Talk:iPod/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

iPod Classic

-it should be noted somewhere that when the 5th generation iPod "classic" came out most people just called it an iPod "video". personally i have never really heard it called classic before, i know it as the ipod video. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naalberg (talk • contribs) 01:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hacking?

Could the article do with perhaps some mention or even information regarding hacking of the ipod? Not in an instructional sense, but rather information about it, as I'd imagine that such an aspect of the ipod does deserve at least some mention, akin to things like cellphone hacking, GBA hacking, homebrew 'scenes', etc.

Since I don't actually own one and really have no interest in buying one, I'm obviously quite ignorant of whether it's even possible, let alone whether there's any kind of collective behind such a desire, so it's more of a point of curiosity for me than anything, but it seems to me that if such a thing exists, would it be warranted to at least mention it in some way? 66.175.212.7 19:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Using a very lose definition of the word "hack", you can hack youtube with software called TubeSucker and fill up your PC and Video IPOD with videos downloaded to your hard drive. It hacks past youtube's interface which is all about waiting for your video to download. Once videos are on your hard drive, or IPOD, there is no waiting. Fast forward, skip to the next video with one click....things like that. But as for directly hacking the IPOD, I don't know what benefit you could derive from doing so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.235.249.189 (talk) 23:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

There isn't really a way to hack, an Ipod, also, why would you need to? However, there are ways to do things such as transfer music from an ipod to a computer instead of the other way around, and there are ways to convert video files to Mpeg-4 video to be played on an Ipod.

Repost if you want to know how. (btw this is purely informational) There is also an ipod diagnostics screen that May count as a hack? Hold center and up, and an apple logo appears, hold center and left and itll take you to ipod diagnostics, WARNING, I have no real idea of how to return the ipod to its original state, I just fiddle with buttons until it works again :) FrogEdit (talk) 23:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

meaning of "i" in the name "iPod"

Hello, I am just very curious what does the "i" in the name mean, and it's not explained anywhere in the article or in the talk page. It would be informative and nice to have it on this page. 140.105.48.199 10:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)21/6/07 12.32 Stefano

Internet, it says that it was registered for internet kiosks. Darrenhusted 11:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, are you talking about the sentence "Apple had previously registered the name "iPod" for Internet kiosks" ? In that case, the "i" did stand for "internet", but now it's no longer a kiosk, and I'm not sure, but I think you cannot connect to the internet with an iPod? So it would not make sense, would it?

Anyway, I found a possible answer at http://www.answers.com/topic/ipod?cat=technology

I quote: " IPOD is short for: Intelligent Portable Over Device (category Computing->Networking) "

So the "i" would stand for "intelligent". Interesting!

140.105.48.10 16:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)Stefano

It was taken from "iRiver" - you know, the company whose early efforts to bring these things to the masses are credited to Apple. -- 62.25.106.209 18:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Or maybe iRiver was trying to (like everyone else at the time, it seemed) ride the coat-tails of Apple's iMac, which was introduced in 1998, a year before iRiver as a company even existed? MacPrince 19:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The "i" in "iPod" doesn't stand for "intelligent", neither was it taken from "iRiver". If I recall correctly, Apple has never specified a meaning. AlistairMcMillan 18:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it means "innovitave"?

• Maybe it means "I have a simple memorable name that doesn't mean anything in particular so I can trademark it." --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Remember, Apple had its iLife suite of programs, designed to make life easier, and possible more "user friendly". Using iLife and iPod is a marketing strategy, really. It's all in the head, using the letter "i", it makes people think it's more user oriented. The maketing dudes at Apple are brilliant. No, I don't have any source other than my brain and what I know of marketing strategy. Crad0010 13:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, it started with the first iMac. Since then, Apple’s been putting a lowercase i in front of every name they could manage. What did the iMac’s i mean? My guess is it means “I”, the first-person pronoun. —Frungi 19:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[1] (look around 00:40) "internet, individual, instruct, inform, inspire." There you have it. Said right in front of us in 1998. --Char645 07:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The tradition of "i" started with the Mac, After the intial Mac's the internet ready Mac was named, simply the iMac. This becoming quite a brandmark was carried over to the Pod, hence it being named the iPod. Utkarsh Rastogi (talk) 10:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

black and white clickwheel model in fourth gen

I remember there being a period of time where there was a black and white model featuring the clickwheel as well as the ipod photo featuring the clickwheel. this is backed up by the Japanese wikipedia page. I would know, since I have seen and used one of these. Why is this not in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.253.122 (talk • contribs) 00:39, June 23, 2007

Perhaps you are thinking of the U2 themed black iPod. AlistairMcMillan 18:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

No, that person isn't. There WAS a black and white 4G iPod, I have one.Smoothy 13:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a perfect example of how the models chart is confusing and misleading. The fourth-generation iPod was not the "(photo)" (as the fifth was "(video)", it was notable for the clickwheel. A quick trip to the Apple specs page gives us the following:

• iPod with Click Wheel (20 GB, 40 GB including U2 Special Edition) - 7/19/04 (as noted there, the U2 was released later than the other models)
• iPod photo (40 GB, 60 GB) - 10/26/04
• iPod with color display 20 GB, 30 GB, and 60 GB - 2/5/05

The fact that a fourth-generation iPod with black-and-white screens existed for half a year goes almost without mention in the article.

I'd fix it, but don't have time right now. – ɜɿøɾɪɹℲ _{( тɐʟк • ¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs )} 16:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Exception To

Devices in the iPod range are primarily digital audio players, designed around a central click wheel — with exception to the iPod Shuffle, which uses buttons because of its size.

This is not correct English. "with exception to" should be "with the exception of".

(It is possible for someone to "take exception to" something, but that means the person doesn't like it, not that the something is an exception to a rule.) 207.31.229.4 21:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Done, I made the change for you. That phrase is now written as it should be. Nihiltres^(t.c.s) 22:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

question about the Sales Section

with regard to the Sales section - I followed footnote 64 to see how these claims were justified.

"Since October 2004, the iPod has dominated digital music player sales in the United States, with over 90% of the market for hard drive-based players and over 70% of the market for all types of players.[64] During the year from January 2004 to January 2005, the high rate of sales caused its U.S. market share to increase from 31% to 65% and in July 2005, this market share was measured at 74%"

In following the link it appears to me that the reference indicates that PC's control most of the computer market and therefore 90% of the market is still available for Apple to sell to.

perhaps this just needs a new footnote.

Dogsofgod 16:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Operating System and UI development

The article states, the iPod ran "a commercial microkernel embedded operating system". It would be more informative to write, "FooOS, a commercial microkernel embedded operating system". Does anybody watching know which OS the non-OSX iPods run? This page: http://www.stereophile.com/budgetcomponents/934/index6.html suggests it's an OS by Portal Player, but doesn't name it. That page also suggests that Pixo provided the UI toolkit for the iPod but Apple engineers designed and implemented it. The Wired article linked to justified that Pixo came up with the User Interface ("Apple contracted another company, Pixo, to help design and implement the user interface, under the direct supervision of Steve Jobs.") actually says, "The interface was mocked up by Tim Wasko, an interactive designer who came to Apple from NeXT, where he had worked with Jobs. Wasko had previously been responsible for the clean, simple interface in Apple's QuickTime player. Like the hardware designers, Wasko designed mockup after mockup, presenting the variations on large glossy printouts that could be spread over a conference table to be quickly sorted and discussed." Some clarification/cleanup with corroborating sources would be helpful.

It has never been publicly called anything other than "iPod OS", but that still is not used often by Apple and does not appear that often in iTunes, the iPod itself, or Software Update. I think what's written about it in the article is just fine. --Char645 07:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

OS on the iPod

Steve Jobs said that the next generation iPod would have OS X on it, however, he may have been refering to the iPhone. Could someone please tell me if Steve Jobs announced this statement before or after the iPhone presentation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.216.236.206 (talk • contribs)

I think he meant the iPod software on the iPhone - NateJay 16:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Then could you change the part of the article that says some next generation iPods will have OS X? Because it seems he was reffering to the iPhone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.216.236.206 (talk • contribs)

He stated at the Town Hall meeting shortly before the iPhone's release "We have one team working on OS X... OS X for the Macintosh, OS X for the iPhone, and OS X for some cool new iPods we're working on". Check it out. – ɜɿøɾɪɹℲ _{( тɐʟк • ¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs )} 16:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

This was meant for the iPod touch, though the iPhone was launched earlier, but still the statement was indicating to the iPod touch which has OS X running. After all iPhone was named the next iPod.

My iPod

Isn't featured in any of the generations. it's a 20 gig with a modern scroll wheel, and a b/w screen. the headphone jack is in the center of the top. there are no raised menu/play buttons around the wheel, or separate ones under the screen. so yea. 65.33.64.202 22:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you might have a fake. . .

Yea, I was about to say are you sure its an iPod, cause there are a lot of look a likes. -- Chris as I am Chris 18:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Wait, you are right, look [2] -- Chris as I am Chris 19:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

That would be the standard 4th Generation iPod, it's all in the article. The only 4th gen iPod with a color screen is the photo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.73.176.133 (talk • contribs)

No, the iPod photo was a separate model, and it’s physically different from the color 4th-gens anyway, though functionally identical as far as I know. The photo came in 30 (rather than 20) or 60 GB models, I believe, and it was thicker. What you have is a monochrome 4th-gen. —Frungi 19:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Correct. The photo was the non-monochrome 4G.--HereToHelp 01:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

No, no, the photo was a different model. That model disappeared when color and photos were added to the 4th-gen. —Frungi 12:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

But the case has the same design and dimensions. There might be info on the back, but a quick glance at the front when the unit is off won't tell you what kind it is.--HereToHelp 12:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Question About Criticisms

I may be completely mistaken, but to me, it seems like some 'weasel words' are being used in the Criticisms section. I understand that under Criticisms it's a bit hard to be objective, but I suppose the best way to explain what I mean is to give examples. As such here are some of the instances I saw:

"Despite its own criticisms, Apple later '''complained''' that its competitor, Sony, had misled consumers in its advertising for Sony's music player. Apple '''complained''' that Sony had not considered real-world usage." - I think the word complained makes Apple sound like a child, and is not really an appropriate way to word the sentence.

"The initial cost was US$99,[37] and it was lowered to US$59 in 2005. One week later, Apple offered an extended iPod warranty for US$59.[38] Third-party companies offer cheaper battery replacement kits that often use higher capacity batteries." - I'm not sure the 'fact' that third-party companies have cheaper kits is relevant to the objective reporting of the criticism, unless it can be sourced as an additional complaint... maybe?

And the following example comes from the Patent Disputes section:

"On 24 August 2006, Apple and Creative announce a broad settlement to end their legal disputes. Apple will pay Creative US$100 million for a paid-up license, to use Creative's awarded patent in all Apple products. Apple also negotiated a '''scheme''' where it can recoup part of its payment, if Creative is successful in licensing the patent." - I think the usage of the word scheme can be universally acknowledged as an inappropriate word choice.

I could be entirely mistaken on these, but either way, thank you for taking the time to consider them. JamisonK 05:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

You get that undesired formatting effect when you start your paragraphs with a space. ;) As for your concerns, why not go ahead and fix them yourself? Or, you could tag each word with {{weasel-inline}}. See WP:WEASEL and WP:AVOID. Carson 05:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Well thank you, I guess I have a severely compulsive problem when it comes to pre-paragraph spacing. Anyway, I didn't fix it myself only because I wasn't sure if I was just being crazy and no one else saw a problem with it. In any case, I shall go mark them. Thanks. JamisonK 05:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing these out. I've edited the article to fix these issues. AlistairMcMillan 22:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I am curious as to why the "Thunderstorms" section was removed. --Queer As Folk 14:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

last i checked, a newspaper was a credable source...slightly confused as to why thunderstorms was not included.76.116.99.168 21:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that "complained" makes someone sound chilidish. You lodge "complaints". You voice "complaints". They had a complaint and complained. I do think it shouldn't be in two sentences right next to each other though. Perhaps change one to a different word? CHSoarer 13:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The offending sentences were removed two months ago. AlistairMcMillan 18:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

And my answer was answering a query he had on how something sounded. It matters not when it was corrected on the page, it's still open for discussion right? CHSoarer 12:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Sixth Generation

Hey, should there be a short section discussing the upcoming 6th generation iPod? It is rumored to have a widescreen/touch screen display like the iPhone... It may be worth pointing out and then updated as Apple Inc releases more info in the coming months. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.123.51.212 (talk • contribs) 08:05, July 8, 2007

Please see WP:CBALL and WP:ATTRIB. We tend not to report rumors. AlistairMcMillan 22:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

mediamonkey

Why is there no mention that players other than itunes, namely mediamonkey, are perfectly capable of synching playlists etc with the ipod devices? I mean, reading the article it implies a total tie-in with Apple software, which isn't the case (much though Apple might like it!). 172.200.129.87 13:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

We do say "several alternative third-party applications are available". However if we list one or two examples by name, then we just end up with people extending the list until it grows to ridiculous proportions. So it is safer just to not list any. AlistairMcMillan 15:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

"On 31 December 2006, workers at the Taiwanese factory (owned by Foxconn) formed a union. "

This is misleading. it is a taiwanese owned factory but it is located in china and all the workers are chinese.

sounds like an ad

i like iTunes as much as the next guy but doesn't this sound like an ad:

"Apple's iTunes software is used to transfer music to the devices. As a free jukebox application, iTunes stores an entire music library on the user's computer and can play, burn, and rip music from a CD. It can also transfer photos, videos, games, and calendars to the models that support them. Apple focused its development on the iPod's unique user interface and its ease of use, rather than on technical capability. As of April 2007, the iPod had sold over 100 million units worldwide,[1] making it the best-selling digital audio player series in history."

User:Arthurian Legend 19:26, August 7, 2007

I don't really think this sounds like an ad at all, the only part that makes it remotely ad like is saying "ease of use" - but since that was one of the biggest factors in design (as well as apple's computer/operating system design in general), I don't really think it's inappropriate. Gracewastes 02:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

There's a lot wrong with iTunes but no criticism of it is included in this article. It definitely sounds like an ad. I was prompted to comment here because I tried to edit the passage about iTunes but found the article protected (why is this? to protect apple's advertising copy?). It is highly misleading to describe iTunes as a "free" app - it is proprietary freeware and not free software at all. Please change this. User:79.66.3.250 06:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

This article is about the iPod, that's a pretty good reason why there isn't criticism of iTunes in this article. If you want to edit articles that are semi-protected like iTunes and iPod, all you have to do is register for an account and make some edits to articles that aren't protected to prove that you can be trusted (i.e. aren't here to spam or vandalise articles). AlistairMcMillan 06:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Also the iPod and iTunes articles don't link to "free software" so I'm not sure why you are complaining that they are. The iTunes article clearly states "Proprietary (free)" in the infobox and has done for months. AlistairMcMillan 07:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I never said there was a link to free software, just that the article misleadingly describes iTunes as a "free jukebox application". If we were talking about free beer it would be clear that we meant something that was being given away for free, but in the context of software "free" has a specific meaning that makes this sentence ambiguous. That's why it should be reworded. I should not have to register an account to point out a problem. Wikipedians who can't be bothered to correct their mistakes always fall back on this "so fix it" excuse. You've chosen to take part in the editing of this article so you fix it! I'm just a reader who has better things to do than correct every one of the millions of mistakes in Wikipedia left by sloppy editors. The passage quoted is very positive about iTunes, so there should be some space for criticism (just a "however, ..." will do). Phrases like "iTunes stores an entire music library on the user's computer" makes this article read like the work of an Apple fanboy (an entire music library! not just half a music library?!). User:79.75.176.222 09:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you're wrong. There is no need for criticism in that passage, when it's clearly more appropriate for the iTunes article. And your argument over the word "free" is irrelevant. The application is free of charge to download and use. -- Kesh 13:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Then why not call it "freeware" or something similarly unambiguous? The word "free" has a specific meaning in the context of software and it's misleading to bandy it about in this article as if you're unaware of the connotations. Please have a look at the article on free software and the disambiguation note that introduces it. User:79.75.176.222 16:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but when your average punter hears the word "free" in connection with software they are going to think it comes with no charge. Assuming that the average reader is going to be aware of the "free software" movement, is a mistake. AlistairMcMillan 17:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I would hope you'd agree that Wikipedia articles should, where possible, be written both for people who are familiar with the subject and the average punter. Your logic is absurd: Wikipedia is here to make people aware of things, and should use accurate terminology that doesn't mislead. I cannot be bothered to argue any more. You are further proof that Wikipedia is the province of a mob of snivelling fanboys with no idea about academic standards of verifiability or any decent commitment to neutrality. There is no justification for semi-protecting this article if it's going to stay in the grip of people who would probably be happy to be irrumated by Steve Jobs as he dictated advertising copy for you to spam the articles with. What is the problem with acknowledging that the description of iTunes in this article is unbecoming of an encyclopaedia in its current glowing tones, and should either be shortened or balanced? What is wrong with acknowledging that the word "free" in the context of software is at worst misleading and at best ambiguous? Why don't you just sort these problems out instead of sitting on this article like it's your personal fiefdom? I hope someone else will come across this discussion and add their thoughts if you don't sort out the problems that have been helpfully pointed out to you. User:79.75.176.222 22:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

"irrumated"? Wow, I had to look that one up. You learn something new every day. I don't think we have a policy page I can point you to that covers this subject, but could you please keep your sexual fantasies to yourself while discussing article context. Many thanks. AlistairMcMillan 05:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the use of the term freeware, the use of the term with regards to iTunes is incorrect. Freeware is used when referencing software that was made by an individual or a group that is regarded as non-profit, and that they allow their software to float around planet Earth in very form possible (shareware/freeware CDs, on web sites totally unrelated to the person/organization, user groups, etc.) For example, FileZilla is considered freeware, while Internet Explorer and Skype are not considered freeware. Until 10 years or so ago, Apple's Macintosh operating system could be downloaded for free, BUT they only allowed distribution from their own FTP or web site, thereby the OS wasn't considered to be freeware. The use of the word freeware has been used in this context for well over 25 years since my involvement with the Apple II. Just because there's free software out there doesn't make ALL free software freeware. Groink 08:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you point us to any reliable sources that back up your definition? Our article on freeware doesn't say anything about it having to be produced by non-profits. It does however say the term was specifically coined by someone who not only intended to generate profits, but actually charged users for his "freeware". AlistairMcMillan 20:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

No direct sources for this - it is basically info I've collected in my head since the 1970s. However, I remember one possible place I read about this... the book "Hackers" by Steven Levy pointed out the idea of freeware back during the TX-0/PDP-1 days of the 1960s at MIT. The term freeware was used throughout the TMRC when programmers there would throw coding tape into a drawer, allowing others to dip into the drawer and use the code in their own programs. The idea I got out of this is 1) they were all hobbyists (later in another article I read they criticized Bill Gates for selling his Altair BASIC code to MITS), and 2) the tapes could be placed anywhere and not just in one place. So again, no reliable sources I can stick my fingerprints on at the moment. Groink 22:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Do iPods come with AM or FM radios?

Since the article does not say, I could assume the answer is "no" but you know what they say about the word assume. I know other MP3 players include radios, and so it might be worthwhile to say, somewhere, whether or not iPods include radios (so readers like myself don't need to guess). - 162.58.0.64 13:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Do a search through the article for "radio" and you should find your answer. --Steven Fisher 15:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

No, Apple, or other third-party companies, made a seperate FM radio recever that must be bought in order to use the iPod's FM option.--Megamanfan3 16:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Search done Steven Fisher. Nothing found that says whether or not some models of iPod include a built-in receiver. - Theaveng 18:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a skill one needs when reading Wikipedia, called "deductive reasoning". In this case, if you search for the word "radio", you'll find that the word is found under "accessories" and includes the string "FM radio tuners". Applying deductive reasoning, an accessory is a piece of equipment that is separate from the device of topic. And since "FM radio tuners" is found under accessories, it can be determined without further research that the iPod does in fact LACK a radio. Listen folks, my TV doesn't come equipped with a GPS device or an alarm clock. But the manufacturer doesn't have to stick that information into its documentation or advertisements. Same thing with the iPod - we don't have to explain what the device lacks just because a competing device has it. If the Zune all of a sudden came with a meter for measuring distance between your golf ball and the green, that doesn't mean we must also mention in this article that the iPod isn't good for golfers. Deductive reasoning, folks... Groink 21:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Since the iPod is one of the few devices out there without an FM radio, I don't think the original request deserved such a reply (and I say that as an iPod fan/owner, one who happens to use the radio remote so I can pick up TV broadcasts at my gym...) --Rehcsif 02:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)