worthy of inclusion in one of the articles? Shawnc (talk) 02:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

No. See WP:POINT. The rule of thumb is start with an article and find information, but not the other way around. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 02:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

No? wouldn't that go in the controversy section? I mean, refusing to co-operate with a police investigation is a pretty serious matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.95.8.43 (talk) 10:35, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Please read the FAQ at the top of this page for the answer to that. -- Atama頭 16:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

missing features

I think we should include a mile long list of "missing features", just like Windows Mobile has one in the section "criticism". To be honest, YES I am a big fan of Microsoft and YES I definitely hate Apple, but Wikipedia has to stay neutral. This includes IMHO that comparable platforms get "judged" the same way. (Ok, most of the following points are mentioned somewhere in the article, but there is no dedicated "criticism" section.) Things I would suggest: - no microUSB port - storage is not extendable - even worse: battery is not removable - no flash - forced to use itunes for synchronization - no "side-loading" of apps possible (officially/without jailbreaking) - no possibility to use custom roms/modified firmware - Software for MacOS does NOT run on iOS! - Capacitive display makes it impossible to use a stylus - no file explorer (this is important to mention, since the Windows Mobile article "criticises" that WinMob can't change file properties without third-party software. Unability of changing file properties must me mentioned too, consequently) 178.26.100.27 (talk) 14:40, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no criticism section, because criticism sections make articles less neutral by singling out flaws. Plus, they make for terrible writing. A mile long list of "missing features" is a terrible idea in an already bloated article, and there is no objective way to decide what to include and not to include. It looks like a bad idea motivated by a dislike of the phone. -- Atama頭 16:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Although you gotta give credit for admitting dislike of the phone. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 20:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

That's true. I don't mind so much if a person has an agenda, if they admit to the agenda. :) -- Atama頭 20:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

edit request

Under heading #2 Hardware, sub heading Screen Input, the sentence which reads, "Directly above the volume controls is a silence switch that mutes all sound when engaged." should read, "Directly above the volume controls is a silence switch that mutes all sound when engaged, except for any alarms set using the phones built in alarm system." or something to that effect.Bolt 45 (talk) 05:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

You're right, it doesn't mute all sound. It only mutes some sounds. I've changed the text to show that, rather than try to explain all the sounds that aren't muted. I know that there are sounds other than alarms that make noise when the phone is muted, but I can't remember what they are. And it doesn't matter because we don't need to get into that much details, I think "most sounds" is descriptive enough. -- Atama頭 18:53, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

"Generations"

Each of the different iPhone pages has a generation listed. The Original is 1G, 3G is 2G, but the 3GS is listed as 3. If the iPhone 4S is listed as 4.5, isn't the 3GS just as much a 2.5 generation? The 3GS offered nothing more than a few bumped specs, just like the 4S. Anybody else think that the 4 should get bumped down to the 3rd generation? DanielDPeterson (talk) 18:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I think it should be changed. Wikimann1234 10/11/11

Nope, each release is a new generation. each is different and unique.--JOJ ^Hutton 00:17, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Please remove the statement - "In 2011 the iPhone 4 was voted the Best Mobile Phone On Earth". This is highly misleading, as there were only 33 votes cast for this device. As the size of this poll is ridiculously small, it should not be sited in this article. Shame on you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.35.210.35 (talk) 22:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

historical perspective

This site is used by many lazy journalists- most of whom seem to believe that Apple invented the "smart phone"-it would be useful to have a historical perspective, perhaps suggesting that other handsets such as the HTC Athena, released months earlier was/were technically superior. I appreciate that this is not an open forum but following the death of Jobs the press are rewriting history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.116.183.42 (talk) 19:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Well we're not responsible for that. This is an article about the iPhone, and we can't burden it with disclaimers about tangential topics to help guide journalists or others who are foolish enough to rely solely on this article for research. Plus, what makes you think a journalist wouldn't just ignore that anyway? They're most likely going to cherry-pick this article for facts that support whatever story they're intending to write so it might not do any good anyway. This article is bloated enough without adding yet more stuff of only limited relevance. -- Atama頭 17:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

About the pictures

Something I've never understood. We deliberately blank out the image of the operating system in images like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Iphone_4G-3_black_screen.png because Apple own the design of the operating system. How is it okay to show the external casing of the iPhone? Don't Apple own that too? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 08:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

File:IPhone 4 box.JPG

It is OK to show the external casing (or in reality a picture of the iPhone itself). However: have a look at the picture to the right (shamelessly copied from the article). It shows a photo of the iPhone 4 on the box lid, the copyright of which is most likely owned by Apple. The uploader claims that de minimis applies to this image, but that is clearly not the case as that image is deliberately included and there is no way that the image can be incidental to the subject of the photograph. (Refered to copyright violation adjudication) DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:49, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

That didn't really answer my question. Why is it okay to show the external case but not the software? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 17:33, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The partial screenshot is incidental to the entire image, that is, the entire contents of the box. If it really bothers you, there's another version. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 17:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

It is possible that you do not fully understand this 'de minimis' business. Unfortunately, the image on the box lid does not qualify for de minimis because it most certainly is not incidental to the purpose of the picture. The picture is of an iphone box. The copyright picture included is of an iphone and most likely the copyright of the Apple Computer Company. Further, de minimis requires that the copyright image is not only incidental (i.e. nothing to do with the subject of the image) but not deliberately included in the picture. As a further test, it is a requirement that the copyright subimage could have been any sub image without affecting the purpose of the whole image. The image in question clearly fails the latter two tests. If a further demonstration is required, I note that a similar box photo of the iPhone3 (uploaded by your good self) was deleted precisely because the box image did not qualify for de minimis (not nominated for deletion by me, I might add).

I note that a cropped version of the image has now been added to the article, but unfortunately that will not save it because the stored image still has the copyright image contained within it. The only lawful way out is to upload a new image that does not include the copyright image and substitute that in the article. I know that this copyright lark gets a bit silly at times. For example: I could upload a box image where I have substituted a picture on the box lid that I personally took. Even if the image is exactly the same, the copyright would be mine and not Apple's (though Apple may try and claim that the angle of shot was their artistic copyright - though they would be unlikely to be successful as that is far too obvious). DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

This has always been a bone of contention. The software copyright owners try to claim that images generated by the software are their copyright and no one may reproduce them. However, I believe that this has not been fully tested in a court of law, so it remains an opinion. However, as always, I could be wrong. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, fine, but the least you could have done would be to replace the image with its free alternative rather than remove it outright. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 05:24, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Erm, I didn't remove it - and, AFAIK, nor could I if I had wanted to. I merely nominated it for adjudication by someone who has the power to decide these things. I note though that the image has been deleted, so that someone would seem to agree with me. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 18:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC)