Talk:iPod/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Definite Article vs. Zero Article

I've been reverted several times on this, with vague warnings not to "ignite previous debate", as if by igniting debate I risk burning Wikipedia to the ground. Aside from the fact that I have no idea to what debate they are referring, I really don't care about a debate which reached a conclusion that would require sentences such as: "iPod has been upgraded many times" or "Many accessories have been made for iPod." To anyone with a passing familiarity with the English language, this is patently ridiculous.

The whole "it's a brand!" argument is nothing but smoke and mirrors. What about the Roomba, the Prius, or the Stratocaster? All brands, all referred to with the definite article. The only reason we are even having this debate is because Apple chooses to refer to the iPod in their marketing materials using the zero article, in what is most likely an attempt to anthropomorphize the product. Wikipedia is not bound by the idiosyncrasies of a company's marketing strategies.

Ask yourself, honestly, how you refer to the iPod in everyday conversation. Do you really say "Wow, the release of iPod really changed how I listen to music!"? There are over a dozen sentences in the article itself that refer to "the iPod", simply because omitting the article sounds ridiculous. Let's not embarrass ourselves with a slavish devotion to the cult of Apple.

Can we agree to use standard English here in Wikipedia, and not marketing-speak?

NiggardlyNorm (talk) 19:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Although Norm comes across as incredibly and unnecessarily abrasive, leaving out "the" sounds awkward in the examples he points out. I attempted to find previous debate on this subject but couldn't. If someone could point it out, I might change my mind. joshschr (talk) 19:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Those are products (or product lines). The argument in the past was that brands such as "Levis" and "Toyota" are not preceded by a definite article. It's in the edit history (03:31, 25 September 2007), and it actually wasn't much of a debate, just that no one brought up the definite/zero article issue until now since then. I think it's been debated in the archives, as well, but the general status quo (given that there are people that frequently edit the article that have left the issue largely ignored, I guess it's the status quo) is to use the zero article, as the article, looking through the edit history, has been using the zero article since 2005. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 20:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand the argument, and I think in the intro, leaving out "the" sounds more natural. It's possible that Norm is just trolling, and I think there are fixes to those sentences that don't involve adding an article in front of every iPod. joshschr (talk) 20:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Norm is just trolling (looking at his contrib history), but there are instances in the page where article usage is appropriate and where article usage isn't appropriate. A lot of the history of the iPod page involves adding information but not accounting for the fact that, since the HDD iPods were renamed to iPod classics, "iPod" refers to all products under the iPod brand. A lot of changes need to be done throughout the page and that requires extensive combing through. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Butterfly0fdoom (talk • contribs)

So the fact that it makes zero sense to leave the article off of the iPod doesn't matter, now that you have decided that I'm just "trolling"? I haven't heard one reason to leave it off. I've been admonished to not "re-ignite previous debate" which then turned out to not actually exist. Then I was called incredibly abrasive for no apparent reason. Now, people are "pretty sure" I'm trolling. All of this is standard internet ad-hominem immaturity and I can deal with it. However, does anyone have one argument as to why we should omit the article?NiggardlyNorm (talk) 21:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)While I agree that this discussion has gotten off on the wrong foot, I'd caution against throwing around the t-word too lightly, please. Norm clearly has very strong opinions about the subject, but that doesn't mean he's just here to cause trouble.

I agree that in the lede in particular, no-the works better. I haven't looked at each individual instance of the word iPod, but I absolutely agree (of course) that 'the' should neither be mandated nor forbidden in the article. -- Vary | Talk 21:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, "Levis" and "Toyota" are brands, but those are not preceded by the definite article. "The Levi 501" and "The Toyota Prius" are products and are preceded by the definite article. "iPod" is a brand, "The iPod Classic" is a product. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 21:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Butterfly, I see what you are saying, however in this analogy, I would say the brand is Apple. Apple is a brand and thus shouldn't have an article. The Apple iPod is a product and thus has an article. Touch, nano, and classic seem to me to be more like different models of the same product. NiggardlyNorm (talk) 21:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

No, Apple is the company. By no possible stretch is Apple the brand. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 21:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, i guess if you say so.NiggardlyNorm (talk) 22:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

No, not OK. Butteryfly0fdoom made the comparison to "Toyota" and "Prius" which is directly analogous to "Apple" and "iPod," but it would defeat his agenda to admit it. Norm, you are clearly correct here. If someone asks you what kind of car something is, you might reply, "That's a Prius," not "That is Prius." Similarly with iPod. Heathhunnicutt (talk) 00:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The sentences Norm gave as examples could easily be fixed without adding an article

"iPod series have been upgraded many times"

"Many accessories have been made for iPods."

I don't think the problem is one of articles. It's just the same copyedit problem a lot of other articles have, so thanks for point that out and fixing it, Norm. However, your heavily sarcastic tone, aggressive dismisal of previous debate because you didn't like the outcome, and accusing the editors of this article of being apple hacks is pretty uncivil. I know, some people are just like that. I haven't encountered posts like yours on Wikipedia without someone cautioning the poster that they're about to break WP: Civility. And I agreed that something needed to be done even though I thought you might be trolling. It was hard to tell how serious you were, but since your tone has changed since then, I'll assume you weren't trolling. joshschr (talk) 21:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Deindenting. Completely disagree with the 'not a brand' argument. The shuffle, touch, mini, etc are all far too different to be considered the same product. A 8 gig and 16 gig touch are different models of the same product. Shuffles and Touches are different products in the same line. In any case, this article currently treats its subject as a brand. The iPod is not that brand's name no matter how you look at it. If the argument is that this article is not about a brand at all, but a product, then that's a whole other discussion that would involve a complete rewrite of the article, not the addition of one word to the lede. If that's what you're suggesting, Norm, you're going to have to start by bringing some strong evidence here to support your position. -- Vary | Talk 21:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Josh- The debate that I "aggressively dismissed" turned out to not exist. I understand that I'm not going to get any apologies on that front, but take that for what it's worth. Butterfly, maybe my analogy wasn't apt, but no one has addressed the fact that everyone calls it the iPod. Maybe we should look at articles about the iPod in reliable sources. If it's commonly called the iPod we will call it that, if it's commonly referred to as "iPod" then I will cede my point. Acceptable? NiggardlyNorm (talk) 22:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Most people call the product 'the iPod,' which is why the pages for the individual products uniformly refer to them as 'the iPod such-and-such.' Given that this article is about the brand, you're going to have to find sources that refer to that brand as The iPod. "Apple's 'The iPod' brand music players were popular Christmas gifts," for example. -- Vary | Talk 23:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• But this: The iPod is a brand of portable media players is just wrong. iPod is a brand; "the iPod" isn't. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Who here agrees with Vary that the article is about the brand iPod rather than the iPod product? I think that is ludicrous suggestion indicating the presence of POV agenda. Also, why are people accusing Norm of incivility -- that is clearly exaggeration when invoked in this debate. Why the pro-brand people have trotted out all their guns is beyond me, but what I see in this debate is very distasteful argument techniques from proponents of marketting speech. Heathhunnicutt (talk) 00:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Right now, this article is about the iPod brand. It has been since at least 2005. That is not a matter for dispute or discussion, it is a fact. That's why the first sentence has long begun "iPod is a brand..." That's why there are sub-articles about all the individual players. Which specific iPod product is this article about, in your opinion?

And tone down your rhetoric, please. I'm not sure what 'guns' have been 'trotted out', but I think you need to find a way to make your case without accusing other editors of being shills for Apple. -- Vary | Talk 01:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

"That is not a matter for dispute or discussion..." -- Whoa, user Vary, that is a warning sign. Get to a doctor! Ok, seriously, it is a matter for discussion. When you say, "The article is about the iPod brand," I disagree with you because the article is about the iPod line of products. An article about the brand would focus on the trademark, the logo, the market research, penetration of brand recognition according to demographics, and other things related to a "brand." This is an article about the line of products, not the marketing approach. In fact, this is not an article about the iPod brand. You might claim it is an article about iPod-brand products, but then you would have to use a hyphen every single time you want to refer to "iPod, the brand" vs. "the iPod, the product."

I think it is rather odd that you are mounting such a heated defense in respect of the iPod brand. Why? Do you want the article to about the brand or iPod-branded products? Heathhunnicutt (talk) 02:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? Heated defense? You're the one who just jumped into this discussion by accusing one editor who you disagree with of lying to protect his 'agenda' and calling the statement that this article is about a brand a "ludicrous suggestion indicating the presence of POV agenda." You're hardly in a position to tell anyone else to cool off.

A brand is not just 'marketing approach,' but even if it were, it's irrelevant; we have a large selection of articles about brands; they do talk about the products sold under those brands, too. Yes, this article could discuss marketing and advertising, but it's too long as it is, which is why all of that has its own sub-article.

Enough with the accusations of pro-Apple pov and the questioning of other editors' motives. I am of the opinion that the article is and has been about the iPod brand, that the lede was acceptable prior to the edit warring over 'The', and that the previous version should be reinstated. What, precisely, do you feel needs to change about this article, and why? -- Vary | Talk 06:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Are we at a point where someone can go through and judiciously remove articles where they should not be used? joshschr (talk) 23:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

No, Joshschr, we are not at the point where articles should be removed from the article. We may be at the point where marketing-speak should be removed. Heathhunnicutt (talk) 00:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad I asked, then. I'd be glad to see any edits you would propose. joshschr (talk) 03:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

A Third Way

Ok, I'm starting to see what you guys are saying. However, to be honest I don't think this article is really about the brand. The first sentence of the article is about the brand, but most of the article is about the product(s). I mean, the section on "connectivity" is clearly about the connectivity of the various iPod products themselves, and not the brand. So here is what I propose: zero article in the lead (and anywhere else where we are talking about the brand), but normal usage throughout the rest of the article, where appropriate. So "The iPod is associated with one host computer," would remain the same since it's talking about the product and not the brand. This way we can maintain a grammatically euphonious format throughout, and not have to awkwardly restructure sentences to stay in line with Apple-speak. Basically my fear was that this page would end up sounding like the iPod manual, which, to anyone who has read it, is clearly super-weird. And for the record, I am writing this on a MacBook, I have two iPods, and I love Steve Jobs. But I love the English language more.

Looking forward to your thoughts.NiggardlyNorm (talk) 14:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

"zero article in the lead (and anywhere else where we are talking about the brand), but normal usage throughout the rest of the article, where appropriate." - Emminently wise. joshschr (talk) 14:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, this is a wise approach. I joined the debate because I want to see good grammar and English, too. Zero article where inappropriate is bad grammar, and that's my issue here. Heathhunnicutt (talk) 20:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

So we're going to "judiciously remove articles where they should not be used?". Sounds like what is done in a lot of articles on WP without a 10k debate and accusations of POV pushing over the word "the". :) We all want well written articles. Be sensible and we can all be friends while we write them. :P joshschr (talk) 21:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually I don't think that's what we agreed to here. In my understanding we agreed to add the article pretty much everywhere except the first sentence. But thanks for the tip to be more sensible. Let me kindly repay you with some advice: statements like "since your tone has changed since then, I'll assume you weren't trolling," show a poor understanding of WP:AGF. Study up. :P NiggardlyNorm (talk) 00:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it sounds like the the appropriate article is to be used in the appropriate context, which would include a zero article for the lead sentence. It's rather hard to assume good faith when you're dishing out a sarcastic attitude right off the bat, too, by the way. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 04:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

One of the first comments made to your talk page accuses you of trolling and warns you against edits made to prove a point. It's a poor first impression. You first edit to this page was laden with such sneering sarcasm, I couldn't help but take the bait, which I shouldn't have. I apologize for using the word "incredibly" to describe the level of your abrasiveness. That was unnecessary and you called me on it. Since you are able to quote Wikipedia scripture, I assume you've read WP:AGF also; however, the fact that you immediately assumed there was some conspiracy by Apple marketers to use WP to anthropomorphize iPods makes me question that. If you must quibble that I use the word "judicious" to describe how you are going to go about adding articles, while you use the words "pretty much everywhere", fine, use your judgement to add articles pretty much where ever you think they are appropriate.

In any case, here I am rising to trollbait again. This is the first time I've really called anyone on the style of their debate, and I feel like I've wasted a lot of time on something trivial . The last word is yours, if you want it. I'll take iPod off my watchlist for a while and let things settle down here. joshschr (talk) 04:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but Joshschr is completely right here, guys. This is exactly the agreement we appeared to be coming to before the second round of POV accusations began. The semantic argument over 'judicious' is, dare I say it, so much smoke and mirrors, and it's not fair on him to call this suggestion a 'compromise' and treat his differently worded version of the same suggestion as pro-Apple POV. I'd also like to point to my first comment in the discussion: "I agree that in the lede in particular, no-the works better. I haven't looked at each individual instance of the word iPod, but I absolutely agree (of course) that 'the' should neither be mandated nor forbidden in the article."[1] That, too, sounds very much like what is being proposed here. -- Vary | Talk 16:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but Vary and joshscr are both very confused here, guys. The problem is not the word "judisciously", it's the "remove articles" part. The agreement I suggested was adding the definite article everywhere except the lead. Then joshscr tried to claim that this was his idea all along, when in reality he had proposed going through and removing articles, the exact opposite of what I suggested. How do you people not understand the pretty fundamental difference between "add" and "remove"? "Differently worded version of the same suggestion"? What could you possibly be talking about? NiggardlyNorm (talk) 17:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I direct you again to my first comment in this discussion, the point being that the only specific instance of the word that was being discussed (or edit warred over) was the one in the lede. That one, at least, needed to go. -- Vary | Talk 17:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

What should we do with these sentences, examples from the current article?

• "iPod came from Apple's digital hub strategy, ..."

Perhaps: "The iPod concept came from Apple's 'digital hub' strategy, ..."

• "Uncharacteristically, Apple did not develop iPod's software entirely in-house."

"Uncharacteristically, Apple did not develop the iPod's software entirely in-house."

Thoughts? Heathhunnicutt (talk) 20:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Those sentences refer to the original iPod, so using an article is appropriate. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 00:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

See Also

Those tags need to {{seealso}}ed.68.148.164.166 (talk) 05:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Take Out

Take out ----.68.148.164.166 (talk) 09:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll take that to go. AquaStreak (talk) 12:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

intro paragraph

the intro paragraph lists the current range with the shuffle as "entry level", the nano as "mid level" and the touch as "high end". this seems misleading as the players have different target markets and different functions. e.g. the shufflle is largely marketed for sports use, the touch as a partially portable computer, as well as an mp3 player, and the classic/nanos as a dedicated mp3 players catering for those with different needs, i.e. amounts of music. For example, music lover with a large colection would almost certainly choose the classic over the touch for its larger capacity, and a sports enthusiast may choose the shuffle for its portability and ease of operation when exercising. 213.121.151.142 (talk) 17:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

That is misleading, I agree. I'm not sure iPods even have "entry levels", they just usually have different capacities for the same model that cost more. JayKeaton (talk) 02:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Reliability...

Regarding this passage in the Reliability and Durability section:

"A 2005 survey conducted on the MacInTouch website found that the iPod had an average failure rate of 13.7%. It concluded that some models were more durable than others."

Does an online/user-participatory/unscientific poll actually fit Wiki's criteria as a "reliable source"? I think it offers interesting information, but I don't think it passes muster as an encyclopedic source.

--SiickBoy (talk) 08:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

macintouch is over a decade old, it certainly qualifies imo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk) 13:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

iPawd

Should it mention the pun iPawd? Basketball110 _{what famous people say} 04:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

go ahead. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement in iPod article re:

...copying "purchased media from an iPod to a computer." The article states that "iTunes 7 and above can transfer purchased media of the iTunes Store from an iPod to a computer, provided that the DRM media is transferred to any of the five computers allowed for authorization with DRM media."

Anyone of the millions and millions of people out there with an iPod and an iTunes account can verify the incorrect nature of this statement. But, for verification purposes, this article should be cited: http://www.engadget.com/2004/11/02/how-to-get-music-off-your-ipod/. As it states, since version 4.7 of the iTunes software, the popular utility "iPod download," has not been included. The syncing of music files to an iPod is a one way operation, from a PC or Mac to the iPod, but not the reverse. There are many third party programs out there that allow the backup of music files on an iPod.

Again, for verification, open iTunes and sync one's iPod. When it appears in the source list, highlight a specific song, either DRM or DRM free and attempt to drag from the view pane to the "Library" source list representing one's library on the computer's hard drive and iTunes will not allow the operation. One may, however, copy any file from the "Library" in to the iPod's source list using a standard USB connection. I feel this is more of a direct source of verification than anything found on the world wide web.Hesatease (talk) 23:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't verify the statement is wrong, only that your way of doing it is wrong. Instead, go to the "File" menu and pick the "transfer purchases from X" option where "X" is the name of the iPod. I'm not sure what that engadget article is supposed to verify. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.120.178.13 (talk) 11:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Open pod night

Open pod night at the walmer castle ph 4 south street deal kent ct147aw is a night in a pub or club where you bring youre ipod or mp3 digital music and the DJ playes your choice from your ipod . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.221.26 (talk) 04:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Why were i-pods invented —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.81.157.219 (talk) 07:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Viruses

should it be mentioned in the article that some iPods are preloaded with viruses? because i think that should be an event worth noting. 75.68.228.120 (talk) 02:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

yes, that would be a good idea.--Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Unhappy endings and peacock journalese

We read:

The line-up currently consists of the hard drive-based flagship iPod classic, the high-end touchscreen iPod touch, the mid-level video-capable iPod nano, and the entry-level screenless iPod shuffle.

My tentative translation:

Those now sold are hard drive-based and rather expensive iPod classic, the more expensive touchscreen iPod touch, the iPod nano (which plays videos), and the cheap screenless iPod shuffle.

Is that right? I never know about these flags, ships and ends: Is a flagship higher than a high end? -- Hoary (talk) 13:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

See Flagship (disambiguation) and see if you still consider the word vague. I don't know that the word applies to the Classic. Apple seems to be touting the touch more heavily now. joshschr (Talk | contribs) 14:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, OK, try again:

Those now sold are the hard drive-based iPod classic (from which Apple makes the most money), the more expensive touchscreen iPod touch, the iPod nano (which plays videos), and the cheap screenless iPod shuffle.

Is this right? -- Hoary (talk) 14:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Put "less expensive" in front of nano and replace "cheap" with "least expensive", and I think that's closer to an accurate description. I think "high end" applies to price and functionality, which the touch has in spades over all the other models.. joshschr (Talk | contribs) 15:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Hm, how about saying very simply what each does (I mean, in no more detail than there already is there) and skipping the mention of price? People can guess.

Incidentally, Category:IPod_software doesn't mention Linux, and Linux also doesn't seem to appear in any iPod category, which I find odd. This intrigues me; pity it's not yet shoehorned into the "touch" model. -- Hoary (talk) 15:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the original language covered the price, storage capacity and functionality well enough for an introduction sentence. I think each model has its own article to cover those issues. I think it is unnecessary to outline what each does in the intro. If you really feel the original language is marketese, slap a NPOV tag on the article and get more discussion. If the language was pulled directly from the Apple site, I understand changing it. I think it was descriptive without being unnecessarily detailed. joshschr (Talk | contribs) 15:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I work for Apple, and I'm deeply hurt that you'd remove language we use to superliminally convince people that our product is the best and only product that will bring them eternal happiness. Get a dictionary, look up the word thesarus, then maybe you'll realize that what you call "market speak" is actually more concise and accurate than the words you decided to use. The article now reads like an 6th grade essay. 156.98.4.11 (talk) 18:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)